Sitting of 7 July 1997

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Workplace Fire Safety
    Mrs. Betty Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the implementation of the workplace fire safety proposals. [5508]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): Since 2 May, written representations have been received from the Fire Brigades Union, the Fire Industry Council and from one fire safety consultant.
    Mrs. Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Given the previous Government's delay and dithering over this extremely important issue, when will my hon. Friend introduce regulations to implement the workplace fire safety directive?
    Mr. Howarth: It is our intention shortly to lay regulations to put in place the EC fire safety regulations and the workplace directive. The fire authorities, which have the most experience and expertise, will be the appropriate bodies to enforce those regulations. We also intend to interpret them as flexibly as possible, so as not to place too many undue burdens on business.

    Wheel Clamping
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of wheel clamping. [5509]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): The present situation on wheel clamping on private land is quite unsatisfactory. We are considering what can be done to deal with those wheel clampers who unscrupulously prey on motorists.
    Mr. O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. My constituents and I have witnessed extortion, bullying and many other threats from wheel clampers. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) is experiencing the same problem. We have not had the results of the consultation process started by the previous Government, and the threat from bullies through wheel clamping remains. Will my hon. Friend take note of my
    596
    concerns and those expressed by other hon. Members and resurrect the consultation procedure which was started by the Tories? It was never meaningful, so we now need to do something drastic about this problem.
    Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is right. The previous Government launched a consultation process, which was used as an excuse for not accepting amendments during the passage of the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. We wanted to include a provision in that legislation. It should be clear that if a clamper uses threats of violence or criminal damage when demanding money, he could be committing a criminal offence. Such threatening behaviour should be reported to the police. In the short term, before there is an opportunity to deal with this problem through legislation, I give my hon. Friend an undertaking to discuss the issue with the police, so that the best use can be made of the law as it stands to protect the public.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Does the Minister agree that the public should not be allowed to trespass on private land without permission? Will he think carefully when introducing any law in that respect? The Government should uphold the right of private landowners to charge people who infringe on their land up to and not beyond a maximum amount set by the Government.
    Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The difficulty is that, often, land does not appear to be private land, or it is land on to which the public are attracted for business or commercial purposes or for a variety of other reasons. The Court of Appeal set an important precedent in its ruling in the case of Arthur and Arthur v. Anker, stating that clampers had acted legally because adequate warning signs had been displayed and the release fee had been reasonable. The problem that we must tackle is that of the unscrupulous wheel clampers who threaten or prey on the public. We are concerned that those people should be caught and should not be able to pursue those activities.
    Ms Rosie Winterton: Does my hon. Friend recognise that his announcement today will be widely welcomed, especially in my constituency of Doncaster, Central, where freelance clampers are regarded as little more than modern-day highway robbers, whose weapons include a beaten-up car, a rusty clamp and a mobile telephone, and whose intimidatory tactics in demanding immediate cash payment cause distress to their victims? Will he take into account during his consultation exercise any evidence that I can give him from people who have direct experience of cowboy clampers?
    Mr. Michael: Yes, certainly; I would welcome evidence from my hon. Friend and others who have experienced the situation. The inception of the consultation undertaken by the previous Government dates back almost four years. We have to maintain a balance between ensuring that such actions can be deployed to deal with those who have every warning, yet persist in parking on private land when they are not justified in doing so, and ensuring that the public are protected against unscrupulous elements that exist in any trade or business. That is part of the wider agenda—the more general regulation of the private security industry—

    597
    and we pleaded with the previous Government to deal with it. It is in that context that I believe we shall be able to make progress in due course.

    Crime (Children)
    Mr. Fraser: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends to take to prevent children turning to crime; and if he will make a statement. [5510]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I welcome the hon. Gentleman's interest in this issue. Tackling the crisis in the youth justice system is the Government's No. 1 priority in the field of law and order.
    During the 10 years from 1984, youth crime rose by 36 per cent., while the number of young offenders dealt with fell by more than a third, and delays worsened. In November 1996, the Audit Commission condemned the previous Government's record when it said:
    "Less is now being done than a decade ago to address offending by young people."
    Against that background, we are determined to reform this inefficient system to ensure that young offenders are punished promptly and effectively and are diverted from drifting into a life of crime. One of our five key pledges is to halve the time that it takes to get persistent young offenders from arrest to sentence. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's support for our proposals.
    Mr. Fraser: In being more specific than that response, will the Secretary of State consider what further co-operative measures his Department will initiate, such as those arranged by Dorset's drug action team on alcohol and drug use among young people?
    Mr. Straw: I should be delighted to consider those proposals. During the general election campaign, we published a detailed set of policy proposals for dealing both with drug-related crime, including drug treatment and testing orders, and with alcohol-related crime. Provisions in respect of both will feature in the crime and disorder Bill, to be published later this year. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's input into those measures.
    Ms Keeble: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement—[Interruption.] When he looks at measures to deal with crime, will he consider the success of the diversion unit in Northamptonshire, which was praised by the Audit Commission report that he mentioned, and see whether lessons in dealing with youth crime can be learned from it?
    Mr. Straw: I should be delighted to do so—despite the mocking laughter from the Opposition Benches, which is not surprising, given the Opposition's record. My predecessor was also interested in the very important and beneficial experience in Northamptonshire for many young offenders. We shall, of course, take it on board in developing our proposals.
    Mr. Maginnis: Irrespective of the consideration and accommodation that the state may provide for family life in the 21st century, does the Home Secretary agree that
    598
    there is no substitute for parental love, concern and responsibility? Will he therefore bear it in mind that, although the Government cannot be expected to act in loco parentis, they must impress on parents their primary responsibility for the activities of their children and find the means to ensure that parents are encouraged to fulfil that role?
    Mr. Straw: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman's comments. He will be interested to know that last year, in opposition, I published a detailed discussion document about parenting and the need to improve parenting education and support. Also, as part of our crime and disorder Bill, we will make specific provision for parental responsibility orders to deal with that small minority of parents who do not take their responsibilities as parents seriously enough.
    Mrs. Brinton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a proportion of crime is caused by young people roaming around on their own without their parents? Does he agree that it is essential that firm action is taken to ensure that parents take responsibility for their children? Is he aware that, in Peterborough, we have launched the Bretton Youth Trust, which enables young people to take a positive part in improving their community and, therefore, their lives?
    Mr. Straw: I am aware of the Bretton Youth Trust and I paid a visit to that area of Peterborough before the election. I can tell my hon. Friend that another part of the crime and disorder Bill will be provision for child protection orders to ensure that parents are not able to allow young children to play outside or to commit crimes late at night while unsupervised.
    Mr. Clappison: Will the Home Secretary explain why the Government have announced that, after all, they will build five secure training centres for persistent young offenders, when the Prime Minister has described such a policy as a sham?
    Mr. Straw: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his elevation to the Front Bench.
    The previous Government's record on the provision of secure accommodation for young offenders was appalling. Their rhetoric, as ever, was sharp, but their record was very different. They left us with an increasing need for secure accommodation, but, by the end of their period in office, fewer secure accommodation places were available to the courts and social services than 10 years before. That is why I have acted as I have, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not congratulate me on my prompt action. He should bear in mind the fact that the use of secure accommodation for young people has halved in the past 10 years, while youth crime has rocketed.

    European Year against Racism and Xenophobia
    Mr. Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he plans to contribute to the European Year against Racism and Xenophobia. [5511]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): We are determined to do all that we can to support the European

    599
    Year against Racism and Xenophobia. We have already committed significant resources to the administration of the year and we have also recently announced a further £300,000 of support for local and national events.
    Mr. Timms: How refreshing it is to hear a Minister being positive and enthusiastic about that European initiative. Does he agree that we should celebrate and enjoy the multiracial character of our nation including, for example, at the Trades Union Congress "Respect" conference this weekend? Is my hon. Friend willing to accompany me to one of the events in Newham's programme to mark the year, which I had the pleasure of launching a couple of weeks ago? How much importance do the Government attach to working together in Europe to combat racism?
    Mr. O'Brien: Diversity is a source of strength to our country and having a multicultural society is something of which we can, in many ways, be proud. We also need to ensure that we commit resources to combating racism where it arises. My hon. Friend has shown, by launching that programme in Newham, the importance he attaches to the European Year against Racism and Xenophobia, as have the local authorities by their support. I am happy to consider any invitation that my hon. Friend sends to me.
    Mr. Forth: How many people's attitudes will be changed by this gesture?
    Mr. O'Brien: The right hon. Gentleman may like to know that, across Europe, a lot of importance is attached to the European Year against Racism and Xenophobia. He may not think that the issue is important, but let me say this: last week, I spoke with the family of a six-year-old child who had been the subject of vicious racism, including having excrement thrown at her in the street. Ensuring that we effectively tackle these issues and raise them in the public consciousness—and that we have effective legal mechanisms to deal with them—is important. That is why we will introduce in a Bill this year new penalties for and new crimes of racial violence and harassment. We will ensure that we deal with these issues—something that the previous Government failed to do.
    Mr. Winnick: Would not one contribution to this European year be to bring the murderers of Stephen Lawrence to justice? I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has met Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence, as I have raised this case on a number of occasions. Has not a newspaper—the Daily Mail, to its credit—published the names of those who it believes to be guilty of this terrible and vicious murder? Is not the justice system paralysed when those accused of this terrible crime cannot be brought to justice?
    Mr. O'Brien: All hon. Members are greatly concerned about this terrible crime. The issues that my hon. Friend raises are difficult because, as he knows, there has been a trial at which certain persons were acquitted. We are looking at the matter. Together with the Home Secretary, I met Mrs. Lawrence, her husband and representatives of the campaign relating to the case. We were deeply moved and concerned by the things she told us and we are considering the various proposals that she made.

    Habitual Criminals (Sentences)
    Mr. Green: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce more severe minimum mandatory sentences for habitual (a) burglars and (b) dealers in hard drugs. [5512]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Ms Joyce Quin): We are considering the relevant provisions of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 and we believe that tough punishments are appropriate for persistent burglars and dealers in hard drugs.
    Mr. Green: When do the Minister and the Home Secretary intend to implement those sections of the 1997 Act that introduce minimum mandatory sentences for career burglars and drug dealers, whose actions cause so much misery to so many families?
    Ms Quin: We are considering these matters, but it would not be wise to be bounced into a hasty decision when there are many factors to take into consideration. I understand that it is unlikely that some of the previous Government's provisions would have been introduced before 2001.
    Mr. Pike: Does my hon. Friend recognise that many victims of habitual criminals resent the fact that the Crown Prosecution Service does not take their case into account because the accused has committed so many other offences, and that the victims are not even consulted about that?
    Ms Quin: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and that is precisely why we are looking at different aspects of the issue.
    Dr. Mawhinney: What is the Minister's problem? Is she against the idea of minimum mandatory sentences or against keeping repeat burglars and drug dealers in prison?
    Ms Quin: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his new post in the shadow Cabinet. He knows that discussions have taken place on this matter, and that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and ministerial colleagues were in favour of minimum mandatory sentences for sex offenders and other violent offenders. The problems attached to some of the previous Government's other recommendations were obviously understood by that Government, given the long time scale that they attached to some of their own proposals.

    Fire Safety
    Mr. Heppell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce a Bill to improve fire safety. [5514]
    Mr. George Howarth: My hon. Friend is aware that we support the aims of the Bill on the subject that he introduced in the last Parliament and I am looking forward to implementing that Bill's aims as the opportunity presents itself in the near future.
    Mr. Heppell: I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. Fire safety is a complex issue and the detail

    601
    needs proper discussion as well, so I am not asking him to prejudge any review. However, will he give one assurance that the previous Government would not give—that children's nighties and pyjamas will not be deregulated under this Government?
    Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. On 8 May 1996, the then Home Secretary—the shadow Home Secretary's predecessor—refused to give such an assurance in a debate in the House. He made it plain that the Government would not rule out the deregulation of buildings in multiple occupation, children's nightclothes, as my hon. Friend rightly said, and foam-filled furniture. I can give this firm commitment: no such deregulation will take place under this Government. We consider fire safety, particularly in those respects, to be of the utmost priority and we will ensure that the necessary legislation is in place to protect people in those and all other circumstances in which they might be threatened by fire.
    Mr. Collins: What assurance can the Minister give small businesses, especially those involved in tourism in my constituency of Westmorland and Lonsdale, that legislation on fire safety will not be excessively onerous and drive yet more of them out of business?
    Mr. Howarth: In an earlier answer on the EC workplace directive, the hon. Gentleman may have noted that we gave an assurance that no such onerous burdens would be placed on businesses. I am sure that he will agree, however, that, although we do not want to place any onerous burdens on any businesses, including seaside boarding houses or hotels, by the same token we want to ensure that the best possible safety measures are in place for all who use such premises.

    Disorder and Anti-social Behaviour
    Mr. Cawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is proposing to tackle disorder and anti-social behaviour. [5515]
    Mr. Straw: The Government believe that tackling disorder and anti-social behaviour is a crucial element in dealing with crime and making our communities safer. Recent analysis of the 1996 British crime survey showed that the risk of being a victim of violent crime is four times greater in a disorderly neighbourhood than in an orderly one.
    Our manifesto set out a comprehensive range of measures to deal with disorder and anti-social behaviour, many of which will be included in the crime and disorder Bill. Those include new community safety orders to give the police and local authorities greater powers to combat persistent disorder, new offences of racial harassment and racially motivated violence, a new responsibility on local authorities to reduce crime and disorder in their areas and measures to tackle alcohol-related violence and drug-related crime.
    Mr. Cawsey: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and welcome the announcement that yet another manifesto commitment is to be implemented shortly. Does he agree that too many families suffer from the fear and misery that anti-social behaviour brings? Can he confirm that the new community safety orders will give the police
    602
    and local authorities comprehensive powers to deal with that issue throughout the community, unlike the present iniquitous system, whereby local authorities can and do take action against their tenants for anti-social behaviour, but find that they have precious few powers when the anti-social problem is in the private sector?
    Mr. Straw: I can confirm that. My hon. Friend is right to point to the fact that much anti-social behaviour is caused not by council tenants but by private tenants or owner-occupiers. Our proposals for community safety orders will be comprehensive and will apply to every member of the community, regardless of the tenure of his or her home, and the duty to enforce them will be on both the police and the local authority.
    Mr. Greenway: How can the right hon. Gentleman expect the House to take seriously the plans that he outlined to deal with anti-social behaviour when he is about to release thousands of criminals on to the streets?
    Mr. Straw: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a high regard and with whom I have often debated, on his elevation to the Front Bench. The advice that I would give him, however, is to come to the House better briefed and ask questions based on fact and not fiction.
    Kate Hoey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many anti-social activities are carried out by young people who have been excluded from school or who are truanting? What measures will he take, with the Department for Education and Employment, to ensure that this problem, particularly in our inner cities, is looked at seriously?
    Mr. Straw: I agree with my hon. Friend entirely. She knows that, on Friday last, I visited an excellent project in her constituency in which there was a scheme for educating and giving support to about 40 children who had been excluded from school. There is a direct connection between children who truant or are excluded from school and high levels of crime. We are determined to tackle the problem in a co-ordinated way. I think that my hon. Friend will find that there are important announcements in the education White Paper which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is due to announce later this afternoon.

    Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986
    Mr. Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement. [5516]
    Mr. George Howarth: The Government share the concerns expressed in the Kennedy committee report on xenotransplantation—the transplantation of organs from animals to humans. In relation to animals being used in scientific procedures, we will amend schedule 2 to the Act to add all genetically modified protected animals to the list of species that must be obtained from a designated source. Minor amendments will also be made to introduce in the Act some controls currently exercised through administrative measures, such as standard licence conditions.
    Mr. Baker: I am pleased that the genetic engineering element is to be included in the Government's thinking.

    603
    Is the Minister aware, however, that it is clear from the Government's own publication. "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals", that, in 1995, 2,709,631 experiments were carried out on animals in this country? Is he further aware that, of those experiments, 49 per cent. were simply for commercial gain? In other words, animals were exploited simply to give a profitable edge to somebody or a competitive edge to an individual company. Is that not an abomination in this country? Can we look to the new Government, first, to reduce the number of experiments dramatically, secondly, to increase the number of inspectors—there are only 18 at present—and, thirdly, to speed up the development of alternatives to animal testing?
    Mr. Howarth: All the issues that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned are under consideration by the Government. He will appreciate that it is impossible to take a firm view on each of them to begin with. There are, however, two areas about which the House will be interested to know. First, we are looking to implement alternatives wherever possible, particularly with respect to primates, LD50 testing and cosmetic testing. Secondly, we will take forward welfare standards and we will pursue relevant measures across Europe rather than risking exporting animal experimentation to countries with less rigorous controls. Clearly, we share common objectives; it is a question of the means by which we can best promote those objectives. We hope in due course to be able to make an announcement that will make absolutely clear how we intend to take all those concerns forward.
    Mr. Alan Clark: That really is not a satisfactory answer. Is the Minister aware that last week, I delivered a petition at Downing street with more than 100,000 signatures of people who are really concerned about the issue? It simply is not good enough for the Minister to say that he needs further time to consider the basic points, which are that many of these experiments are both repetitive and unnecessary, and are dictated simply by the motivation of commercial gain.
    Mr. Howarth: We have had two months to consider complex issues. I have given a clear commitment that we intend to take forward the best possible practice. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has been out of the House for five years. He was, however, a member of a Government who, for 18 years, did nothing at all about the matter. It comes rich from him to complain in the House about lack of progress in two months, given that little happened in 18 years when his party was in office.

    Prison and Probation Services
    Miss Widdecombe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons about a possible merger between the prison and probation services. [5517]
    Ms Joyce Quin: None about a merger, although I have spoken to Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons about my wish to explore all ways in which the Prison Service and the probation service can be made to work more
    604
    effectively together. I have reached no conclusions yet about what additional measures might be needed to bring this about.
    Miss Widdecombe: Why did the chief inspector tell the Prison Service college in the course of a lecture that the Government were considering such a measure? Will she now take the opportunity to reassure the probation service that no such merger is under consideration?
    Ms Quin: First, I pay tribute to the work of the probation service and welcome the contacts that I have had with it since I took office. The position is as I described it to the right hon. Lady. We have made no decision about a merger. Indeed, we have said that we want the two services to work closely together. The right hon. Lady seems to be concerned about the actions of the chief inspector, who was appointed by the Conservative Government. We greatly appreciate the work of the chief inspector, especially his work on reports on prisons and on the various thematic reports, which we find useful.
    Mr. Stephen Twigg: Is my hon. Friend aware of the positive work of the Middlesex probation service in my constituency, particularly its involvement in partnership projects such as the Enfield community initiative? Will she tell the House more about her assessment of the general work of the probation service?
    Ms Quin: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Some excellent practice is being adopted by the probation service in many parts of the country. I have already had the opportunity to visit certain probation schemes and I hope to visit more, perhaps including those in my hon. Friend's area, before too long.
    Mr. Beith: Is it true that the much respected chief inspector of prisons got a dressing down at the Home Office for daring to mention future relations between the probation service and the Prison Service? Does the hon. Lady recognise the value of the concept of a single corrections function drawing together custodial and non-custodial sentences, and is she aware that she needs to tread carefully in dealing with two distinctive services with distinctive qualifications, especially as the last Government made such a mess of qualifications in the probation service by downgrading them?
    Ms Quin: On the last point, I strongly agree with the right hon. Gentleman. We are urgently addressing the probation training chaos produced by the previous Government. We believe that the Prison Service and the probation service are willing to learn from each other, share experience and find a good way of working that will involve co-operation between them.

    Closed Circuit Television
    Mr. Gray: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will extend the provision of closed circuit television. [5519]
    Mr. Michael: We are reviewing existing expenditure programmes and reassessing priorities to ensure that we

    605
    make the best use of the resources available. A decision on whether there will be a further CCTV challenge competition in 1998–99 will be made later in the summer.
    Mr. Gray: One could only expect yet another review. Does the Minister accept the outstanding crime prevention and detection power of CCTV? Will he remember the 6,000 cameras provided by the Conservative Government at a cost of £34 million? Is he aware of the Conservative manifesto pledge to spend a further £75 million on providing CCTV? As north Wiltshire has not yet benefited from any of that Conservative expenditure, will the Minister consider sympathetically the forthcoming CCTV application from Wootton Bassett?
    Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman seems to have answered his own questions by attacking the record of the previous Government. It is only sensible for an incoming Government to undertake a comprehensive review of expenditure and of the way in which resources are used. It is in that context that we are examining how we use the money available for CCTV.
    The Conservative party's commitment, such as it was, in the general election was not worth the paper that it was written on. The Conservatives said that they would provide money over the next five years, but one of the first things that we found on coming into office was that the money that they had set aside allowed only one further round of CCTV expenditure, next year. They had allowed for nothing after the financial year to which I referred. By contrast, the Labour party is committed to taking action to tackle crime and its causes comprehensively. That includes on-going support for CCTV, which has been proved to work well when properly integrated with other steps to protect the public and to detect and prevent crime.
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming that there was money available for CCTV next year. He will also recall that the £37 million that we spent while in government was done on a year-by-year basis. Will he now demonstrate to the House his commitment in support of CCTV by saying that he will agree to match the Conservative manifesto commitment to spend £75 million more on CCTV during the course of this Parliament?
    Mr. Michael: I join my hon. Friend the Minister of State in welcoming the right hon. Gentleman to his new post. As shadow Home Secretary representing the Conservative party he may find that on many issues it is wise to stay silent in view of the appalling record of the previous Government.
    It is one thing for the right hon. Gentleman to confirm that money is available next year. As I confirmed in my response, my predecessor did not leave money for subsequent years—it was not allowed for. I will certainly not make commitments for further ahead. We are committed, however, to tackling crime and its causes comprehensively—a task in which the Conservative Government comprehensively failed over the years. The right hon. Gentleman also heard his hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) condemn the Conservative Government's failure to provide any money for CCTV in Wiltshire over the years. The right hon. Gentleman should listen to the noise from his own Back Benchers.
    606
    Finally, the right hon. Gentleman should recognise that in many cases Labour local authorities took the initiative to introduce CCTV into their areas—very often without the support of the Conservative Government and, indeed, with their active neglect.
    Mr. Bob Russell: The Minister has expressed keen support for security cameras and has said that CCTV is a good measure. In view of that, and if the Government are serious about being tough on the causes of crime, surely the Minister should have found the ways and means immediately after he came into office to provide the additional money for that purpose. I also merely observe that the six-week running costs of the boot camp in Colchester would pay for the completion of the security camera system in Colchester.
    Mr. Michael: I am not sure that doing so would have saved us a penny. Finding extra money out of thin air within a few weeks of coming into government is not something that we pretend to be able to do. We intend to act responsibly with the finances available to us and to use them in the best way possible within the Home Office to deal with crime and the other issues for which we are responsible.
    The financial situation is, if anything, worse than we predicted before coming into office. The Conservative Government left us with that financial failure as well as their failure in relation to law and order. We shall make the best possible use of the resources available. We see CCTV as a valuable tool in the fight against crime, provided that it is used as part of intelligent and comprehensive approaches to reducing and preventing crime in areas where CCTV has been installed.

    Police Constables
    Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the number of police constables. [5520]
    Mr. Straw: Under legislation passed by the Conservative Government in 1994, it is for individual chief constables and police authorities to determine the number of constables and other officers in each force, having regard to the resources available to them. This means, as my predecessor found to his cost, that the Home Office has no direct control over police numbers in any force outside London.
    We are working with the police to relieve them of unnecessary bureaucratic burdens to allow chief officers to put more police officers back on the beat: that includes implementation of many measures to cut down delays and inefficiencies in the criminal justice system and a major reform of the Crown Prosecution Service, which has been widely welcomed by the police.
    Mr. Hawkins: I am sure that the Home Secretary will have been told by those who participated in the focus groups held by the Minister without Portfolio that the public certainly want to see more police officers on the beat. I am grateful to him for paying tribute to his predecessor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), on his success in introducing a great deal more civilianisation in the back office so that more police officers could go back

    607
    on the beat. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is his intention to continue to civilianise back office operations so that chief constables can put police officers where the public want to see them?
    Mr. Straw: Yes, I made that clear in a speech to the Association of Chief Police Officers last week. The one thing that we do not need focus groups for is to discover that what the public hate more than anything else are political parties that make promises and then break them. In the 1992 election, the Conservatives promised an extra 1,000 police officers on the beat by 1997. What happened? There were 469 fewer police officers over that period.
    Fiona Mactaggart: While my right hon. Friend may not have powers to determine the number of police constables on the beat, will he encourage police forces to organise their manpower so as to ensure that more police constables are available on foot or bicycle rather than being stuck away from the public? Seven people at my advice surgery on Saturday were concerned about disorder, crime and the unavailability of police constables in our local area.
    Mr. Straw: The need to raise the status of general patrolling in police forces is very important and is being addressed by both the Audit Commission and Her Majesty's chief inspectorate of constabulary. I entirely understand my hon. Friend's point, but the public want not only a police officer on the beat on general patrol but a fast response by the police in motor cars in an emergency. Chief officers have a difficult challenge in balancing those competing claims.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Accepting the Home Secretary's comment about the responsibility of chief constables, how many more police officers would he like to see by 2002?
    Mr. Straw: I should like to see more police officers on the beat, but I do not intend to make the mistake made by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues during the Conservative Administration, when they made promises and then broke them. We intend to make promises and keep them.

    Citizenship Applications
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to give reasons for the refusal of an application for British citizenship. [5521]
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: As I explained in reply to a question from my hon. Friend on 21 May at column 77, we are reviewing our practice with regard to giving reasons for decisions on applications for British citizenship.
    Mr. Prentice: I find that encouraging. To help my hon. Friend with his deliberations, may I remind him of the terrible injustice that has been done to Mohammed Al Fayed, who has been in this country for 30 years, has no criminal record and was refused citizenship by the previous Administration out of political spite without being given reasons? Is it not a terrible paradox that the
    608
    main accuser of the liar and cheat Neil Hamilton is deemed unfit for British citizenship and we are allowing that situation to continue without the man being given reasons for the decision? May I urge my hon. Friend to examine those matters in great detail?
    Mr. O'Brien: Those matters are currently before the Judicial Committee in another place. It would be wrong for me to delve too far into the issues until the Committee has had the opportunity to give its view on the way in which justice was delivered, or not, in this particular case.
    Mr. Sayeed: If Mr. Al Fayed has been offering inducements to Members of Parliament to act improperly, does the Minister think him a fit and proper person to receive Britain citizenship?
    Mr. O'Brien: These are all issues which, in due course, may have to be taken into consideration if an application is made by Mr. Al Fayed subsequent to the House of Lords judgment. Until those matters are before us, it is better that Ministers do not reach judgments before they are obliged to in such circumstances.

    Immigration Advisers
    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to regulate immigration advisers. [5522]
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: As my hon. Friend will know, we have a manifesto commitment to control unscrupulous immigration advisers. We are examining the options for delivering on this commitment and fully intend to do so. We shall issue a consultation paper as soon as possible.
    Mr. Vaz: I welcome the Minister's commitment to dealing with the abuse that exists in this area of policy. Will he give the House an assurance that where a constituent has been given false, inaccurate or misleading advice by an immigration adviser and has then acted in good faith as a result of that advice, the Minister will show sympathy to that constituent and will not sign any removal or deportation notices?
    Mr. O'Brien: Each case must be assessed on its merits. When cases are examined, all the circumstances that should be taken into account are taken into account.
    Mr. Malins: The Minister may be aware that four years ago, I founded the Immigration Advisory Service and was its first chairman of trustees. Is he further aware that the IAS is at the forefront of calls to set up a register of immigration advisers? Is he also aware that until such a register is set up thousands of innocent people in this country, generally from poor backgrounds, will be disadvantaged and cheated by unscrupulous people? I urge the Minister to bring the matter forward.
    Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman has a good record on raising such issues, for which I commend him. I also commend the IAS on the way in which it has brought the issues into public forums. I regret, however, that the previous Government failed to act on these matters. We intend to act to stop the exploitation of vulnerable people by so-called advisers who are often incompetent,

    609
    fraudulent or both. The previous Government declined to take action against such advisers, despite the concerns expressed by many people, including the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins). We have a manifesto commitment to deal with those so-called advisers and we shall.
    Mr. Grant: Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency we have begun the process of scrutinising not only bogus immigration advisers but bogus immigration solicitors because quite a few of them know nothing about immigration law? Will my hon. Friend look at the papers, particularly the questionnaire worked on by my office, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association and the Law Society? He will see that they are following good practice, which could be adopted nationally.
    Mr. O'Brien: I commend my hon. Friend for his work in that respect. He has set an example that all Members of Parliament would benefit from observing. I have read the papers that he has submitted to me at the Home Office. Other Members should consider his method of setting out the means by which he is able to vet advisers locally and to advise his constituents on how to deal with them. We should also circulate the questionnaire that he has developed to other hon. Members, and we are considering doing so. As part of our consultation, we shall be looking at some of the proposals that my hon. Friend has suggested.
    Mr. Richard Allan: Does the Minister agree that he could reduce the market for unscrupulous immigration advisers by following the advice sent to him recently by the new Labour-run Sheffield city council and repealing the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, which it describes as a contemptible act of racism?
    Mr. O'Brien: We are examining the way in which the latest Act of Parliament on the subject operates. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, we made a number of manifesto commitments relating to that legislation. We are hoping to implement those manifesto commitments as soon as possible. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the legislation contained a number of faults; we are examining them and I hope that we can deal with them in the near future.

    Crime Prevention
    Mr. Borrow: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's plans to give crime prevention a higher priority. [5523]
    Mr. Michael: We are determined to raise the profile of crime prevention across the board. It makes far more sense to stop a crime happening than to have to pick up the pieces afterwards, important though it is to help victims and to catch and punish offenders.
    One of our first priorities is to place a new duty on local authorities and the police service together to develop statutory local partnerships for crime prevention and community safety and, with other key partners, to agree local community safety targets. Our proposals, which we intend to include in the crime and disorder Bill later this year, will be developed on the basis of full consultation with all interested parties.
    Mr. Borrow: The Minister's answer will be welcomed in my constituency of South Ribble. I am, however,
    610
    somewhat concerned that local crime prevention strategies—a welcome move which should be carried out by local partnerships—might be based on the statistics for reported crime, which give a false picture, especially in more deprived areas. Will my hon. Friend assure me that proposals will be brought forward to ensure that there is a proper investigation, involving local communities, of the real level of crime and the nature of crime, so that effective local strategies are put in place as a result of his proposals?
    Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I have had the experience in an area of my constituency where there were problems trying to reconcile the police view of crime and the local authority's view of crime. When we asked local people, they said, "You've both got it wrong." Absolutely central to the process I have described will be a local crime and disorder audit to identify problems of concern to all local people by using both police and local authority experience of crime and disorder and listening to the views of the community.
    Once the problems have been identified, there are many ways in which they can be tackled. When I was a board member of Crime Concern, I saw some of the excellent initiatives that had been developed there. Only last week, in the Prudential youth action awards, we saw examples of young people being part of the solution and not part of the problem when they are invited and brought into tackling local neighbourhood problems. I certainly take on board my hon. Friend's points.
    Mr. Baldry: Is the House to understand, from the Minister's earlier comments about tightness of funding in the Home Office, the Home Secretary's refusal to set any targets for increasing the number of police officers and the fact that the police and the Home Office had not a mention in last week's Budget, that the Home Office is having a pretty tough time in its negotiations with the Treasury? Given that the best method of crime prevention is more police officers, is not the message that is coming through clearly this afternoon that the Home Office is short of funding and that there will be less funding for our police forces in the coming years?
    Mr. Michael: I think that the hon. Gentleman has been day dreaming for the past three quarters of an hour. The message that is coming through quite clearly is that the Government will use the resources available within the police service, the Home Office and local authorities to tackle crime and its causes—an area in which the Conservative Government were guilty of abject failure for 18 years, when crime rocketed and, in the past few years, violent crime has gone through the roof. I promise the hon. Gentleman that a Government who will tackle these issues has replaced a Government who failed on these issues.

    Young Offenders
    Mr. Hutton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to tackle offending by young people. [5525]
    Mr. Straw: We are pursuing a wide-ranging programme of change, including fast-track punishment for persistent young offenders, ending the practice of repeat police cautions, new powers for courts to impose reparation and action plan orders, and actions to make the youth courts more effective.
    Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that magistrates courts need the widest possible range of sentencing options available to them if they are to deal properly with the criminal behaviour of young offenders, who can cause such misery to decent, law-abiding citizens? In particular, does he agree that that should include the availability of secure accommodation, which the previous Government completely failed to deliver?
    Mr. Straw: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is clear that magistrates courts must themselves have a specific responsibility for the sentences that they wish to see imposed in respect of young offenders. It was frankly absurd for the previous Administration to set up a system whereby there was a constant shuttlecock between the courts on the one hand and social services on the other, with neither being clear as to which had responsibility for dealing with persistent young offenders.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he will have given no comfort to those in the volunteering and voluntary organisations today by the lack of mention of their role and their disappointment at the summary return to the Home Office? Will he pay tribute to Nicholas Ward and the "Make a difference" team for all their work? Does he agree that worthwhile activities for young people are extremely important if they are to be prevented from becoming involved in crime?
    Mr. Straw: I am delighted to pay tribute to the voluntary sector, when I am asked a question about it.

    Crime Prevention
    Mr. Connarty: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to consult local authorities on crime prevention matters. [5532]
    Mr. Michael: As we recognise that local government is crucial to the effective prevention of crime, we shall be giving local authorities and the police service a new joint duty to develop statutory local crime prevention partnerships. I have already had some preliminary discussions with local authority and police representatives about the proposals, which are generally welcomed, and I shall continue to consult closely with them as the proposals develop.
    Mr. Connarty: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. I take the point made earlier that many disruptive neighbours are not council tenants. However, the chief executive of my local authority sees the origin of disruptive and implacable tenants in terms of the Tenants Rights Etc. (Scotland) Amendment Act 1980. Will my hon. Friend take issue with him about the contents of that Act and try to give back to local authorities the powers that people want them to have over disruptive tenants, including the power to remove their tenancies should they continue to terrorise their neighbours?
    Mr. Michael: I recognise the nature of the problem that my hon. Friend describes, but it is for other Ministers to address tenancy issues. As part of the crime and disorder Bill later this year, we shall be introducing the community protection order which, irrespective of whether housing is rented or owned and who is the landlord, will provide a means by which the police and local authorities can tackle violent and disruptive neighbours who, as my hon. Friend rightly says, have made people's lives a misery in communities up and down the country.

School Standards
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): Before I begin my statement, on behalf of the whole House, I should like to offer condolences to the parents and family of the 16-year-old girl who was killed and of those who have been injured in the bus crash in the French alps, involving children from St. James's high school in Bolton. We all send them our best wishes.
With permission, I wish to make a statement to the House setting out proposals in the White Paper, "Excellence in schools".
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that education is the Government's No. 1 priority. Our consultation document and the Budget announcement of an increase of almost £2.5 billion in revenue and capital investment in education demonstrate that commitment and our priority. We shall publish a separate consultation paper on special educational needs.
Our proposals focus clearly on the central task of raising standards. We are establishing a new partnership for schools—one with teachers and the profession. Self-improvement is at the core of success. Schools must take responsibility for accepting that challenge. Good schools will flourish. Our proposals offer increased support through the new standards and effectiveness unit to schools in need of improvement. We shall build on best practice from around the world. We have set up the standards task force to spearhead our crusade to raise standards throughout the education service.
The new role for local education authorities will reflect our priorities by focusing on raising standards, not controlling schools. Intervention by LEAs will be in inverse proportion to success. All schools and local education authorities will establish challenging targets as part of the development plans on which they will be judged.
What we propose today will make a difference for everyone involved in the education of our children—parents, teachers and non-teaching staff, governors and the wider community. Our early years plans will lay the ground work, but, to provide a firm foundation, the best teaching methods must be available in every classroom in the land.
Our national literacy and numeracy strategy will ensure that all primary teachers are trained to use the most effective teaching methods. There will be a structured hour devoted each day to both literacy and numeracy in all primary schools.
Parents are a child's first teacher. They deserve better information and advice in order to increase their involvement in their child's learning. Home-school agreements will set out rights and responsibilities for home and school. They will explain clearly what is expected of the school, the parent and the pupil. Such agreements will make clear the need for regular and punctual attendance, good discipline and the vital role that homework can play in supporting learning in and out of school.
Parent participation in the life of the school is also vital. The provision of additional parent governors will be complemented by their direct representation on the education committee of their local authority.
614
We are offering a new deal for teachers: a new partnership between Government and all those involved in education. This Government value teachers, and will celebrate good practice. We will introduce a general teaching council, develop advanced skills teacher posts and provide comprehensive in-service training. There will be a new curriculum for initial teacher training, focusing on literacy and numeracy. A probationary year for all newly qualified teachers will continue their professional development.
We will introduce scholarships for the most outstanding teachers, encouraging them to spend a term sharing their knowledge and skills with others. A new awards scheme will recognise the success of individual schools.
This Government recognise that strong and committed leadership at every level is crucial. The role of the head teacher is critical to the success of the school. We will therefore strengthen head teacher training by introducing a mandatory qualification for all newly appointed heads. We will introduce a national training scheme for all existing heads, and overhaul the appraisal process for both heads and teachers.
Last week, I told the House how we would give young people hope through a new deal for the under-25s. Today's White Paper outlines a new approach to support areas of greatest disadvantage. Education action zones will draw together a range of initiatives in a partnership approach to raising standards. We will develop the specialist schools programme, so that such schools' innovative approach to teaching and learning can benefit the wider family of schools in their area.
The proposals that I have set out today will make failure less likely, but we know that problems still exist. Where teachers, schools or local education authorities are failing, we shall take decisive action. Children do not get a second chance at school, and the White Paper is a vital step in our crusade to raise standards and offer opportunity to all of them. Expectations and aspirations must be raised if we are to succeed. Fair funding, fair admissions and co-operation will reunite the education service. It is time to set aside the cynicism and the culture of complacency. This is a can-do Government working with a can-do service. Our children are our future and we owe it to them to give them the best possible start in life.
There is no more important task today than putting good intentions into practice. This Government will do just that.
Mr. Stephen Dorrell: I join the Secretary of State in offering condolences to the bereaved parents of the child who was killed, and the parents of those who were hurt, in the bus accident earlier today.
Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that many of the ideas in his White Paper demonstrate why its title should in truth be "Why Kenneth Baker was right"? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Conservative Members always welcome converts to our arguments and are pleased that the Government now accept the case in principle for a parents charter? We are pleased that they now accept the case in principle for teacher appraisal, for a national curriculum, for regular testing and for publication of the results of those tests. We are pleased that they now accept the merits of the structure of the Office for Standards in Education, including the idea of Ofsted examination of local education authorities,

615
which we advanced earlier this year. We are pleased that they accept the need for effective action on failing schools. We are pleased that they accept the need for baseline assessment of children starting out on their school careers and we are pleased that they accept the case for a national qualification for new head teachers. Those are all principles and policies that the Government have picked up from their predecessors and we welcome the fact that they have done so.
Most of all, it is to be welcomed that the Government now accept the principle, as set out clearly in the statement, that the key to successful management of a school is that the school itself must accept responsibility for the quality of the education that it delivers to its children, and that intervention
"by LEAs will be in inverse proportion to success."
Does the Secretary of State agree that that principle, as set out in his statement, is fundamental for the good management of a school system? If he accepts that that is the fundamental principle, does he accept also that there is considerable cause for concern elsewhere in the White Paper? On page 25, for example, he requires schools to draw up annual plans, which must be approved by the local education authority. There is not a requirement to wait and see whether the scheme is a success. Every school, according to the White Paper, must have its plans approved by the LEA.
What will be the power of the LEA over those plans? Will the LEA have power to change the judgment of the head and teachers of an individual school on how they want to develop their teaching methods? Will the LEA have power to change the judgment within the school if a school wishes to develop a particular specialism? Will the LEA have power to overrule governors and head teachers on resource allocations within an individual school?
How will the power of the LEA, in dealing with annual plans, relate to its obligation, set out elsewhere in the White Paper, to develop an education development plan for the whole of its area? If a particular school wants to develop a particular specialism in response to local need and the wishes of parents, will the LEA, in the Secretary of State's scheme of things, have the power to prevent that happening?
Most important, how can a school develop a specialism—the Secretary of State regularly says that he thinks that schools should be able to do so—when, on page 71 of the White Paper, he states that a school will not be allowed to interview parents or children—in other words, potential applicants—on any grounds other than establishing the religious denomination of potential applicants?
The Secretary of State's rhetoric about local management and the opportunity to develop specialisms is at variance with the detail of the plans that he has set out in the White Paper.
More generally, does the Secretary of State accept that when he says that the White Paper is about standards and not structure, he is introducing a false dichotomy? It is only by making schools responsive to the wishes of parents, but making them accountable to their local communities, that we produce the better standards that the right hon. Gentleman so often says that he wants to deliver. It is by undermining the independence of schools that we undermine the delivery of excellence. It is the independence of a school and its capacity to develop its
616
own ideas that are the best assurances against capture of the school system, as we saw in the 1960s and 1970s, by fashionable education theory.
In that connection, the Secretary of State sets out in the White Paper a proposal for a general teaching council. I think that it is fair to say that the paper is vague about the exact scope that he envisages for the council. Elsewhere, the right hon. Gentleman has drawn a parallel between the general teaching council and the General Medical Council. He will know that the GMC is a regulatory body which is charged with the management of both professional competence and professional education. Is that what the right hon. Gentleman envisages for the general teaching council? If it is, how will he ensure that it is not captured by the latest fashionable theories? How will he ensure that there is not a damaging crossover between the functions of the Teacher Training Agency and those of individual employers within the school system?
On page 18 of the White Paper, the Secretary of State repeats his pledge that his commitment to a maximum class size for five, six and seven-year-olds can be paid for out of savings from the assisted places scheme. Is he aware that, according to The Scotsman last week, the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office has already announced that in Scotland that policy does not work? The Scotsman stated:
"The Government will not legally enforce its manifesto commitment to reduce primary school class sizes in Scotland because not enough money will be raised by scrapping the assisted places scheme."
That is the argument which we have been advancing. Will the Secretary of State print an erratum slip to include in the White Paper when it is published, now that his hon. Friend has blown the gaff on that policy?
At the heart of the White Paper is a central weakness. The White Paper makes it clear that the Government believe that the key to better schools is a stronger local education authority. That theory has been disproved by history and rejected by 1,100 grant-maintained schools, which have chosen the path of greater independence.
The Government say that schools must take greater responsibility for what goes on inside them. The Government's problem is that they do not believe their own rhetoric. The Prime Minister has taught Labour Members new lines. They have memorised and repeated them, but they have not understood them. They stand witness to the limitations of learning by rote.
Mr. Blunkett: The decision—a correct one, in my view—to give the right hon. Gentleman the White Paper sufficiently in advance for him to read it does not seem to have encouraged him to understand it. I am sorry about that.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to Mr. Kenneth Baker and the great Education Reform Bill. If the Bill had worked nine years ago, we would not need to introduce the White Paper today. I give the then Secretary of State credit for introducing the training days which, I think, became known as B days.
The shadow Secretary of State asked whether I was copying Conservative policies. He gave as an example the suggestion that Ofsted should inspect local education authorities. I draw attention to the fact that we put that in our document "Excellence for Everyone" in December 1995.

617
The right hon. Gentleman cited as a further example qualifications for head teachers. We pressed hard for that to be mandatory, but the previous regime rejected the idea. I made a speech on it on 30 May last year and my predecessors had pressed for it when previous legislation was going through the House of Commons.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the role of local education authorities—indeed, he stressed it. Throughout the White Paper, we stress the role of local management of schools. Of course, we make it clear that no local education authority can interfere with the internal priorities for the use of resources, which the right hon. Gentleman suggested. Plans will be drawn up with the local education authority, because they will form part of the development programme for the local education authority as a whole, on which it will be judged and schools will be judged.
We are speaking of a new era of co-operation, not the conflict between schools and local education authorities that was the hallmark of the previous regime. Of course we shall encourage specialisms within schools. We make that abundantly clear in the White Paper. We say that we want specialisms to build on the strength of schools, but to be shared as part of the family of schools in the neighbourhood—with other schools and the wider community. We shall encourage schools to do that.
Only two weeks ago, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), announced 21 additional specialist schools. We shall announce more such schools in the days ahead as part of our strategy of developing education action zones in order to overcome divisions that exist in structure and in standards. We shall heal the wounds of the past and establish a general teaching council that incorporates all in the profession who are prepared to work with us. We shall pull together our education system, so that it serves the interests of children and not the dogma of politicians.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: The White Paper will be warmly welcomed in my constituency, where parents and teachers are most concerned about standards. It is often difficult to attract well-qualified head teachers—particularly to schools that have been labelled failing schools. Does my right hon. Friend have any specific proposals to solve that recruitment problem and, if so, will he outline them now?
Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to recruitment difficulties that affect specific specialisms as well as individual schools. We shall overcome that problem partly by raising the morale, motivation and self-esteem of the teaching profession generally. We shall be assisted in our endeavours by the development of the advanced skills teacher posts, which will enable us to reward those who are prepared to stay in the classroom rather than seek promotion by moving into management and leadership areas. Those posts will be complemented by fast-tracking teachers who show potential and who are interested in becoming managers and leaders.
618
In the end, the success of schools and the self-belief of teachers will make all the difference. I believe that the consultation paper and the steps that we shall take to implement its proposals will make all the difference to teachers' self-belief and confidence.
Mr. Phil Willis: On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I extend condolences to the family of the young person who was killed and to the families of the other young people who were injured in the traffic accident.
Unlike the shadow Secretary of State, the Liberal Democrats welcome the White Paper. We welcome also the fact that teaching has been put at the heart of our education system's future. We welcome the Government's attempts to create a partnership that involves the whole education world. That is in marked contrast to the deep divisions that have surrounded the education sector for the past 18 years. I was a teacher for 34 years and a head teacher for 20 years under the previous regime, and I can vouch for the fact that the whole of the teaching profession will welcome many of the ideas in the White Paper.
The Liberal Democrats welcome also the proposal for a general teaching council. That is long overdue and my party has campaigned for its establishment for many years. We hope that the Secretary of State will take very careful advice about the council's composition. He will have only one opportunity to get it right and ensure that the council wins the hearts and minds of the teaching profession and of parents and others who are affected by the schools system.
We are delighted that there will be a head teacher qualification, but we are saddened that there will be no systematic process of in-service education for teachers throughout their teaching lives. It is sad that teachers who entered the profession 30 years ago and have received virtually no training since then—apart from the exciting Baker days, about which we have heard already—believe that they are up to date. Teachers need continuous training.
We are pleased also that the Secretary of State has confirmed that the Government will be accountable. For the past 18 years, schools and teachers have been blamed for everything that went wrong in education. The previous Government never accepted any responsibility. We shall hold the Secretary of State and the new Government to account.
At the heart of the proposals—which we broadly welcome—is a statement that the Secretary of State has made on many occasions. It contains two words: fair funding. Quite frankly, without resources, excellence in schools will be no more than a wish list. In the current financial year, schools will find in their coffers £200 million less than they need. In 1998–99, there will be no additional resources to pay for the 55,000 extra students in our schools. By 1999, we must provide 100 per cent. funding for all four-year-olds, for which there will be no additional resources.
Our question to the Secretary of State—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hooray!"]—is quite simple. Does he believe that he can deliver all the promises and commitments in the White Paper on the resources that he has been allocated?
Mr. Blunkett: I welcome all the preamble to the hon. Gentleman's question. Before coming to the House,

619
he was a distinguished head teacher. The support of the Liberal Democrats is welcome. Yes, we shall consult widely on the general teaching council. The answer to the question whether I believe that we can implement our proposals with the 5.7 per cent. increase in funding for next year and the capital that has been allocated for investment is yes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Alas, I cannot welcome such a long preamble or a speech, even from a distinguished teacher. I did not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, because that was the first time he has spoken officially for his party. New Members in particular must realise that this is a time for questions. I shall allow only two questions each from hon. Members, and questions must be brief and must not be speeches.
Dr. George Turner: I welcome the Secretary of State's confirmation of the option of having development plans not only for local education authorities, but for schools. As an ex-chairman of an education committee, I know that development plans often require resources. What does the Secretary of State have in mind to ensure that individual schools obtain the resources that they need for their development plans, and to ensure that they deliver those plans in the way that he desires?
Mr. Blunkett: I give an assurance that we shall provide support and help to schools that have difficulties putting together development plans. Specific resources will not be available for developing those plans, because many schools are already doing that within their managerial resources. However, there will be support for the development plans and targets set. That will be part of the overall programme of ensuring that we target resources fairly and openly where they are most needed.
Mr. Tim Boswell: Given that the whole House will welcome the more evolutionary aspects of the Secretary of State's remarks, may I put to him a simple question? Does he or does he not agree with the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, that the equation, abolition of the assisted places scheme equals reduction of primary class sizes to under 30, does not add up?
Mr. Blunkett: Fortunately, I do not have to agree or disagree, because the question in Scotland is how to reduce to 30 the already agreed ceiling of 32, which is part of the conditions of service. Discussions on that are taking place, but I must make it clear so that there is no misunderstanding that resources from the phasing out of the assisted places scheme will be allocated across the whole of Britain and will not be confined to each individual nation within it.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, notwithstanding the extra money that was handed out in the Budget statement the other day, he will have to make some significant choices as to where some of the money will go? Will he bear it in mind that, notwithstanding Labour's success in some unusual areas in Britain, one of the problems that he will have to face
620
is that, in the industrial heartland, as it once was, which includes his constituency and many other parts of Britain, they tend not to shout as loud as those in suburbia-land, where the pampas grass is 12 ft high? Does he understand that, in order to make the right choices, he ought to ensure that the infrastructure in schools in areas that have suffered hardest is looked at very closely?
Mr. Blunkett: I assure my hon. Friend that I shall be fair where the panthers roam as well as where the tigers hide—pampas grass or not. I am discussing with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister how we can ensure that, through transparency, the distribution of resources from national to local and local to school level can be made fairer, and need is recognised and rewarded.
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Conservative Members greet his White Paper with some incredulity, as the principles that his party have so long resisted are now being endorsed? Will he turn his mind to leopards? Is he suggesting that left-wing Labour authorities have changed their spots? Is he saying that all those who have disliked choice, selection and competition in all its forms over many years will now endorse the principles that he sets out? The difficulty lies not in constituencies such as mine, where the local authority has supported all the principles endorsed by the previous Government, but among his friends. How will they change?
Mr. Blunkett: I am not asking local authorities to embrace selection. I am not asking them to embrace unfettered market competition. I am asking them to work together in the interests of children. I shall ask them to do so in a way that is fair to schools and which involves local authorities not controlling, but supporting schools.
Mr. Tom Levitt: I was educated entirely in comprehensive schools and I taught in comprehensive schools for 19 years. Does my right hon. Friend agree, first, that only comprehensive schools can provide opportunity for all, secondly, that comprehensive schools serve the many, not the few—and serve them well—and thirdly, that any return to selection at the age of 11 would be against the best interests of this nation because of the waste that it embodies?
Mr. Blunkett: That is the sort of question to which one can never answer no, when somebody is stood behind one. The answer to the question is that I and the Government are in favour of all-in schools that provide diversity on one campus. We are in favour of avoiding the way in which children were segregated and written off at the age of 11. We are in favour of building on their strengths as individuals, so that we can ensure that the many and not the few gain from our education system.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: The Secretary of State seems to imply that he believes that teaching is a profession, yet much of his rhetoric also implies that he will tell the teachers how to teach. Is not an integral part of being in a profession establishing the ways in which it delivers the requirements of the standards that are set for it?
Mr. Blunkett: I have indicated that intervention will be in inverse proportion to success. I agree with the chief

621
inspector of schools, who rightly pressed the previous as well as the present Government to ensure that the best possible methods of teaching are spread to all classrooms. That is why we have set up the standards and effectiveness unit, and that is why our task force on standards will ensure that those best methods of teaching are available to every child in every school in the country.
Valerie Davey: Parents, governors and teachers in my constituency will welcome the White Paper, especially those linked with the teaching of those with special educational needs. If the Government are serious in their intention to provide quality education for all children, does not that necessitate a greater emphasis on the requirements of those with special educational needs?
Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend and that is why, as well as the outline of our policies in chapter 4, we shall publish a separate Green Paper so that we can have a thorough discussion of special educational needs; of the preventive and remedial action that can be taken at an early stage, as part of our baseline assessment; and of the need to ensure that resources go to provide help where it is needed, rather than going through the process as currently happens with the tribunal system.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: As we shall probably have separate White Papers for Wales and for Scotland, will the Secretary of State confirm whether the mention of the general teaching council in the White Paper applies to England only or to Wales and Scotland? Will there be separate legislation for Wales and for Scotland, for the developments that the Government propose?
Mr. Blunkett: There is already a General Teaching Council in Scotland. While we shall consult widely to ensure compatibility, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and his colleagues wish to see a separate general teaching council developed in Wales.
Mrs. Diana Organ: The raising of standards requires careful monitoring of performance. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concerns that have been expressed about Ofsted and the role of the chief inspector, Christopher Woodhead? What will Ofsted's role be in the future, and will the performance of schools and teachers be effectively monitored? Will we also inspect the performance of local education authorities in meeting the Government's targets?
Mr. Blunkett: In chapter 3, paragraphs 32 to 35, we set out the way forward following our discussions with Ofsted and the chief inspector. In paragraph 33, we spell it out that we have had discussions on quality, consistency and value for money, and we lay out five key areas in which further progress will be made. Part of that progress will be the inspection, with the Audit Commission, of local education authorities to ensure that the high standards that we expect of schools are reflected in the way in which local education authorities undertake their duties.
Mr. Tony Baldry: The Secretary of State makes great play, understandably, of diversity in education.
622
Both in his statement today and in articles in the national press, he seems to equate diversity only with technology, art and sports colleges. How much money will be allocated to create new technology colleges and other specialist colleges? Are we to assume from his statement and articles today that he sees grant-maintained schools as making no contribution to diversity in education? If so, why not?
Mr. Blunkett: Diversity exists within as well as between schools. The work of Professor Howard Gardner from the United States, on the intelligences that we all have and the way to develop them, is instrumental in our thinking about how to ensure that every child flourishes, whichever school they happen to attend. Of course, diversity can also exist in the different specialisms that schools engage in, whatever status they enjoy. We shall shortly announce a further range of specialist school proposals and the resources that we are prepared to allocate to them.
Mr. Tony McNulty: Does my right hon. Friend agree that local education authorities remain a key strategic and supportive framework, and that the comments by the shadow Secretary of State show that he seems to care more about selection, privilege and the destruction of LEAs than about achieving the standards of excellence outlined in the White Paper? Sadly, like his predecessors, he seems to serve the god of dogma far more than he does the interests of our children.
Mr. Blunkett: One of the reasons why the shadow Secretary of State's predecessor did not vehemently attack local education authorities in the way that she was encouraged to do was that she had some experience of them. I have always said that if local education authorities did not exist, we would have to invent them. They are there to provide a wider education service, to give support and backing and to articulate the needs of parents. We expect them to do that in a new era, with a new view of the way in which delegation will be extended, and in which they will play their part as facilitators and supporters of the lifting of standards. I am delighted to say that local education authorities, through the Local Government Association, have welcomed that role and will work with us to achieve our aims.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: The Labour party in government seems to be proposing many policies that the Labour party in opposition was against. That opposition caused friction in schools and damaged the education of young children. Does the Secretary of State feel any shame about what Labour did in opposition?
Mr. Blunkett: I would have to give the hon. Gentleman nul points if I were marking his exam paper. It is important that we concentrate on working together to achieve what is set out in the White Paper, rather than on seeking party political ways to knock each other. We set out our programme in a series of papers before the election, in which we indicated that although the previous regime revealed what was wrong, it failed to set out a programme to rectify it. The White Paper puts that right by providing a coherent programme to examine what is wrong and to do something about it. That is a positive way forward—not a knocking shop.
Ms Joan Ryan: Parents will welcome my right hon. Friend's recognition of the importance of

623
their role, and they will be keen to have further details. Clearly, he agrees that parents have a vital role, but does he further agree that it is not just a role, but a responsibility? How does he intend to ensure that parents are fully involved in the education of their children, as they are key players, along with teachers and pupils?
Mr. Blunkett: I agree enthusiastically with my hon. Friend. We should offer support and help from the moment a child is born—such as a health visitor providing stimulating and interesting development material—and encourage parents to play their part in integrated early years education and child care facilities, including the 23 early excellence centres that we shall establish. I include also home-school agreements, which should be available in all schools and should set out not only what a parent can expect from a school, but what a school should expect from a parent in terms of getting a child to school, the discipline of the child in school and the ability to support and help the child with his homework after school. Regrettably, there are parents who write off their children's education through disinterest or by dismissing the importance of the education system. We shall have to work with them and with schools to overcome that ignorance and to ensure that everyone knows that education is, in the words of a French philosopher, a "treasure within".
Mr. William Cash: Does the Secretary of State accept that severe distortions have been created by the standard spending assessment and area cost adjustment system? Does not his foreword to the White Paper state that "an end to cut-backs" is needed for success? Will he ensure that Ministers responsible for local government and Treasury Ministers review the SSA, to ensure that there is a proper distribution of resources?
Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman may have heard what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—they are reviewing that system. As I said to the hon. Gentleman last Thursday, it is a bit of a cheek for someone whose party, when in government, did what it did in Staffordshire, to come and ask us to put it all right after nine weeks in office.
Mr. Ian Davidson: Will my right hon. Friend clarify how he intends to combine his drive to raise standards with the additional capital that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced for education? In particular, does he intend to offer incentives to local authorities with declining rolls to rationalise provision and to raise standards in their area?
Mr. Blunkett: It is very important that authorities that are taking steps to rationalise provision to eliminate unneeded vacancies in schools are assisted and supported through the additional capital, but we shall also be using the education action zones to target and support areas of particular need. I must make it clear that there is no question of providing capital to schools based on their past examination results; nor would there be. We shall be paying particular attention to the 600 primary schools that have outside toilets—what a scandalous legacy that is from the previous Government.
Mr. Graham Brady: May I commend to the Secretary of State schools in my
624
constituency as a beacon of excellence and a model for schools throughout the country? I must point out that Altrincham and Sale has good grammar, high and comprehensive schools, which provide an excellent education to children of all backgrounds and abilities. Parents in my constituency, many of whom moved there for those excellent schools, welcome the statement, as I do, that this is about standards and not structure. May I take that as a guarantee that my grammar schools are safe?
Mr. Blunkett: We repeat in the White Paper that we shall be consulting on the proposal that we put forward during the general election as regards any change in the 11-plus and the admissions policies of the historic grammar schools. This afternoon, we are laying out our objective to ensure that in time no one has to move house to get a school of excellence, because schools with different objectives and diversity will offer the standards of which the hon. Gentleman is rightly proud, for the children of parents in his constituency.
Ms Joan Walley: May I say how much parents and teachers in Staffordshire will welcome the statement? I make no apology for shouting loudly that we want an education action zone in Stoke-on-Trent, and I remind my right hon. Friend of his visits there on several occasions. It is crucial that we deal with deprivation and the anomalies that the previous Government gave us in terms of the standard spending assessment, about which the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) knows only too well. We want further funding for education, not least so that we can get proper IT facilities in all our schools.
Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I said in my statement that fair funding as well as fair admissions would be the key to success for the future. I will merely say, with a twinkle, that there will be only 25 education action zones in the beginning, but if I were being mischievous, I might say that we could move to 419 over the life of this Parliament.
Dr. Liam Fox: If the Secretary of State agrees with the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office that phasing out assisted places in Scotland will not provide enough money to reduce class sizes to 30, why should it be different in England and Wales? Why should we believe the right hon. Gentleman in that case?
Mr. Blunkett: I think that we have had that question already. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave a few moments ago.
Mr. John Gunnell: What will my right hon. Friend do about the opposition groups that may develop, perhaps from schools that represent a particular interest, or engendered by the Opposition, who knows? From a different point of view, let us suppose that there was opposition from the general secretaries of teaching unions. How would he ensure that there was a concentration on raising standards in schools? How would he allow fair debate, without allowing his wishes to be thwarted?
Mr. Blunkett: We have made it clear that we are setting behind us the scramble of vested interests, but we

625
are also keen to give people the opportunity to join in a partnership, as part of the family with us. When people have had a chance to read the White Paper and its summary version and to view the video that we have produced, I hope that they will feel able to join us, whatever their political persuasion.
This is not a matter of party politics. It is about whether we care to join in unity on the things on which we agree. Although the shadow Secretary of State raised a few gripes at the end of his contribution, I was under the impression that he welcomed the thrust of the White Paper. I challenge him and his colleagues to say whether they will join us in the interests of the children of this country.
Mr. Christopher Fraser: Given the recent birth of a child to a 12-year-old schoolgirl in my constituency, has the Secretary of State any plans to review the quality and implementation of sex education in secondary schools? Will sex education form part of the overhaul of the system at which he is looking? Does he have any views on teaching sex education at pre-secondary school level?
Mr. Blunkett: I could make a whole statement on the subject. I have had discussions with the Minister for Public Health about how we can develop a healthy schools programme, and she has been speaking about that at a conference today. I believe that sex education is crucial to the well-being of the young person concerned and to the life of their family and community.
I remind the hon. Gentleman of the debate that took place some years ago in the Health Education Authority—the Health Education Council as it was then—when the previous Government were vehemently opposed to the extension of sex education. It needs handling with enormous sensitivity, particularly at the age we are discussing here. It needs handling by parents and not just by schools. Parents carry an enormous responsibility in ensuring that they bring up young people to understand and respect their bodies.
Caroline Flint: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that despite 18 years of Conservative policies, it still takes up to two years to remove an incompetent teacher from the classroom. That is unfair not only to the teachers in the school who are doing a good job, but to our children who get one chance at a decent education. What plans does my right hon. Friend have to make sure that we have a fair but fast way in which to deal with under-performing teachers?
Mr. Blunkett: We are discussing with the teachers' unions and local education authorities proposals for ensuring that the procedures are fair to teachers, fair to the school and, above all, fair to the pupils in the classroom. We shall offer support wherever and whenever we can, but, at the end of the day, we have to put the child's interests first. We would no more expect children to be taught by teachers who cannot do their job than we would travel in a high-speed train driven by a driver who was incompetent or travel in an aeroplane flown by a pilot who could not do the job.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: If the right hon. Gentleman is looking for consensus on educational issues
626
between the two main parties and if Mr. Chris Woodhead is at the heart of the process, we may well be on the path to consensus, although the Secretary of State may be leaving one or two of his Back Benchers behind. Will he reiterate his manifesto pledge, at least for England and Wales, by telling us that he believes that the resources from the assisted places scheme will reduce class sizes in primary schools on time?
Mr. Blunkett: Yes.
Mr. Jim Murphy: The White Paper will set out an agenda for educating the final generation of schoolchildren in this millennium. I should like to hear more today about my right hon. Friend's and the Government's plans for the use of new technology, so that everyone has a fair opportunity in the next millennium.
Mr. Blunkett: This is a very important part not merely of integrated learning systems in education, but of the preparation of young people for the new century. We say in the White Paper that many children will be living in the second half of the 21st century and will need those skills. Investing some of the capital that was allocated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and linking that with public-private partnerships for not only wiring up and using the Internet for schools but developing the learning grid will be critical, as will links with the university for industry's post-school education scheme. Together, we can do that and ensure that technology and information are available to all children, wherever they live.
Mr. Michael Fallon: Does the notion of fair funding mean that a proportion of the grant-maintained schools' budgets will be transferred back to local education authorities? Can the Secretary of State further clarify the position of grammar schools? Is it the case, under the chapter 7 proposals, that Kent's existing grammar schools could face sudden death if there were local ballots?
Mr. Blunkett: I make it clear that fair funding means that no school receives additional funding purely on the basis of its status. The allocation of existing funding is under discussion and will be dealt with fairly, on the principle that we do not intend to damage the interests of the children in those schools. On grammar schools, we are not interested in sudden death for any school. We are talking about allowing parents to make decisions about what they believe to be the fairest admissions policy in their area.
Ms Margaret Hodge: May I warmly welcome both the statement and the White Paper, which I regard as a defining moment in moving forward towards our objective of raising standards for all our children? What steps and powers does my right hon. Friend think that he will need to take to tackle under-achievement among boys?
Mr. Blunkett: Given the enormous disparity whereby 60 per cent. of girls but only 40 per cent. of boys achieve high-grade GCSEs in English, my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the matter. As mentioned in the White Paper, we shall follow through the work of the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for

627
Yardley, when she published a document entitled "Boys will be Boys" at the end of last year. We are determined to overcome alienation and disaffection and to engender an interest in vocational education and training among young people to link them with the world of work, and so ensure that they are re-engaged with a belief in themselves and in their ability to earn their own living and create their own families.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I understand that education action zones have to meet a size threshold. My right hon. Friend knows that there are pockets of educational deprivation in rural areas and, if I may say so, in my constituency. Should not we examine size thresholds, to allow small deprived areas into this innovative policy arrangement?
Mr. Blunkett: I am happy to examine the valid point raised by my hon. Friend. We have said that, as a principle, a minimum of two secondary schools seems appropriate. However, I accept that areas only five miles apart can have a ridge between them, which makes it impossible for people to join together in the way that we would wish.

Point of Order
4.26 pm
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On Thursday in business questions, the Leader of the House said that the draft Finance Bill would be published in advance of Second Reading. It was published late on Friday afternoon, by which time many hon. Members were not here. It contains 53 clauses and eight schedules. Eighteen of those clauses relate to tax credit proposals that were not in the Government's manifesto; they are very much new proposals. We finish the Budget debate today and Second Reading is on Thursday. We do not yet have a Treasury Select Committee. It has been revealed that, apart from taking additional taxes not advertised in advance, the Government have cut public spending by a further £5 billion next year, without it being adequately debated. Can you advise what we can do to ensure that such important matters are given proper time for serious consideration in advance of debates? If this becomes a precedent, that will be impossible, which is unacceptable.
Madam Speaker: The President of the Council made the position quite clear on Thursday after a number of similar questions were put to her. The draft Bill was published on Friday and available to all hon. Members. It has also been on the Internet. The Table Office will be open tomorrow for the tabling of amendments to the Finance Bill.

Hairdressers Registration (Amendment)
4.27 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Hairdressers (Registration) Act 1964 to provide for the regulation of the hairdressing industry; the training and mandatory registration of hairdressers; a complaints and compensation scheme for the protection of customers; the development and improvement of professional standards in hairdressing; and for related purposes.
I introduce this Bill with particular pleasure because it is unfinished business. It was due to have been introduced on 25 March, when the then Prime Minister, panicked by the fact that he was about to be defeated on my Bill, suddenly announced the dissolution of the House, that all the legislation in progress would be scrapped, and that my Bill would not be heard, to avoid defeat. He was duly punished by the country, which is anxious for my Bill.
This is also unfinished business because it completes the intention of the Hairdressers (Registration) Act 1964, which provided for a framework of registration and set up the Hairdressing Council, of which I am a member. The council was created to supervise courses and examinations, to investigate hairdressing and to discipline hairdressers.
That Act did not take the necessary next step to make it all work by making registration compulsory. As a result, we have approximately 110,000 hairdressers in this country, but just 13,000 of them are registered. The industry has a turnover of £2.5 billion a year, but it is largely unregulated. Consumers believe it to be regulated, however, because a survey conducted by the Consumers Association in 1993 found that most people thought that their hairdresser was registered, insured for liability and accountable. Many hairdressers are none of those things.
My Bill is a short back and sides measure. It aims to achieve three principles, the first of which is registration. That basic principle applies everywhere in hairdressing in Europe apart from Greece—I do not go there often for my haircuts—and Ireland. An anomaly exists whereby those who fail to qualify in France or Germany can come here and set themselves up in Grimsby as Anatole of Paris. The best qualified hairdresser in this country, however, is not allowed to set up in Paris as, romantically, Fred de Grimsby, and attract business. Our qualifications are not recognised there. Our hairdressers must be registered to bring them into line with Europe.
Secondly, the Bill would require hairdressers to receive training, and that existing training should be upgraded. There are some excellent courses that lead to good qualifications, for example, national vocational qualifications, but there is no requirement on a hairdresser to have such training before setting up a business. The requirement to register would provide the structure to deliver that proper training.
The United Kingdom has some of the best hairdressers in the world. According to this morning's papers, we even sent hairdressers to America to show our art. However, we also have some of the worst hairdressers in the world, back-street hairdressers who are allowed to dress hair without any regulation or control.
Thirdly, the Bill would protect the consumer, because this is an industry in which, should things go wrong, the consequences are often severe for the consumer. It is an industry which works with dangerous chemicals, dangerous processes and dangerous equipment. If those
630
are used by unqualified, untrained hands, one can end up with all kinds of horror stories. The Guardian reported in March what happened to Lizzy Akerman:
"'Afterwards my head came up in blisters which turned to revolting scabs.' When she went back they were unapologetic. 'I said, 'Look what's happened to my head!' and he said 'Oh yeah, that happens to me all the time—horrible isn't it?'"
The Hairdressing Council also recounts complaints that have come before it. For example, an elderly widow was traumatised by bad hairdressing. After a visit to a salon, her hair began to come out in clumps. She was so distressed that she could not go out for a fortnight until her daughter visited her, called the doctor, and bought her wig to enable her to go out in the world again. Another lady was left in tears because her hair had turned green and she felt unable to go to her daughter's wedding the next day. A 17-year-old who wanted highlights ended up with blisters and burns to her ears and scalp.
Those horror stories are repeated all over the country. The Hairdressing Council receives more than 3,000 complaints a year, but it cannot act if the hairdressers are not registered. When there is an accident, people can take the hairdresser to court. I have great respect for the law and some of my best friends are lawyers, but they charge rather more than a hairdresser. The process of taking someone to court on a consumer matter of damage inflicted by hairdressing is uncertain, expensive and inefficient. Many people do not bother.
If we had a method of registration, there would be a framework of control and discipline to stop bad practice. It would include a requirement to insure and a requirement on the industry to set up a compensation fund to compensate the consumer when things have gone wrong. That could be paid quickly without resort to law and would allow the industry to regulate itself, as it wants to do.
Everyone I have spoken to in hairdressing about the Bill is in favour of its principle because they know that cowboy, inefficient, untrained hairdressers reflect badly on the industry. They prevent people from using hairdressers with trust, based on a proper relationship.
There is no other way to improve the industry than through registration and self-regulation, but whenever we put that proposal to the previous Government, they simply repeated, "caveat emptor". I am not sure whether they knew what it meant, because the Conservative party is no longer classically educated. They said that the market will regulate these things, but it does not. How can the buyer beware or rely on market regulation when they do not know how bad the hairdresser is, after which their scalp comes up in blisters, their hair turns green or begins to fall out? That is no solution to the problems of hairdressing. It is just nonsense.
We need registration to upgrade skills, to insist on proper training, to protect the consumer. The upgrading of skills and the protection of the consumer will, I know, appeal to the Labour Government who now hold power. Indeed, I am happy to offer my Bill in its draft state to them as a Government measure to deal with the problems in the industry. It may not be the best-written Bill, because my skills as a legislator are about the same as my skills as a hairdresser—pretty inadequate—but I hope that the Government, who have expressed support for these principles in the past in meetings between shadow Ministers and the Hairdressing Council, will act on the principles contained in the Bill. I hope that this measure will show them the way.
4.35 pm
Mr. Anthony Steen: It is with great regret that I have to oppose the Bill, because the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) introduced it with considerable style, as one would expect, and one recognises his integrity and belief in the measure.
I have to oppose the Bill because, for 18 years, the Conservative Government recognised the danger of over-regulation, particularly the effect that it has on small firms and jobs. The Conservative Government set up a deregulation task force. We had a Minister with responsibility for deregulation, and the then Deputy Prime Minister himself was the supremo responsible. The Labour Government have no ministerial responsibility to prevent over-regulation. The hon. Gentleman has already started on the slippery path of more and more rules and regulations, which Conservative Members have always opposed.
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has thought of the consequence of registering 110,000 hairdressers. First, not hundreds but thousands of inspectors would be needed to enforce the rules and regulations; so many would be needed because they would need time for their hair to grow before they could go back to the hairdresser to enforce the rules and regulations that the hon. Gentleman proposes. The cost of hairdressing would go up because regulatory arrangements always put up the cost of a product, so the cost of going to the hairdresser would be much more expensive. In fact, it would be so costly that there would be queues of people needing a hairdresser because of the number of hairdressers who would go out of business. As regards bad hairdressers, they simply lose custom and ultimately go out of business.
The Bill seeks to regulate hairdressers. Where will it stop? There is no limit to the number of people in business whom we could regulate, and have officials enforce those regulations. There would be people snooping behind bay
632
trees, looking into hairdressers. The whole thing would get out of control. I just wonder how many hon. Members have had the problem of blisters on their scalp or their hair turning green. I do not know anybody whose hair has turned green after visiting the hairdresser, or whose hair has fallen out as a result.
This is a totally unthought-out Bill. It is ridiculous in its proposal. Its consequences are expensive and there is no merit in starting to pass more rules and regulations—the Government have not done so, but their Back Benchers want to.
I oppose the Bill because it is the start of the slippery slope, where rules and regulations will be imposed on our way of life. I am sure that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby has better things to do than regulate 110,000 hairdressers.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mrs. Jackie Ballard, Mrs. Ann Cryer, Barbara Follett, Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Miss Anne McIntosh, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Dr. Jenny Tonge and Mrs. Ann Winterton.

HAIRDRESSERS REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT)
Mr. Austin Mitchell accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Hairdressers (Registration) Act 1964 to provide for the regulation of the hairdressing industry; the training and mandatory registration of hairdressers; a complaints and compensation scheme for the protection of customers; the development and improvement of professional standards in hairdressing; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 November, and to be printed [Bill 39].
Orders of the Day
  WAYS AND MEANS
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [2 July].

  WINDFALL TAX
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That provision may be made for imposing a tax on the amount of the windfall from which a company was benefitting on 2nd July 1997 in any case where—

  (a) an undertaking whose privatisation involved the Imposition of economic regulation has been privatised by means of a flotation; and

  (b) the profits of the undertaking in the period after the flotation show that the company was benefitting on that date from a windfall from that flotation.—[Mr. Gordon Brown.]

  Question again proposed.

  Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
  4.41 pm
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson)rose—
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to draw attention to what I think is a breach of a long-standing principle of the way in which the House handles tax changes and their announcement. As far as I can tell, in the press release on venture capital trusts and enterprise investment schemes, the normal procedures have not been followed. The tests of whether those changes can be made do not seem to have been specified, so people will have to wait nine months, until the next Budget, to find out whether they can even make an investment.
  That amounts to a tax change by press release. It is well-established practice that tax changes that are effective from the day of the Budget are referred to in the Chancellor's speech so that the House and taxpayers are immediately made aware of them. That has not been done in this case. Is that not a breach of a long-standing principle of the House?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Everything contained in the resolutions has appeared in the normal order. I think that everything has been done correctly.
  Mr. Dobson: Before I was so kindly interrupted by a former adviser to former Treasury Ministers—people such as the unlamented prospective Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough—I was about to say that at the last general election we promised to give a high priority to the national health service. Last week, we backed up that promise with money—a lot of money. We announced a £2.5 billion programme to make a start on modernising the national health service and getting it into shape to meet the needs of patients in the new century. We announced £1.2 billion extra cash for patient services £1 billion for England
  634
  alone—together with a £1.3 billion hospital building programme. The NHS certainly needed that injection of funds.
  Under the previous Government, 59 of the 100 health authorities entered this financial year in debt, as did 128 of the 429 NHS trusts. Capital investment has fallen for four successive years and is at its lowest for a decade.
  The previous Government's private finance initiative plans to get private finance into the NHS had failed to finance a single hospital, but had cost more than £30 million in fees paid out to financial and legal advisers and consultants. Vast sums of money were being squandered. Instead of being used on patient care, millions of pounds were being used to meet the costs of the paperwork of the internal market introduced by the previous Government.
  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the allocation from next year's reserves. Will he confirm that that means not a penny of extra money for the NHS in the present financial year? Owing to the higher inflation projections announced in the Budget and the fact that the cash allocations will be exactly the same as those that the right hon. Gentleman has inherited, there will be an expenditure squeeze on the NHS for this financial year. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that is the case?
  Mr. Dobson: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to get me to confirm that the figures produced when he was a Treasury Minister were not sufficient to meet the needs of the national health service. That is apparently his view.
  Above all, vast sums of money were being squandered under the previous Government. The money was being used to fund the paperwork of the internal market introduced by the previous Government. Until the Tory Government introduced the internal market, the administrative costs and the paperwork of the NHS had been kept to a minimum.
  The Tory internal market was intrinsically inefficient and wasteful. It depended on a payment system that has fuelled the production, transmission and payment of millions of individual invoices. That system has gobbled up money that should have been used to treat patients. Everyone knows that; no one, apart from the Tory party, now defends the internal market.
  Since I became Secretary of State, I have not met anyone connected with the NHS who will say a good word for the internal market—and I have met some of its former exponents. Everyone tells me that the internal market has to go. Some people have publicly recanted their earlier beliefs; others have told me that they were never believers in the first place; others have tried to convince me that they were secret members of the resistance all along.
  As I am not a vengeful man, I have declared an intellectual amnesty. I do not mind what people said or did before 1 May this year; all I ask is that they practise what they now preach. Therefore, I confidently expect everyone in the NHS to join our campaign to ensure that, in future, every penny that goes into the NHS counts towards the treatment and care of patients.
  Mr. John Townend: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an estimate of how many

  635
  redundancies are likely to be caused by this great movement from administration and bureaucracy to patient care—when managers are converted into nurses?
  Mr. Dobson: No.
  We promised to shift money from bureaucracy to patient care. As soon as we came into office, I set in train new measures to tackle the waste caused by the internal market. We raised to £100 million the savings on paperwork to be made this year. New guidance was issued to health authorities, trusts and fundholders, telling them to work together to reduce the cost of invoicing. I deferred the eighth wave of fundholding, which released £20 million that would otherwise have gone on paperwork. Some £10 million of that money has already gone into improving breast cancer services and £5 million has gone into extra funds to improve children's intensive care.
  Everyone recognises that there are too many NHS trusts. We therefore intend to encourage a major programme of trust mergers. Each merger will be judged on its merits—with improvements in service to patients, as well as reduced costs, the key to its success. As a result, we have no national target figure for mergers, but mergers involving about 50 of the existing 429 trusts are already being considered.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that he will have our full support in all his efforts to increase efficiency, remove bureaucracy and deliver better patient care. Will he, however, acknowledge that the adjustment in the inflation figure for this year means that he will have to find an extra £350 million merely to stand still? According to a note that I have received from the House of Commons Library, of the £1.2 billion forecast for next year, the net increase is £410 million at 1995–96 prices. Is that not the reality? If it is, how does the right hon. Gentleman intend to fund the difference?
  Mr. Dobson: I am not going to take any lessons in the financing of the national health service from the Liberal party, whose Members are apparently gibing at our commitment to provide £1.2 billion extra for next year when, in their election manifesto, they promised only £540 million extra for next year.
  The Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), is heading a task force that is identifying further savings, which will switch more money out of paperwork and into patient care. Those include reducing the cost of routine staff recruitment and reducing transaction costs that, under the existing system, leave some individual patient transactions costing as much as the cost of 80 other such transactions. Those sort of changes can be made by modifying the existing system, and they are being made.
  Much greater savings should follow the replacement of the internal market by a system of local commissioning. To make sure that the savings that should follow do follow and that we have the best and most cost-effective new arrangements, we will put in place a number of pilot schemes for local commissioning and draw on existing best practice. I have already arranged for the Audit Commission to be involved in that process, so that a proper audit trail and cost effectiveness are built in from the start.
  636
  It was not only in the generalities of the workings of the internal market that the previous Government let so much money go to waste. Huge sums of health service money have been paid out unnecessarily, and spectacular sums of money due to the health service have not been collected. The previous Government paid little or no attention to those matters and, as a result, the NHS has been denied the use of the money, services to patients have suffered and the job of the staff has been made more difficult. The failure of the previous Government to address those issues has also meant that there are no really reliable estimates of the sums involved or of the savings that can be made.
  Let me start with prescription fraud. The overwhelming majority of patients, doctors and pharmacists are honest, but a small minority are not and they have been ripping off the NHS and the taxpayer. The previous Government did little to stop that. We are determined to tackle that huge drain on the NHS by introducing anti-fraud measures into the system and rewarding pharmacists who detect fraud. We also intend to ensure that the criminal justice system takes prescription fraud more seriously. As I have explained, I cannot give a firm estimate of the scale of prescription fraud or of likely savings, but estimates vary from £85 million a year, through £100 million a year, to more than £130 million a year.
  The next item is the cost of insurance. The balkanisation of the NHS into 429 separate trusts has led to their spending more than £50 million a year in insurance premiums to cover themselves mainly against employer's and third party liability claims and damage to property. That was previously covered by Crown indemnity. We are examining what savings could be made, either by the trusts pooling risk, or even by the return of Crown indemnity. Estimates of the potential savings from those alternative approaches range from about £20 million a year to £30 million a year.
  Next, there is the matter of NHS supplies, which we have identified as an area in which substantial savings can be made. An Audit Commission study estimated that £150 million in savings could be achieved over three years. We will also be looking at the NHS Supplies Authority, which accounts for roughly half of all supplies purchasing, with contracts of more than £1.75 billion a year.
  Next, I come to the failure of the previous Government to make sure that the NHS actually collects the money due from insurance companies towards the cost of treating people injured in road accidents. That has been the law since the 1930s and was last renewed by Parliament by way of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which provides for a flat-rate emergency treatment fee for immediate medical attention and charges for subsequent in-patient or out-patient treatment. The process of collecting those sums and, in particular, collecting the charges for in-patient and out-patient treatment from insurance companies is extremely complex and erratic. As a result, the NHS receives only a fraction of the money due to it.
  The current receipts under the 1988 Act for in-patient and out-patient treatment are believed to total around £20 million. Details of the income from the emergency treatment fee have never been collected centrally.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Has my right hon. Friend investigated alleged incidents in which

  637
  insurance companies offer a discount to those insured if they lie when asked questions by the hospital on their entry into hospital for treatment? They are given a discount if when asked, "Are you covered by insurance?" they answer no, even when the answer should be yes.
  Mr. Dobson: I had not heard that, but it would seem to me that they are coming close to breaking the law themselves and to inducing other people to break the law.
  Estimates of the sum that should be paid to the NHS range from £50 million a year, through £130 million a year, to an estimate by the Automobile Association of £440 million a year. We propose to legislate, though not to change the principle, which was established in the 1930s and affirmed as recently as 1988, that the NHS should be entitled to collect the money. We intend to legislate to put that principle into practice and do what Parliament voted to do, but previous Governments failed to do.
  All those measures, taken together, should provide substantial funds for the NHS in future years and I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has agreed that any savings made by the NHS will not be offset by reductions in funding. Indeed, it would be more accurate to say that he and I believe that the increased funding for next year and subsequent years can be justified only if both the extra money and existing resources are spent on patient care and not squandered on bureaucracy, fraud and waste.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Hon. Members on both sides will welcome the Secretary of State's statement that the Government will find savings and plough the money back into the health service. However, can he tell the House how much the health authorities will have to spend on topping up their pension funds as a result of the removal of the advance corporation tax credit?
  Mr. Dobson: For a start, I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that. If they have to spend any more, no doubt we will be able to supply that information in due course. [Laughter.] Conservative Members laugh, but we face a flow of information to the headquarters of the Department of Health that is so pathetic that we cannot supply answers to such questions. Conservative Members have asked what would be the impact on the NHS of a national minimum wage, but they left us with an NHS that cannot tell us how many people are paid less than £2.50, £3, £3.50 or £4 an hour, because they decided not to collect that information three years ago and it has not been collected since.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not give way.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Dobson: Yes.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I presume from my right hon. Friend's very informative response that the
  638
  information that he referred to will be made available in future and that we will change the systems and ensure a far more accountable national health service? May I press him on one further point? He referred to the cash injection of £1.2 billion, but can he feel sure that that money will really get out to the NHS trusts and be equitably distributed, so that no areas will feel aggrieved?
  Mr. Dobson: I am not sure that I can deliver on my hon. Friend's last words. It is in the nature of things that some of the health trusts will feel aggrieved—it is almost part of their job to feel aggrieved. However, we will make sure that every penny of that money gets out and is used for patient care, not squandered on bureaucracy as so much has been in the past.
  We are also keeping our election promise to conduct a comprehensive review to assess how to use resources better and root out waste and inefficiency. The previous Government planned to—
  Mr. Ian Bruce: How many bureaucrats will lose their job?
  Mr. Dobson: The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), who was so warmly endorsed by his electorate that he only managed to beat Labour by 77 votes, is apparently the only person in the Chamber who does not think that there is too much bureaucracy in the national health service. We can see why he won by only 77 votes.
  Mr. Bruce: It may well be that those 77 people are about to be sacked by the national health service. The right hon. Gentleman refuses to tell us how many people will have to be sacked. In Dorset, the health service will have to find £1 million to pay for the reductions in bureaucracy. How can he respond to the question asked by his hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) by introducing more bureaucracy to gather more figures when he also says that he is going to cut bureaucracy?
  Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that it will cost £1 million to save on bureaucracy, that is a further reason for his electorate to have reduced his majority in South Dorset to just 77.
  The previous Government planned to increase spending on the NHS in England next year by £775 million. That would have meant a reduction in real terms. Labour promised at the general election that NHS spending would grow in real terms year on year. We are keeping that promise. Next year's total increase of £1,775 million amounts to real-terms growth of 2.35 per cent.—more than the real-terms growth in the last two Tory years put together.
  Nevertheless, next year's settlement is very tough. It will, however, be augmented by the savings that we intend to make by reducing bureaucracy, waste and fraud. I look forward to working with NHS staff to do that and to improve patient care at the same time. That is what NHS staff and patients want. It is what the taxpayer wants and it is the Government's job to help to achieve it.
  Part of the Government's contribution is to ensure that NHS staff have decent, well-equipped hospitals in which to work. The previous Government decided that new

  639
  hospitals should be built using private sector money under their private finance initiative which was first announced in 1992. Under the Tories, all hospital building schemes had to be PFI tested. Little or no advice was issued to trusts, which were allowed to go their own way. Advisers and consultants were recruited as and when the trusts felt like it. No effort was made to establish whether the legal status of the trusts met the needs of private sector partners.
  Tory Ministers trumpeted the success of the PFI. Hospital building schemes were announced, re-announced and announced yet again. The Tories talked a lot and they spent a lot—30 million quid on consultants. But even now—five years after the PFI was launched—not a single PFI-financed hospital has been started. Not a brick has been laid.
  When we took over in May, we were pledged to sort out the mess. That is another election promise which we have kept. The Tories talked about building hospitals; we will actually get them built.
  I asked the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington, to sort out the mess and he has done so. After a great deal of hard work by my hon. Friend personally and by officials in the Department of Health, the NHS Executive, the regions and the trusts, some order has been established. Priorities have been thrashed out and decisions have been taken. As a result, we were able to announce last Thursday a £1.3 billion hospital building programme—the biggest ever programme of new hospital building.
  The programme includes the following 14 hospital projects: Norfolk and Norwich, Dartford and Gravesham, North Durham, South Buckinghamshire, Calderdale, Carlisle, Hereford, Wellhouse, Worcester, Bishop Auckland, South Manchester, South Tees, Swindon and Bromley. We expect building on all 14 new hospitals to begin within the next 18 months. Some will commence as soon as the National Health Service (Private Finance) Bill is enacted.
  Progress will be strictly monitored to ensure that the schemes are delivered to price and on time. I realise that those involved in schemes that lost out in this round will be disappointed, but, as things stood, everyone was losing out. The whole system was in shambles. There were no national priorities and no national criteria. No decisions were taken.
  We have selected the schemes that contribute most to the health needs of their locality and can be expected most rapidly to provide affordable, value-for-money new hospitals. Schemes that have not been given priority in the review will now be considered as part of a national capital investment programme involving public and PFI-funded projects. Some may be given the go ahead by next spring. The PFI will augment the Treasury's capital allocation for the NHS of £1.35 billion in 1998–99 and £1.39 billion for 1999–2000.
  Mr. Michael Jack: I have two simple questions for the Secretary of State. First, can he give the House an assurance that he will publish the details of the health needs criteria that he used in selecting the 14 projects that are to go ahead? Secondly, for the sake of clarity of language, will he confirm that it is not a hospital building
  640
  programme guaranteed to deliver the 14 projects, but a remit to continue negotiations? Is it possible that the negotiations might fail?
  Mr. Dobson: So far as I know, the details that the right hon. Gentleman requested are already in the Library and people in areas affected have been sent those details. If, by some freak of fate, they are not in the Library, they will be placed there. There is nothing secret about them. Secrecy is the last thing we want on this issue.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that we cannot guarantee that all the hospitals will be built. He is right, but I am willing to bet that some of them will be built—
  Mr. Stephen Dorrell: Some of them.
  Mr. Dobson: Yes, some of them will be built. We will not have a period of five years in which none of them will be built. The former Secretary of State is yawping, "Some of them," from the Opposition Front Bench, but he and his predecessor did not get a single hospital built, so it would be more appropriate for him to keep quiet.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: The Secretary of State talks about some projects going ahead, but does he realise that his decisions have been deeply disappointing to those in my constituency who are associated with Papworth hospital? He talks about health service need in the context of local need. Papworth provides not only for local need, but for regional and national need. It is internationally renowned for heart and lung treatment, and the decisions made by the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends have brought to nothing a great deal of work that was put into the preparation of that PFI project.
  Mr. Dobson: Unless my memory is playing tricks on me, one of the main reasons why Papworth was not included in the first round was that the scheme had not made sufficient progress. I cannot recall how many points it was awarded for meeting health service needs, but it scored fairly high. The scheme was held back by the lack of progress that had been made.
  The £2.5 billion programme to start modernising the NHS is not the Budget's only contribution to improving the health of the nation. Nor is that task confined to the NHS. It is a task for the Government and for everyone else. Some factors, such as air pollution and crime, damage everyone's health. Others, such as poor housing, unemployment and low wages, damage the health of people who are worst off. The new Labour Government are determined to tackle the sources of ill health.
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has in hand proposals to reduce air pollution resulting from motor vehicles. That will benefit the health of all of us, as will the commitment of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to reduce crime and disorder.
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is also in charge of our programme to build more homes for people who have nowhere decent to live. It will be financed by the release of funds from the sale of council houses. That will improve people's health. A recent survey in east London showed that improved homes reduced by one third the number of general practitioner

  641
  visits and hospital referrals for the people concerned. In other words, better homes improved health and saved the NHS money. So investing in housing is money well spent.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer spelt out our scheme for finding work for young people and the long-term unemployed. It will be financed by the windfall tax on the utilities. That will improve the health of people who get jobs, because being out of work makes people physically and mentally ill.
  Being out of work increases the likelihood of death and injury from accidents, suicide and cancer. The chances of a middle-aged man dying in the next five years are doubled if he loses his job. Low pay makes people ill. It usually goes with long and unsocial hours. It often leads to a poor diet, stress, and mental, physical and family breakdown. So our manifesto commitment to a national minimum wage will improve the health of the people who will get higher wages. It will improve the health of their families. Therefore, it will be a health measure.
  All those measures will help improve the health of the nation. They will reduce the dreadful inequalities in health that mar our society and blight the lives of millions of families. When we took over, we discovered that the words "inequalities in health" were not used in the Department of Health and the NHS. They had been branded politically incorrect by the last but one Tory Secretary of State—the right hon. Member for South—West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley). The politically correct phrase under the Tory Government was "variations in health".
  Inequalities in health are back on the agenda and the first-ever Minister for Public Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Ms Jowell), has been given the job of reducing those inequalities. It is not just her job, however. I have made it clear to all concerned that identifying—and then reducing—inequalities in health is one of the core functions of the Department of Health and the national health service. It is not an optional extra; it is at the heart of what this Government are about.
  The reason why tackling inequalities in health is at the heart of what we are doing is that inequalities in health are the most profound and far-reaching inequalities of all. Poor people are ill more often and die sooner, and you cannot get more unequal than that. We must tackle those inequalities. I have been warned that that is an ambitious policy, but people have all sorts of political ambitions, and this is mine: I want to be able to say "Vote Labour and live longer". I want to be able to make that promise and make it a truthful promise.
  Some of the most vulnerable people in our society depend not just on the national health service, but on the services provided by local council social services departments. We want the quality of the care that those people receive to be improved. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), is examining the care provided for the elderly and other groups, and is making a series of visits around the country to promote more and better co-operation between health authorities, trusts and local authorities.
  642
  We are determined to bring down the "Berlin wall" that separates NHS and local authority services so that, in every part of the country, the system is moulded to the needs of the patients—the needs of the people—and not the other way around.
  Mr. George Stevenson: I am delighted to hear what my right hon. Friend has said, but, while he is dealing with this particularly important point, may I raise two issues with him?
  The first issue is social services departments' ability to deliver their part of the multi-agency package to which my right hon. Friend rightly referred. That has been affected by a lack of resources. The second issue is the growing problem of disagreement between health authorities and social services departments about who should pay for care, support and treatment. Increasingly, people who need such treatment are falling through the net.
  Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend is right to make those points. Those are two reasons why we are so concerned, and so determined to do something. We are considering concepts such as pooled budgets, but it would be silly of me to pretend that there are easy, simple, quick solutions to the problem. If there were, it would have been solved a long time ago. We are determined to sort it out, however, because it is at the interface between the two providers that many of the most vulnerable people are to be found, and we owe it to them to do better than we have done up to now.
  Mr. Dorrell: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the interface between health and social services is one of the most sensitive issues and one of the most critical to the successful management of the national health service. What decisions have the Government made in regard to increasing the standard spending assessment for social services departments as a consequence of the spending decisions that the Chancellor announced last week? Am I right in believing that the education SSA for next year has been increased, but the social services SSA has not been increased over and above the figure that the Government inherited?
  Mr. Dobson: There was a touch of "All Our Yesterdays" in the former Secretary of State's intervention. I can certainly confirm that, last year, the Government gave the impression that they had found more money for local education authorities, but, while they may have increased the SSA, they did not increase the funds. Consequently, money was moved out of social services into education, following pressure from local people who were under the impression that the Government had given their local council extra money.
  We emphasise that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) pointed out—all our aims depend on more co-operation. We want to promote co-operation at all levels and in every part of the national health service. The internal market introduced by the previous Government set different parts of the health service at one another's throats. A health service manager in my area described it to me a few years ago as "dog eat dog". That must stop: stupid, petty and ridiculous competition must end. Co-operation must be the order of the day from now on, with different units helping each other out, because patients suffer when they do not.

  643
  That is happening already, in that many common-sense people in the health service have been trying to work together, but they have been obstructed by the system and the messages from Tory Ministers. Here is a good example. Last year in Birmingham, the various parts of the NHS got together with the council to make contingency plans to cope with the winter pressures. As a result, they coped well last winter. That approach must be applied right across the NHS.
  At the general election, we promised that we would make sure that the boards of health authorities and trusts would be more representative of the local communities that they serve. Some 900 appointments to trusts are due in November and December this year. The appointments process was set in train before the general election, but I am nevertheless trying to live up to our manifesto commitments, even in the limited time available. The sort of people whom I want to appoint are the sort of people whom I would like to stick up for me and my family and for local services on my local health authority and my local trusts.
  I have opened up the appointments exercise. I have invited local councils to put names forward and invited every Member of Parliament in England with a local trust board vacancy—regardless of party—to do the same. I emphasise, however, that no one will receive special treatment: all the appointments will be made on merit and will be subject to Nolan procedures. I have also made it clear that I expect trust boards to meet in public in future and I propose to change the law to require them to do so.
  Those measures are not window dressing; they are a serious contribution to improving the services that the health service provides. They will increase public involvement, public knowledge and public commitment—and commitment counts for a lot when it comes to providing local services and improving cost-effectiveness.
  Most of the debate on the Budget has been about money. That is only natural, but money is not the only thing that counts in the NHS. The health service certainly needs money. Its staff need decent pay and conditions, and access to modern medicines and up-to-date equipment. They need good data systems and top-quality management. All that is, at least in part, to do with money, but something else that the staff want is not connected with money. Above all else, the staff need to feel that they are treated with the respect that they deserve—respect for their commitment, respect for their professional skills and experience, respect for their dedication. With this Government, they will get the respect that they deserve.
  The changes that we make will be carefully thought out and carefully discussed in advance with the people involved, and they will be tested. Unlike the previous Government, who thought that they knew it all and forced repeated changes on the NHS against the advice of the people who have to do the work, this Government will involve the staff, listen to their ideas and respond to their concerns. We will not always agree with any particular group, but we will listen, because we recognise that the future of the NHS depends on the people who work in it.
  We want to see a genuine national health service, providing top-quality services close to home—top-quality services ranging from the health visitor, local pharmacist, local GP or district nurse to community hospitals, district hospitals and centres providing specialist care, but all part of the same national health service and accessible to all.
  644
  We want them to work together, helping each other to help the patients. That is what we promised in our election manifesto. We also promised, "If you are ill or injured, there will be an NHS there to help. Access to it will be based on need and need alone, not on your ability to pay, who your GP happens to be or where you live." We will keep that promise to safeguard the basic principles of the health service.
  Unlike the Conservative party, we take our election promises seriously. We do not make promises that we cannot keep; we do keep the promises that we make. We promised to raise NHS funding in real terms year on year, and we have. We promised to cut bureaucracy and shift more funds to patient care, and we have. We promised to overcome the problems that plagued the private finance initiative, and we have. We promised to replace the wasteful competition of the internal market, and we have. We promised to give priority to the NHS, and we have.
  That is because we treasure the NHS, which was founded by the Labour party. It has served the people well for 49 years, and it is the most popular institution in our country. That is partly because it works well in practice and partly because it is based on the principle that the best health services should be available to all—the best for all: quality and equality.
  The health service appeals to the British people because it demonstrates the benefits that flow from working together for a common purpose. The NHS is practical and it is also a symbol. It does not merely bind the nation's wounds; it helps to bind our nation together. That is why it is precious, that is why we are keeping our promises and that is why we shall never let the NHS down.
  5.20 pm
  Mr. Stephen Dorrell: It is always a pleasure to be able to take up the remarks of the Secretary of State. I have had the pleasure of speaking opposite him, or shadowing him, for a month or two. He has made a familiar speech this afternoon—it is a good campaigning speech—and I shall respond as I have always responded by saying that commitment to the principle of the national health service and health care on the basis of need rather than the ability to pay is not, as the right hon. Gentleman likes to present it, one that divides the House. In reality, it is a principle that unites every party in the House. The right hon. Gentleman's attempts to portray it as a principle that divides one party from the other sound rather stale in the immediate post-election period.
  It is an especial pleasure this afternoon to hear the Secretary of State announcing the list of front-runner private finance initiative projects. I think that I could have recited the list of 14 such projects almost from memory. It is an extremely familiar list. I am pleased that the Government are following the policy through. The Secretary of State is right to say that it represents the best way of delivering modernised capital stock for the health service.
  The Secretary of State did not explain, however, why he feels that it is necessary in the context of the PFI to reintroduce the capital rationing process that the PFI was designed to abolish.
  The right hon. Gentleman did not succeed in his effort to explain to the House how the Government's commitment to deliver their election pledges can be

  645
  squared with the fact that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer went round the country in advance of the general election saying clearly:
  "We have no plans to increase tax at all."
  Those are the words of the Prime Minister, yet we are debating a Budget the effect of which is to increase taxes on pensioners and business and to introduce major disincentives to the process of investment and wealth creation.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: That was not said.
  Mr. Dorrell: It is no good the hon. Gentleman saying that his right hon. Friend did not say that. It was said in Birmingham and reported by The Financial Times on 21 September. Let the Prime Minister deny it. On 21 September, he said:
  "We have no plans to increase tax at all."
  If the hon. Gentleman does not like that, he should consult the video recording of the GMTV programme of 8 April, during which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
  "We have got no public spending commitments that require extra taxes."
  The Labour party made it part of its clear purpose ahead of the general election to allay the fears that a Labour Government mean more taxes. However, less than three months after election day, the Chancellor presented precisely the Budget to raise taxes that we said to the country that he would introduce.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sick of hearing Opposition spokesmen—former Secretaries of State—making up stories from the Opposition Dispatch Box about Labour positions before the recent general election. Before the right hon. Gentleman starts quoting, he should ascertain what was really said. If he does so, he will find the truth.
  Mr. Dorrell: I am quoting what the Chancellor said on live television. I shall repeat his words:
  "We have got no public spending commitments that require extra taxes."
  If that is what the right hon. Gentleman said, why is he busy raising taxes? What is the purpose of the taxes if it is not to finance public expenditure? I thought that the purpose of increasing taxes was to pay for public services.
  All right hon. and hon. Members are familiar with Iain Macleod's dictum. He said that if a Budget is well received on Budget day, within three months it will turn to dust. Under new Labour, we have an improvement on that principle; we no longer have to wait for three months. The Budget, which was undoubtedly well received on Budget day, has turned to dust less than a week after it was delivered.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer came to the Government Dispatch Box on Wednesday—
  Mr. David Hanson: Where is the evidence to support the right hon. Gentleman's assertions?
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman must contain himself. Let me assure him that there is plenty of evidence.
  646
  When the Chancellor stood at the Government Dispatch Box last week he carried with him a weight of great expectations. It is true that for 24 or 48 hours after the event he seemed to have pulled it off. The Prime Minister sat beside him and patted him on the back when he sat down. I could not lip-read and I could not hear what the Prime Minister said. He might have said, however, that the Chancellor's position was unassailable. Chancellors of the Exchequer need to be careful of slaps on the back from their neighbours.
  The illusion that it will last for a long time was the one that the Chancellor of the Exchequer sought to create last Wednesday. On Thursday, that illusion was still with us. The Secretary of State for Employment and Education was positively gushing. He said:
  "Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced a programme that has received almost overwhelming applause and the unified commitment of the British people. He presented the most popular Budget in decades, and he did so in a manner that showed considerable aplomb."—[Official Report, 3 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 436.]
  Before long, my right hon. and hon. Friends will be hearing the Foreign Secretary saying from the Government Dispatch Box how his old friend, Gordon, has delivered a major success. Unlikely alliances will be forming on the basis of the Budget.
  It was all heady stuff, but it was far too good to last. By the weekend, reality broke through on sober reflection. It is now clear by how wide a margin the Chancellor failed to meet the objective that he set himself. The Chancellor set out his four objectives clearly at the beginning of his speech. He said that he wanted to create stability, to promote investment, to promote employment and to provide for improved public services. Those objectives are, of course, unobjectionable. The charge against the Chancellor is that he failed to deliver on all of those objectives.
  Let us take, first, the right hon. Gentleman's commitment to stability. When he was discussing stability, he was, in truth, hopelessly confused. He said at various stages that he was concerned about the strength of consumer demand. He expressed concern about the buoyancy of house prices. He was concerned about the effect of a strong pound on exports. Similarly, he was concerned about the effect of high interest rates on the economy as a whole. He implied in his introductory rubric that he would take corrective action to deal with all the concerns that he expressed. It is now widely recognised that he did not address any of the issues at all.
  Mr. Russell Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman way?
  Mr. Dorrell: I shall give way in a moment.
  In reality, he dodged all the four issues. He imposed £6 billion of extra tax on the economy, but over three quarters of that extra tax burden will be paid not by consumers or by those who might be responsible for bidding up house prices, but by precisely the companies that the Chancellor says that he wants to encourage. The right hon. Gentleman must be the first man in history to believe that we promote investment, employment and wealth creation by imposing extra taxes on business.
  Furthermore, it is recognised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the case in his Budget for an increase in interest rates, and that he understood that, unless other

  647
  action is taken, that will lead inevitably to a further increase in the strength of the pound. He described the problems as he saw them; he did nothing about them. He levied tax where he thought that he could get away with it, without addressing any of the issues that he set out in his Budget.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Dorrell: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) wanted to intervene.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Dorrell: Very well—I accept that the hon. Gentleman is his hon. Friend's agent.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Yes, we are friends. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a simple question. Does he think that the economy has been overheating?
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman will have to learn that, when Ministers come to the Dispatch Box and tell us that they are concerned about an overheating economy, it is for them to tell the House what they think ought to be done about it.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer set out a series of challenges at the beginning of his speech. Everyone who has analysed his speech has reached the same conclusion: the Chancellor failed to answer the questions that he asked at the beginning of his speech. That was not the only difficult issue that the Chancellor avoided—
  Mr. Giles Radice rose—
  Mr. Dorrell: No, I am not giving way. The hon. Gentleman will be able to intervene later in my speech, if he chooses to do so.
  Speaking about stability, the Chancellor of the Exchequer went on to lay considerable stress on the need to ensure that we have strong public finances. He is right to say that strong public finances are essential to the creation of stable economic conditions. That is beyond dispute. However, the Budget was surprisingly coy about the implications of the Chancellor's objectives in terms of public finance. He set out detailed proposals on taxation, raising roughly an extra £6 billion a year.
  The Red Book set out clearly the Government's expectation that inflation will run faster than was thought likely at the time that the Red Book was published last November. The Red Book account of revenues took account of that inflation, but it has become crystal clear over the weekend that no change was made in the expectations and the money provided for expenditure in the Red Book. The Liberal party draws the conclusion that there is a £5 billion hole. I assume that the Liberals will argue that the implication is that we need more taxation to support more expenditure.
  I make it clear that I think the Government are right to resist upward movement in the cash planning totals in the Red Book, but they are not right to pretend that one can deliver cash totals against rising inflation without making choices about reducing service.
  648
  The Government expect to impose 1.5 per cent. real terms cuts in public expenditure in order to make their sums add up. The Chancellor uttered not a word about 1.5 per cent. real terms cuts, which is implicit in all the Red Book arithmetic.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Given that the spending round was described by the former Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), as eye-wateringly tight, if it is now £5 billion tighter and the right hon. Gentleman is not in favour of finding extra money, will he tell us what cuts he would make and in which Departments? That is what the Government will have to tell us.
  Mr. Dorrell: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, the Government—not the Opposition—blew the reserve by making commitments on health and education, without working through the implications of those decisions for other spending programmes in the public spending total. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was clear about the matter last week—I heard his speech. He said that, if he had been Chancellor, he would have sent the Chief Secretary round the Departments looking for savings in order to be able to live within the spending totals.
  What happened under this Government was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced all the easy bits—all the extra money for health and education. I do not know what the Chief Secretary is doing, but apparently there is not to be a public expenditure review this year, so the difficult questions are not being asked. We are being left in the dark about where the 1.5 per cent. spending cuts—which will be necessary to allow the Government to live within their spending totals—will be imposed.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. Friend is being unkind to the Chancellor. The Chancellor has done an extraordinarily good job of persuading the Secretary of State for Health, for example, that on the reduced Budget about which we have just heard he will pay for the minimum wage that has been promised, the increased pensions contributions that will have to be paid, the medical insurance that many elderly people will no longer be able to afford because the tax relief is being taken away, and the extra inflation. Surely the Chancellor has fooled somebody, but I suppose that that was not too difficult.
  Mr. Dorrell: The short answer as to whom the Chancellor has fooled is all the hon. Members who were waving their Order Papers at the end of the Budget speech. I do not believe that he has fooled the Secretary of State for Health, who will have received expert advice about the effect of the Budget settlement for him. There has been a little extra money for the national health service, which is welcome.
  The right hon. Gentleman made it clear to me in answer to an intervention earlier this afternoon that there is no extra money—not a penny—for the social service departments in local authorities. I shall return to that theme, which is of direct relevance to the Secretary of State for Health, who is the sponsoring Minister of social service departments. The delivery of his health objectives and the education objectives of the Secretary of State for

  649
  Education and Employment depend on properly financed social service departments and the ability of those departments to deliver their objectives.
  Mr. Townend: Is it not true that, if we were in government, there would be more resources because we would be raising a lot more money from privatisation receipts?
  Mr. Dorrell: That is certainly true. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that one of the disappearing acts in the Red Book is that whereas we had made it clear that we intended to continue with the privatisation programme, the Government have written that sum out of the Red Book, which means that they will have to find an extra spending sum.
  To assess the Budget properly, we must understand what the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is up to. We must understand what the public spending policy means in terms of the services that the Chief Secretary will cut. Until we know the answer to that question, all the Order Paper waving from the Government Benches is a trifle previous.
  Let us look at what the Chancellor has done about his second objective—
  Mr. Radice rose—
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman cannot have heard what the second objective is. I have not uttered the word yet. I shall gladly give way when I have deployed my argument on the Chancellor's second objective.
  Mr. Radice rose—
  Mr. Dorrell: I know what the hon. Gentleman wants to ask me. I have already dealt with that. Other hon. Members on both sides want to speak in the debate, and they do not want me to spend the whole of my speech discussing that subject.
  The second objective that the Chancellor set himself was to promote investment in the British economy. At that point, the Chancellor of the Exchequer simply became a joke. How do we take seriously a Chancellor who says that he wants to promote investment and, in the next breath, goes on to introduce a windfall tax on some of the biggest investing companies in the British economy? The Government will claim that that is in the manifesto. The mere fact that it is in the manifesto does not mean that it makes sense or that the policy is consistent with the Chancellor's stated objective.
  Elsewhere in his Budget, the Chancellor says that other companies distribute too much of their resource through dividends—too much money leaves those companies. However, when we are dealing with the utilities—the companies that invest in water, gas and electricity—somehow we are able to spirit £5 billion out of them and make no difference to investment in the British economy.
  In the course of the Budget speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer let slip a sentence that must be a candidate for the most implausible statement ever to be included in a Budget speech. That is a high burden of proof, I confess.
  650
  I shall read out the sentence and invite the House to express an opinion on whether I am justified. The Chancellor said:
  "After consulting the regulators, it is my judgment that the tax can be paid without any impact on prices, investment, or the quality of service to customers; or, in my view, on employment."
  So £5 billion is just lying around: it can be spirited away from those companies and it will make no difference. Whom does the Chancellor think that he is kidding? The truth is that the windfall tax is one of several steps in the Budget that will undermine investment in the British economy, our future competitiveness and job creation.
  Mr. Dobson rose—
  Mr. Dorrell: Has the Secretary of State received his briefing? He need not be in any hurry.
  Mr. Dobson: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, as the water industry has made profits of £10.5 billion since privatisation, paid £3.5 billion in dividends and has not paid a penny piece in mainstream corporation tax, it might have a bob or two to contribute to the windfall tax? If the windfall tax is so damaging to the utilities, why have their share prices not crashed since Wednesday's Budget?
  Mr. Dorrell: The answer to the Secretary of State's second question is that investors are capable of reading newspapers. In answer to his first question, I repeat this quite extraordinary proposition: the Chancellor thinks that £5 billion can be spirited out of those companies and it will make no difference to prices, investment, service to customers or employment. Where does the Chancellor think that the money will come from? It is wholly implausible, and the Chancellor discredits his office by allowing such sentences to be written into his Budget speech.
  That is not the only attack on investment in the Budget. The Chancellor found his other major source of revenue by attacking pension funds. It is easy to remember the Budget's revenue raising: £5 billion from the utilities and another £5 billion from the pension funds. When the Chancellor referred to the pension funds and to the effect of his changes on dividend policy, he was once again hopelessly muddled. He said:
  "Many pension funds are in substantial surplus and at present many companies are enjoying pension holidays, so this is the right time to undertake a long-needed reform."—[Official Report, 2 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 306–14.]
  Reform, my foot: the Chancellor simply saw a ready target. He saw an easy way of raising £5 billion from what he thought were pension funds in surplus. I shall return to that point. The truth is that this is not a tax strategy. We heard lots of rhetoric about the effect of dividends on investment flow, but that has nothing to do with it. Ferdinand Mount, writing in The Sunday Times, got it right when he said:
  "This is the opportunism of the mediaeval monarch who tours his domain looking for the fattest peasants to pillage."
  The peasants that the Chancellor found to pillage were Britain's pensioners. The Government should be ashamed of that decision.
  The Chancellor not only pillaged pensioners, but argued that the employer-provided pension funds are in surplus. In so doing, he betrays his lack of understanding

  651
  of the pensions sector. What will the Chancellor say to the 6 million pension fund investors who are in not defined benefit schemes but defined contribution schemes? Those people paid the contributions—not their employers—and the Chancellor's measure will directly reduce their pensions in retirement. What does the Chancellor have to say to those people? Where is the surplus for them? They did not merit a mention in the Budget speech.
  The Chancellor takes an extraordinarily partial view of the way in which the pensions market operates. He seems to be completely oblivious to the effect of his £5 billion raid on the pensions sector. Just as he believes that he can spirit £5 billion from the utilities, he believes that he can spirit £5 billion from the pension funds and it will not matter because they are all in surplus. What kind of analysis is that?
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alistair Darling): Did the right hon. Gentleman oppose the measure proposed by his then right hon. Friend, Norman Lamont, in 1993 to reduce advance corporation tax from 20 to 15 per cent?
  Mr. Dorrell: My former colleague did not do that—the Chief Secretary should get his details right. He reduced ACT from 25 to 20 per cent. because we had a stated policy of reducing the basic rate of tax to 20 per cent.—and we were well on the way to delivering that. The Chief Secretary should read his brief. I am sure that he will make more telling interventions when they are rehearsed.
  The Government's pensions policy can have only one of two effects: either it will reduce the value of pensions paid to pensioners, and therefore the Chancellor is directly raiding the living standards of Britain's pensioners, present and future; or it will more likely increase the cost of employer-provided pensions. The latter is the slightly better outcome from the pensioners' point of view. However, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is responsible for promoting employment. We are supposed to believe that the Chancellor has introduced a Budget for employment. How does he believe that he will promote employment by raising pension contributions and, therefore, raising the cost of employing people?
  Mr. Radice rose—
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman's timing is not good as I am about to move on to my third point. He has missed his opportunity: I have finished my second point and he will have to wait until I begin my third point.
  The Chancellor's third objective is to boost employment. How does he plan to achieve that aim in this Budget? Let us look at the Government's record on boosting employment. What has Labour done to create jobs in Britain since its election? The first thing the Government did was sign the social chapter. What will that do? It will raise costs and reduce the number of jobs.
  Mr. Hanson: How?
  Mr. Dorrell: Paternity leave is not a cost-free activity. That is how it will raise costs. Secondly, the Government
  652
  made a commitment to introducing a minimum wage. Presumably, even the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) can understand that a minimum wage will either have no effect at all, or raise the cost of employing people and therefore reduce the number of jobs in the economy. The third element of the Government's three-legged strategy for boosting employment was the Chancellor's announcement last week that he will raise £5 billion from pension funds, which can only increase the cost of employing people.
  Against that background, we are asked to judge the benefits of the welfare-to-work proposals in the Chancellor's Budget speech. The truth is that his welfare-to-work proposals are a pale attempt to temper the damage that will be done by the Government's other policies. This country's recent record on youth unemployment stands comparison with that of any other European country. In the past four years, the number of unemployed aged between 18 and 25 has halved. It has fallen from just over 800,000 to just tinder 400,000—a reduction in youth unemployment of 100,000 every year for four years. The number of 18 to 25-year-olds unemployed for more than six months has fallen from 417,000 to 178,000.
  I welcome the fact that the Government have focused their attention on the need to ensure that youth unemployment in Britain continues on the downward trend that the previous Government established. I also welcome the fact that the Government regard that as a serious and important policy objective. In the Budget, the Government committed £3.5 billion of public expenditure to enhancing that downward trend of youth unemployment. I look forward to seeing whether their public spending programme achieves a greater reduction than 100,000 a year in the next four years: they cannot do so after that, because they will have run out of unemployed people in five years. We shall see whether that £3.5 billion enhances the rate of job creation for young people, or whether it is money being burnt. That money may be burnt in an attempt to deliver a desirable objective, but it will be wholly ineffective.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer is clearly unconvinced by the logic of his own argument. In the Budget forecasts, he used the estimates of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, the previous Chancellor, for the analysis of the black hole that he asked us to believe in. The Chancellor made it clear that he does not believe that unemployment will continue to fall, because he reinstated the traditional basis of forecasting, which is flat unemployment. He clearly does not believe that unemployment will fall faster as a result of the welfare-to-work proposals.
  We then come to the Chancellor's fourth objective.
  Mr. Radice: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman's timing is perfect. I shall give way to him before I conclude my remarks if he finds a better point at which to intervene.
  The final aspect of the Chancellor's objectives was his intention to deliver improved public services. In particular, we were asked to consider the extra money provided in the Budget for education and health. The Prime Minister has repeatedly said that the welfare-to-work package will release money and thus

  653
  allow extra spending on education. That proposal does not stand up, given the evidence of any welfare-to-work package anywhere in the world. The Chancellor has clearly seen that evidence, because he recognises the need to provide extra money for the welfare-to-work programme and for education. For him, there is no question of a trade-off: he has provided more for schools and more for hospitals.
  That proposal was the only element of last week's Budget that every Labour Member clearly understood: there was a lot of waving of Order Papers and a throaty roar. It was clear and simple: more money for public services. Labour Members—indeed, many of my hon. Friends—welcomed the fact that more money was being made available to provide better schools and better hospitals. It is not quite as simple as that. The Chief Secretary will be able to pay for that within the spending total only if he imposes a 1.5 per cent. spending cut on everything else.
  In the debate last week, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and I discussed the extent to which the money for education could be guaranteed for schools. That exchange showed how flimsy the Chancellor's construct is, even on the subject of extra spending on education. My hon. Friend asked the Secretary of State whether she had correctly understood that
  "the money will not be ring-fenced to ensure that it goes to the education budget: instead, it will be allocated to the authority's general budget and it will be up to councillors to determine whether it goes to schools."
  The Secretary of State replied:
  "I am delighted that I have been so clear that the hon. Lady has got it".—[Official Report, 3 July 1997; Vol. 297, c.439.]
  So there we are. There is no extra money for schools in the Budget. There is an extra allocation for standard spending on education and extra money for authorities, but the authorities are completely free to choose how they spend it.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is how the previous Government used to do it.
  Mr. Dorrell: I am relying on my experience. The purpose of my intervention last week was to discover whether the Government intend to ensure that this money actually gets to schools, or whether they are relying on a system that I know fairly well, as the hon. Gentleman implied. The truth is that the Government are putting the money into local authorities and hoping that some of it will get through to schools. I am sure that some of it will, but I am certain that £835 million of it will not.
  The Secretary of State for Health must be hoping that the education committees will not get all of the money that is going to county councils; otherwise it would be bad news for the national health service. It would mean that social service departments would not be able to deal with the increasing demands placed on them. It would also mean that no account has been taken of the extra demands of the police and fire services and the other elements of local authority services.
  654
  The headline increases in health and education are welcome. The 2.25 per cent. increase for health is welcome, and if we keep going long enough, we may get the figure up to the 3 per cent. that we scored over 18 years. The yardstick is a 3 per cent. real-terms average. Furthermore, that is the expectation in the national health service, as the Secretary of State well knows. A real-terms growth of 3 per cent. was achieved between 1979 and 1997. We look forward to the words of support for the national health service that Ministers like to use being backed up by action that reflects our record during 18 years in office.
  Mr. Dobson: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is claiming credit for everything in the past 18 years, but for the three years during which he was Secretary of State for Health, the real-terms increases were 0.5 per cent. this year, 1.3 per cent. the previous year and 1.8 per cent. the year before that, so he should not gib at an increase of 2.35 per cent.
  Mr. Dorrell: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the real-terms increase that I allocated to current spending in the national health service in the public expenditure survey last November was 3 per cent.
  I have dealt with only two of the spending programmes. The Chief Secretary now has no reserve that he can allocate ahead of the beginning of the next financial year, which is still nine months away. He has nine months before the Department of Social Security's estimate of changes comes in—if the officials have not told him that yet, they very soon will. There is nothing for higher and further education in the spending programmes. The university and further education sectors will be disappointed by the Budget. Moreover, the 1.5 per cent. cut that the axeman from the Treasury is about to impose on the rest of the public spending total is still to come.
  The Budget was a con trick.
  Mr. Radice: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman almost missed his chance.
  Mr. Radice: The right hon. Gentleman was in power nine weeks ago. Will he answer a simple question: does he think that the economy is now overheating?
  Mr. Dorrell: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe pointed out in his speech last week, in November when he introduced a Budget that cut taxes, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer went through the Lobby making it clear that that was right. The Chancellor must explain why nine months ago he reached the conclusion that tax reductions were possible, and in his Budget last Wednesday he reached the conclusion that tax increases were essential. I have not heard the Chancellor deploy that argument.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have had three interventions on

  655
  the same question. It requires a direct answer, but the right hon. Gentleman refuses to reply. Can you help us? He refuses to answer a simple question.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): That is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Dorrell rose—
  Mr. John Swinney: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dorrell indicated assent.
  Mr. Swinney: The right hon. Gentleman commented on Labour Members trooping through the Lobby for tax cuts in November. Does he think that, if the Conservatives had come to power, a Conservative Chancellor might just have raised taxes in this post-election Budget?
  Mr. Dorrell: This is a Labour Budget. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, the previous Chancellor, who is in a much better position to answer that question than I am, made it clear in his speech last week that he has already introduced a Budget for this financial year and did not intend to introduce another one. The Government must explain why we need a second Budget. As those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have rather longer memories will remember, having extra Budgets is probably one of the things that we shall have to get used to. Under the previous Labour Government, I think that there used to be three Budgets a year. So far, we are on two a year. We shall see how many we have before this Parliament has run its course.
  The Budget was a con trick. It talked of stability and ushered in an era of higher interest rates, higher public spending and higher taxes. It talked of investment, and launched an attack on the utilities, an attack on pension funds and an attack on international companies, about which I have not had time to talk. It talked of promoting employment, and increased the costs of employing people. It launched a formula for welfare to work which, although desirable in its objectives, has not been shown to work elsewhere in the world. It talked of improving public services, but in the end relied on mirrors to deliver that.
  The Budget was indisputably well received on Budget day, but already it has fallen victim to Macleod's law. It is a Budget for unemployment, for higher interest rates and for higher taxes. It is a Budget for failure.
  6 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The change in the Conservative party since it has gone from being in government to being in opposition is extraordinary. There was an inherent tension in what the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) said. He acknowledged that there was a shortfall in funding in the Budget—the outgoing Chancellor's Budget was absolutely fine, although eye-wateringly tight—and that the Conservatives would be looking for spending cuts but would not need a Budget to make them. He could not tell us what such cuts would be—not surprisingly since, in the present circumstances, I imagine that the Conservatives want that problem to be placed elsewhere. He then complained that social services were seriously underfunded. The
  656
  Conservative party will have to do some thinking and decide which side of the argument it wants to be on. Is it in favour of spending cuts or more spending or improving services and recognising that the money will have to come from somewhere?
  I agree with the right hon. Member for Charnwood that the Government have some explaining to do. They have, in reality, severely cut forecast public spending without any explanation of its implications across Departments. The Liberal Democrats expect them to explain themselves more fully.
  It is true that a Budget has rarely won so much praise on the day as that delivered by the Chancellor on Wednesday. There was not just the waving of Order Papers, but sycophantic and almost eulogistic leader columns in the press the following day, saying how wonderful it all was. But never has it taken such a short time for that initial acclaim to turn to criticism and discredit.
  The Budget was said to deliver more for public services—that got the loudest cheer—but, as was revealed over the weekend, it cut previous spending plans by more than £5 billion in real terms. In one year, that is a major reduction. There will be more money for areas such as education only if there is less money for other services such as the police and social services—a point made more than once by the right hon. Member for Charnwood. Liberal Democrat Members expect the Chancellor to come back to the House this week to explain that cut and where it will fall, Department by Department, and we shall not let up until we get that explanation.
  It was claimed that the Budget would rebalance the economy and avoid the need for higher interest rates and a higher pound. Although, in time, the extra taxes will filter through to ordinary taxpayers, they fall largely on business income and on savers. Within hours of the Budget, therefore, sterling was soaring towards an exchange rate of DM3. The Bank of England is also expected to put up interest rates; in my view, that is very likely to happen this week.
  The Budget was supposed to be environmentally friendly and to lower carbon dioxide emissions, but experts say that it will do the opposite. It was supposed to boost business investment, but the Institute of Fiscal Studies has said that it will do no such thing. It was delivered by a party which claims to be for lower taxes—at least that was its claim at the previous Budget—yet it contained an unprecedented and unforecast tax hike. Perhaps the Budget's hidden objective was to be fair—to do most for those who have the least—but, again, that is not so, because in terms of percentage of income it leaves the poorest 10 per cent. of the population the worst off.
  Regrettably, therefore, the Budget is not one which I can welcome; it is one which I fear has some inherent criticisms. It promised a great deal but delivered very little. I welcome the good intentions in the Budget, which I hope will bear fruit as this Parliament progresses—the promise of more measures on the environment and the commitment to more pre-Budget consultation. If such consultation materialises, it will be welcome and we shall certainly play our part in it. The intention to look at tax and benefit reform is overdue and needed, and it requires all-party involvement. All of that is welcome, but action now to deal with the crises facing us today would have been more welcome.

  657
  I will consider the main parts of the Budget in turn. Today's newspapers confirm that the Budget contained a huge hidden cut of about £5.3 billion in public spending for next year. As yet, no Labour or Government source has been able to dent that contention, although one source claimed that the Liberal Democrats who identified the cut were "economically illiterate". Such a statement has not been explained or substantiated, and the maker of it will have to eat his words. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who is replying to the debate, will need to explain not only what the Liberal Democrats have put on the table—how the spending totals, which have been squeezed by a further £5.3 billion, will be delivered and where the cuts will fall—but how the House of Commons Library, the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Goldman Sachs are all "economically illiterate", since they have all confirmed exactly what we have stated.
  The House of Commons Library, in response to my question, confirmed to me in a briefing on the Budget that
  "because of the higher actual and forecast rates of inflation…real expenditure in 1998–99 will be some £5¼ billion lower."
  The Chancellor's first Budget therefore hid its most important effect: a massive £5.3 billion cut in real public spending for next year, compared with a forecast made only seven months ago in the Budget of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). That is the reality. Never before has such a large real cut in public spending attracted so little attention when first announced.
  The Chancellor hid the cut in public spending on Budget day and hoped that it would not be noticed. He made—and has made—no announcement about how Departments were to achieve such savings, which services were to be axed and which Labour manifesto promises were to be broken as a consequence. If there is no relaxation, the effects in practice will be devastating. That must now be dawning on Departments, if it did not do so last week.
  The only mention of such a development is tucked away on page 102 of the Red Book, which notes in passing:
  "In real terms, Control Total expenditure is lower than projected at the time of the last Budget, due to the higher forecast for the GDP deflator."
  That is the bombshell in the middle of the Budget.
  On the very first page of the Red Book, the bit to which the Government expect everyone to turn, the boast is made that the Budget will be
  "providing high quality public services
  —within unchanged Control Total for 1998–99".
  Those two statements—between the covers of the same book—are irreconcilable.
  The real spending cut was caused by the significant upward revision of the forecast for inflation. I should say in passing that I have already expressed concern that the Chancellor has departed from his manifesto pledge in redefining his inflation target in more relaxed terms than those in which it was expressed in the manifesto. The GDP deflator—the measure of inflation used to adjust Government spending—was revised upwards this year and next from 2 to 2.75 per cent. The Chancellor has not simply ignored the effect of that. He took into account the higher rate of inflation by adjusting upwards his forecast
  658
  for the amount of money that he will get from tax revenues, so he recognised that adjusting the inflation forecast would boost the revenues coming into the Exchequer's coffers. Amazingly, however, he made no compensating adjustment to his spending totals to protect them from higher inflation: he is just banking the extra money to help to reduce his borrowing figures.
  The two years of higher inflation will mean that all the previous spending allocations for 1998–99 are worth 1½ per cent. less in real terms, so it could be said that the Budget contains two windfall taxes—one on the utilities and one an inflation windfall from public spending—and they are almost exactly equal in value.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he disagrees with the readjustment upwards of the expected rate of inflation, or GDP deflator, from 2 to 2.75 per cent.? Or does he accept it as an accurate reflection of what has happened to pressures in the economy, which have pushed inflation up through the demutualisation disaster and the boom in financial services within the M25 area?
  Mr. Bruce: Whether I accept it is beside the point: it is what the Chancellor has determined is at the heart of his Budget. The former Treasury Select Committee, of which I was a member, expressed some scepticism about the previous Government's forecasts, but the commentators said that a judgment could be made. The current Chancellor has made a revised judgment and has determined that inflationary pressures are greater, but he has not made any compensating provision to help the public services and the spending Departments to cover that. We are entitled to an explanation, especially as the Government are pursuing progress on the Finance Bill with indecent haste.
  The extra moneys announced in the Budget for the NHS and education, about which the Secretary of State for Health boasted, are largely fictional as they merely offset the effects of higher inflation.
  Mr. Darling: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the health budget will increase in real terms by 2.24 per cent. next year and the schools budget will increase by 2.7 per cent? That is after applying the GDP deflator.
  Mr. Bruce: I accept that there is a real increase, but it is nothing like what the Government have claimed. The Chief Secretary's point ignores the fact that no compensating increase has been given this year, which means that the Departments will have to absorb that deflator in full. If the two are added together, we are talking about a standstill Budget and no significant investment in either Department. The Government have not addressed that factor.
  When the Secretary of State for Health was trying to dismiss my intervention earlier, he missed the point that the Liberal Democrat manifesto commitment and our alternative Budget would provide substantial extra investment in health and education in the current financial year. We explained how that would be delivered, but the Government have failed to provide a single penny of that. The situation will deteriorate even before we reach next year.
  The Chancellor has also reduced the level of the contingency reserve to only £2.8 billion for next year. Given the inherited contingency reserve, he will have less

  659
  ability to accommodate the Budget pressures. In the Goldman Sachs Budget review of 2 July, David Walton, a colleague of Gavyn Davies who edits the review, noted:
  "The Budget plans imply a sharp fall in the real level of public spending … this is considerably tougher than Ken Clarke intended … The Chancellor did not mention what services he intended to cut in the fanatical pursuit of these spending totals. The chances of achieving these plans are close to zero."
  On Budget day, the Chancellor boasted:
  "I have decided to allocate … to the NHS for 1998–99 a sum of £1.2 billion. This does more than meet our commitment to the people of this country".—[Official Report, 2 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 315.]
  However, as I have already said, no additional funding has been provided for the current year, despite an existing £350 million NHS deficit. If that is taken into account, the higher inflation this year will cut real spending in the NHS by between £300 million and £350 million. Labour Members who cheered the Budget a week ago will not cheer when they see the consequences for their local health authorities this winter.
  For the following year, the extra £1.2 billion is substantially wiped out by the higher inflation. The Library has said that
  "taking into account the extra £1.2 billion and higher inflation, the net increase is some £0.41 billion"—
  at current prices. I accept that that is extra money, but it is about a third of what the Chancellor claimed and it will follow a cut this year. That will mean a serious, continuing squeeze on the health service and represents no bonanza.
  A further concern must be that £200 million of the extra health money has to go through the Scottish Office, the Welsh Office and the Northern Ireland Office. Those Departments will be able to pass the money on only if they can squeeze other areas to cover for the loss through inflation. That is the same problem that local authorities will have with the education vote.
  The Chancellor boasted in the Budget of £1 billion extra in 1998–99 for education and extra money for capital spending in schools—£83 million in 1997–98 and £250 million in 1998–99. After inflation, that amounts to a cut of £200 million in real education spending for 1997–98. In 1998–99, there will be no more money for further and higher education. After inflation, the extra £1¼ billion will be worth around £600 million in real terms. That is a real increase, but it is much less than the Government have claimed.
  If local authorities are in difficulties, they will be unable to pass all the money to education. They will lose £1.2 billion from their real spending plans because the higher inflation will affect local authorities just as much as it will affect Government Departments. Local authorities will also have to pay more to top up their pension funds following the Government's change to the taxation of dividends. It is estimated that the change could cost local authorities up to £300 million per year. The Chancellor was not convincing when he tried to dismiss that criticism as a Conservative plot simply because the local authority being interviewed at the time was Conservative controlled. Every local authority in the country—under Labour, Liberal Democrat, Conservative, Scottish National party or no overall control—will have to find the extra money. That is the reality.
  Local authorities will receive around £1.2 billion extra for education next year and simultaneously lose exactly that amount in higher inflation. If they want to deliver
  660
  more money for education, they will have to cut other budgets. That is against the background of an already planned 1 per cent. real cut in local authority funding next year, which the Government do not intend to change, and of additional pressures in areas such as school rolls and social services. That is the dilemma that all the public services will face.
  The Chancellor claimed in his Budget speech:
  "My goal … is to ease inflationary pressures without damage to industrial and exporting prospects … In this way we can moderate the upward pressure on interest rates and on the exchange rate as well as further our objective of sustainable public finances."—[Official Report, 2 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 305.]
  But the Budget failed in its primary task of rebalancing the economy away from excess consumer demand to prevent higher interest rates and a higher pound. Of the £6 billion of new taxes, only £1 billion to £1.5 billion fell on the consumer, which will have only a marginal impact on consumer spending in a year in which consumers will receive £37 billion in windfalls of various sorts.
  Mr. Radice: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that there should have been a £6 billion tax increase directly on the consumer?
  Mr. Bruce: If the Chancellor was arguing that the taxation increase in the Budget was justified as a means of putting a squeeze on consumer spending, that is where he should have put the taxes. He tried to justify the increase as a tax on the corporate sector, which is inconsistent. My point is that he did not convince the markets, which is why interest rates are likely to rise this week.
  Mr. Swinney: Has the hon. Gentleman read the comments of the chief economist of the Royal Bank of Scotland, which suggest that if monetary policy was directed towards Scottish requirements, interest rates would not be increasing as they are likely to do in the next few weeks?
  Mr. Bruce: That is a matter of opinion. The Liberal Democrat proposals for the reform of the Bank of England—so that it becomes a United Kingdom reserve bank—include the proposal that it should have a policy body that is geographically representative of the entire United Kingdom and is not determined by factors centred on the south of England factors. That would at least ensure that the broad economy was taken into account.
  In other areas where the Chancellor made claims, too, his Budget does not deliver. For instance, it will not provide the environmental improvements boasted of by the Government. It will make no contribution towards reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. Indeed, it is likely to lead to an increase in emissions as a result of the cut in fuel prices. Despite the rhetoric, the Budget sends the wrong signals by reducing the price of using energy instead of reducing the price of saving energy.
  The energy efficiency measures in the Budget are weak and vague. The Budget states:
  "Options for helping people on low incomes to insulate their homes and save energy are to be examined."
  I am to meet a representative of the National Energy Efficiency Authority tomorrow and I hope to be able to tell him that he will get more money.

  661
  The increase in road fuel duty—a revenue-raising measure—is disguised as an environmental tax, but it does not involve a tax switch from good to bad. The golden rule of the Liberal Democrats in this matter is that any increase in revenue from environmental taxes should be given back in tax cuts elsewhere to show that it is a tax-switching measure and not just another wheeze for taking more money out of the consumer's pocket.
  We needed a commitment to long-term environmental improvements, but the Budget moves in the opposite direction. It is not the response to the challenge of global warming for which we might have hoped. I hope that the Government will think again about this. They have a full Parliament in which to address the issue and they will certainly get a constructive contribution from the Liberal Democrats.
  I say this with regret, but the Budget betrays the spirit, if not the letter, of Labour's promises on taxation. One year after Norman Lamont's tax-raising Budget of March 1993—a year after the general election, not a mere six weeks—the present Chancellor said:
  "If he cannot point out the section of the election manifesto which warned of increased tax rises for the ordinary voter … he should be ashamed of himself."—[Official Report, 17 March, 1993; Vol. 221, C. 291.]
  Labour's 1997 manifesto merely says:
  "New Labour is not about high taxes on ordinary families."
  At the time of the previous Budget, in November, the present Chancellor said:
  "That is the Tories as they are all the time. Before the election, they raise expectations. After the election, they raise taxes."—[Official Report, 27 November 1996; Vol. 286, c. 370.]
  I have to say that I do not see the difference.
  The Budget is not "fair". The Institute of Fiscal Studies acknowledged that Labour has often criticised the Tories for the unfairness of the impact of their Budgets. But, the IFS stated:
  "As a proportion of their income it is the poor who have fared worst—they have lost around 1 per cent. of their disposable incomes"
  and added that in cash terms
  "the very poorest group loses somewhat more than the next couple of deciles."
  I hope that the Government will address those matters over time, but they have not done so in this Budget.
  The Chancellor tried to argue that he was encouraging investment and that the windfall tax was designed to squeeze the fat cats. He knows perfectly well that the fat cats have gone, and they have taken the money with them. The tax is arbitrary, retrospective and unfair. It will hit not the fat cats, but the 19 million people with money in pension funds, who will lose around £80 each as a result. Those who did not take the money and run but retained their shares will also suffer to some extent.
  Changes in dividend and profit taxation will increase the taxation on business income by £3 billion per year. The IFS has said that the precise effects of this package
  662
  are uncertain. The Chancellor tried to boast that he knows exactly what it will achieve, but the academics are uncertain. The IFS states that the package is
  "likely to squeeze company cash flows. Very optimistic assumptions are required to believe this will increase business investment … Despite the rhetoric, changes are unlikely to benefit business investment."
  For all the reasons I have set out, we shall vote against the Budget, and we shall continue to demand a statement to the House on the public spending cuts. We do not accept that the House can be treated in this way. To be asked to vote on the Budget on a Monday and then to vote on the Second Reading of a Finance Bill—which has not yet been published—on Thursday of the same week is moving ahead with indecent haste. Contrary to what the Leader of the House said on Thursday, this is not just a Budget to implement the Government's manifesto pledges: it contains major taxation changes which were not in the manifesto, and these must be considered properly.
  There is a tension at the heart of the Budget which is untenable. For too long, the Chancellor has been obsessed with political presentation and not policy. Unfortunately for all of us who depend on public services, that is stamped all over his Budget. The policies that he made in opposition have hemmed him in on taxation. He needed to buy credibility—I understand that—but no one could have believed that he would be prepared to be so dogmatic on spending and so tie his hands that he would be forced to duck the real solutions.
  The Conservatives are not in a position to gloat because practically all the problems that the Government have inherited are of the Conservatives' making—not least the wholly unrealistic spending round of last year's Budget. But the Labour party in opposition knew that it was unrealistic, so why on earth sign up to it? We shall vote against the Budget and hope that when the Chancellor returns next spring with his second Budget it will be a Budget of sound policy and radical reform, replacing spin with substance and placing the long-term interests of the country ahead of short-term populist politics. If that is what it does, we shall be able to support it—but we cannot support this Budget.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) praised the record of the Conservative party on privatisation. I shall be arguing that the windfall tax is a direct consequence of errors made by the Conservatives in the sale of the assets. In my role as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, I have looked at all privatisations. The Committee took evidence on every single one and all our reports were unanimous, with no fudging. The reports on privatisation were no exception. We did not look at the politics of the sales, but at whether the best price was achieved and whether the expenses of the sales were justified.
  The conclusions of the all-party Committee—which did not divide in nearly 14 years—were that, in nearly all cases, the assets were sold too cheaply. As Harold Macmillan might have said, "If you are going to sell the family silver, do try to get the best price." The real question we have to ask is not why we sold the family silver—and the Canalettos—but why they were sold so

  663
  cheaply. The previous Government naively believed that shareholders in every home would have a beneficial influence on the actions of boardrooms. Stockbrokers were introduced in high streets, but such developments rapidly disappeared.
  What was more lasting was the benefit to the Exchequer. In addition to the income from North sea oil, this income could have been used for a resurgence in investment in industry, or we could have used the money to spend on the infrastructure. Instead, we accepted the dilapidation of much of our transport, housing and schools, and the resources were used once and for all to create an economic boom, the effects of which are still being felt in the economy that the Government have inherited. The previous Government used much of the capital from the sales of assets to provide a higher standard of living than was justified. Capital was turned into income—precisely the charge made by Harold Macmillan.
  The question that we must now ask is not merely why we used the money badly, but why those assets were sold too cheaply. The main reason for the hurry was the Government's desire to get their hands on the money. The philosophy came second. Obviously, the Treasury rightly wanted to know how much it would obtain each year from the proceeds of the sell-off. The difficulty was that the sale had a fixed timetable, which did not take into account market sentiment. Instead of selling when the sale would be most favourable, in some circumstances there was almost the flavour of a forced sale.
  The Public Accounts Committee dealt with the matter in its 32nd report in 1992–93, "The Sale of National Power and PowerGen", in which it stated:
  "our examinations of this and of previous sales have shown that privatisation timetables can sometimes impose considerable pressures on departments. Clearly the timing of sales can have significant impacts on the total potential proceeds, but it is important that the pressure on departments to do things quickly is not used as an excuse for uneconomic arrangements. We therefore expect departments to organise themselves and to plan sufficiently far ahead so that they can exploit the scope for savings."
  That view was unanimously accepted.
  The Government also made it even harder to get the best price by insisting in nearly all cases that the sale had to be made at one go—it has been characterised as selling overripe fruit on a Saturday evening. How different from the way that the Government manage their gilt sales. In that case, the Government broker has traditionally understood the market and sold his stock at times favourable to the sale. In the event of a change in the market, the sale could have been deferred. The Government broker understood the market. Those who sold our assets did not and were not encouraged to learn.
  Again and again, the PAC urged by a senior Conservative on the Committee, pressed the Government to privatise in tranches. The lack of experience in undertaking sales of such magnitude ought to have resulted in a much more careful and informed approach to the share offers. If the Committee's advice had been accepted, sales could have been conducted with advantage to the taxpayer.
  Mr. Richard Page: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, he was the Chairman and I was on that Committee at the time. I suggest that the 1992
  664
  PAC report was made with the benefit of hindsight. The PAC reports on the privatisations were not half as critical as he is trying to lead the House to believe.
  Mr. Sheldon: I did not have any doubt at any time. The hon. Gentleman will remember that Sir Peter Hordern argued again and again that the assets should be sold off in tranches to get the best possible price. The Committee supported him again and again. The hon. Gentleman supported that view as well—all the reports were unanimous. The Government failed to get the best price. There is no question about that.
  The argument used again and again was that if one sold the assets in tranches and the price on the initial sale were too low, the price and the receipts from subsequent sales could be improved. The failure to get a better and a proper price for the nation's assets is a serious indictment of the previous Government. It cost the country billions of pounds.
  That failure to get a fair deal for the taxpayer provides the complete justification for the Chancellor's introduction of the windfall tax. I understand why the Conservative Opposition do not like the idea of that tax. It shows up their failure to guard the public finances, but it is right that some corrections should be made in the way in which those bargain sales were conducted.
  On the expenditure of the windfall money, I am sure that the priority that the Chancellor attaches to unemployment is right. Like many hon. Members I meet from time to time the chief of police in my area. It comes as no surprise that at those meetings he singles out young men from 18 to 25 as his major problem. He points that out again and again. After numerous attempts to get employment, they give up. Their relationship with their parents deteriorates and after numerous rows they leave home and join up with other young men. In a consumer society, it is hard not to feel angry when one is not consuming. Eventually, many young men will form into groups, stealing and sometimes drug taking, and become the dangers to our society that we recognise too well.
  We should welcome the source of those funds and the use to which they are being put. This Chancellor of the Exchequer is the first for 18 years to be serious about unemployment. The previous Government talked about unemployment for years, but their actions created it. They said that it was a price worth paying. The true price has been the damage done to our society. We now have to give unemployment the high priority that the previous Government claimed they gave it, but did not provide.
  I was particularly pleased at the measures on investment and I welcome the doubling of capital allowances. The 25 per cent. allowance was clearly inadequate—it was a disincentive. There are few capital items that do not depreciate in value by more than 25 per cent. in their first year. Twelve months ago, for example, I bought a computer for £2,000. The Inland Revenue says that it is now worth £1,500—a nonsense. I would willingly sell it for that. That item can be written off in three years, but with the pace of industrial innovation many items can be valueless after only a short use.
  I understand the limitation on the concession to one year and have no objections. It will encourage companies to bring forward their investment and it is sensible to find out how the pattern of investment changes and then, perhaps, introduce more permanent arrangements.

  665
  I also welcome the reduction in mortgage relief. For many years, one of the basic arguments in my Budget speeches has been the need to deal with that matter. One of the many nonsenses of Margaret Thatcher's Government was the way in which people were encouraged to look to their homes as investments. Advantage upon advantage was given to the purchase of houses. Schedule A, which was a way of taxing the notional rent of the house, has been abolished. Capital transfer tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax and mortgage relief all gave advantages that were not available to those who made what I would call a true investment.[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Many hon. Members are in conversation. A debate is taking place.
  Mr. Sheldon: All those advantages encouraged people to invest in their homes. True investment means a return on one's capital based on the more efficient use of that money. That does not apply to housing. Up to a certain level, housing needs some fiscal encouragement, but the trading up for profit was absurd. Such trading up is consumption and, as such, should be taxed like other forms of consumption, not encouraged. I welcome the Chancellor's attitude in that respect.
  Finally, the welfare-to-work programme is a recognition of the difficulties of getting people to become part of the employable population. One major problem needs to be tackled—the cost incurred in earning a living. In modern conditions, being in employment results in a considerable outlay. Transport, clothing and meals are large expenses, which have to be offset against the income from employment. When a person moves from benefit to employment, he or she incurs those expenses of earning a living and the tax system does not allow for that.
  Inland Revenue rules stem from the time when low earners paid no income tax. Such people lived near their place of work—the mill, factory or elsewhere—their clothes were not an expense and their meals were prepared at home. All that has changed, but the tax system has not adjusted. I well understand the Inland Revenue's reluctance to make some of those expenses tax deductible, but we shall not easily encourage people to move from benefit to work without some recognition of those facts. Any welfare-to-work programme has to take those matters into account.
  This Budget has been produced in a very short time. It is a remarkable tribute to the hard work of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and his Treasury colleagues. I look forward to further developments in next year's Budget.
  6.39 pm
  Mr. John MacGregor: I begin by declaring my interests as in the Register of Members' Interests and in particular, a non-executive directorship of London and Manchester, a company which specialises in the provision of pensions and long-term savings especially for those at the lower end of the income scale. That is a point to which I wish to return later.
  I want first to make three comments about the global figures and especially about the public expenditure side. My first comment concerns the education and health
  666
  service figures which have already featured in the debate. In my spare time, I dabble in conjuring so I know that one aspect of sleight of hand is misdirection. In his Budget statement, the Chancellor showed himself, for a few hours, to be an expert in sleight of hand, but his misdirection was not strong enough and the replay has given the game away.
  An increase in spending for education in schools of £835 million in England for 1998–99 was taken from the reserves. That mirrors almost precisely the figure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), the previous Chancellor, introduced in his Budget last November for this year, 1997–98. The increase for patient care services, about which the Secretary of State for Health talked when opening the debate, is £1.2 billion for 1998–99. My right hon. and learned Friend, in November last year, announced for this year an increase of £1.6 billion for patient services. It is no good for the Secretary of State for Health to concentrate on what he describes as fraud measures and other savings of that sort because my right hon. and learned Friend had a figure of £525 million for increases in patient care resulting from efficiency savings this year in his Budget announcement last November.
  I find it astonishing that so many Labour Back Benchers, at the end of the Budget statement, cheered vociferously the increases in expenditure on education and health when they railed against the increases that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe announced last November. I remember some of them, who were then in local government, saying how deplorable the increases were and how much they would affect services in their council areas. Why, when they heavily criticised the figures then, did they cheer the same figures for next year when the Chancellor made his statement? I think that one of the reasons was their newness and naivety. They will very soon discover that the Budget was sleight of hand and they will rumble it. They will discover that the figures that they thought were so tremendous were exactly the same as the figures we had. That may be the way in which the Labour Government show that health and education are their priorities. We had exactly the same priorities and exactly the same figures.
  My second point—I am sorry that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has left because I wanted to direct it particularly to him—is that those two sums are taken out of the reserves. That leaves the reserves for 1998–99 very close to the reserves that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe had for this current year—£2.8 billion for next year and £2.5 billion for this year. There is, however, a crucial difference, which is that my right hon. and learned Friend was making his provision in November last year, quite close to the new financial year. This time, the figures are being taken out of the reserves many months before the financial year begins.
  As a former Chief Secretary. I say to the present Chief Secretary that he is treading on very thin ice because he has given himself little scope for dealing with all the issues—including inflation, but there will be many others—that will come to him between now and November. He is taking great risks with the reserves. One heave from the social security budget and he will go under the ice because he is now very much at the mercy of the social security budget. He will discover, if he does not know already, that that budget can move up very quickly

  667
  in unpredictable ways. He must be extremely grateful for the measures that we took as a Government and in particular for the measures taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) to control the social security budget.
  Another sleight of hand by the Labour party is that the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary are continuing a number of those measures in the coming year and they will have to take legislation through the House to carry them through. I suspect that many Labour Back Benchers have not yet realised that. The danger comes from the fact that the decisions have been taken so long before the financial year begins.
  My third and final comment on the global figures, because of the time shortage, is on the great new innovation of the five-year deficit reduction plan. That may be a good title. I was listening to the Budget on the radio and commenting on it as the Chancellor was announcing it. I had in front of me the five-year deficit reduction plan of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, which was on page 17 of last November's Red Book. There is nothing new. The only difference is that the deficit reduction appears to be coming down rather more sharply, and I welcome that.
  The major cause for that reduction, however, is the strength of the economy and the buoyancy of tax revenues. That is detailed in the Red Book—or the White Book, or whatever we call it—where the figures clearly show that the increase in revenue is by far the biggest element in the public sector borrowing requirement coming down. Again, that is a helpful inheritance from the previous Government. Given the Chancellor's strategy of taxing now and spending later, the deficit reduction plan is the one plan that I expect to go out of the window. I believe that we shall find that to be true in future years.
  Another illusion in the Budget is that it is a Budget for manufacturing industry. I know that the Chancellor emphasised that and for a brief moment, some people in industry were fooled when they first heard the announcement of the reduction in corporation tax. It is clear now, however, that the reduction in corporation tax is dwarfed by what industry will have to contribute to the windfall tax and by the advance corporation tax bills. It will also be dwarfed by the higher interest rates that we shall see shortly and by the effect of the level of sterling. This Budget is certainly not one that is good for industry and investment in industry because most of the pain is being taken by industry.
  Like several of my right hon. Friends, I have argued for some time that this is an unnecessary Budget in that we did not need a Budget at this time. One effect of the timing, which I am surprised has not been commented on much so far, is that as this Budget is the second in a single year, we are getting two tax takes in one year. That is especially true of fuel duty.
  In the November Budget, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe announced a 5 per cent. increase in real terms in fuel duty over a year. This Budget has added another 6 per cent. in real terms so that we now have, instead of an increase of 3p per litre on petrol in one year as my right hon. and learned Friend originally intended—an increase of 5 per cent. in real terms—a 7p per litre increase in one single year. That means a big increase—£730 million in tax revenue compared with £230 million which was the original anticipation.
  668
  The increase will have a substantial effect on rural areas which will increasingly come through. It was unnecessary to make that second tax hike in a single year.
  As I have argued that this is an unnecessary Budget, I cannot object to the fact that the Chancellor introduced many reviews. I know that he has been criticised for the fact that many aspects of the Budget proposals are simply reviews, but I fully understand why he could not introduce changes in some of the areas that he is reviewing. He simply did not have time, which is another reason why it was a great mistake to have a Budget so soon. I accept, however, that it is right to indicate reviews and to take one's time in trying to reach conclusions on them. It would have been very much better, however, if the Chancellor had done that in relation to advance corporation tax, for example, to which I shall refer in a moment.
  I now turn to two of the reviews, both of which deal with savings, and this is the main substance of what want to say tonight. I make it clear that on the savings front, there are two aspects of Labour policy that, in principle, I welcome. The first is the suggestion of a two-rate capital gains tax—short-term and long-term—and the second is the individual savings account. I welcome those aspects in principle.
  On the capital gains tax review, I have long felt that the sensible solution to capital gains tax—I entirely agree with the principle of taxing short-term more heavily than long-term and of taxing long-term capital gains very lightly—combined with the need to simplify capital gains tax, which is still very complicated, is tapering. I was never able to persuade the Treasury or the then Chancellor of that when I was there, and I never accepted all the arguments against it. I still think that to tackle capital gains tax on lines similar to the tapering out of inheritance tax—removing the tax altogether after a given number of years—would be a much simpler way to deal with CGT and its inflationary element than the present complex system. I hope that that will be considered seriously in the CGT review.
  I want to concentrate on retirement. Most hon. Members know about the problem of funding pensions for future generations. We all know about the demographic time bomb. While we are better placed than the rest of the European Union put together, in that we have £650 billion of funded occupational pension schemes, that will not be enough to provide the sort of pensions that people increasingly look to on retirement, given higher standards of living throughout their working lives. We all know that those are the big issues.
  I am astonished that one of the Government's first acts was to go entirely in the reverse direction and hit pension funds and pensioners, both current and prospective. That flies in the face of the general consensus that was emerging on pension reform. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has referred to the matter on several occasions. He must be feeling pretty sore at the way in which he has been so undermined so early by that act when the need lay in the opposite direction. We all know that we need to encourage many more people to make much bigger savings at a much younger age for their retirement, and that the state pension scheme will not suffice.
  The Chancellor's argument that dealing with advance corporation tax as he did will help investment was bogus. It will have the opposite effect. It was a cloak for his

  669
  desire for extra revenue, but what an extraordinary way to raise it. The fact that £5.4 billion per annum will be taken out of pension funds, institutions and elsewhere can only damage pensioners. I note from the Red Book that almost four fifths of the revenue from the abolition of tax credits will come from pension funds and the life assurance industry. That means long-term savings. I shall briefly spell out the serious implications of that.
  First, there are company pension funds—occupational pensions that are final-salary schemes. The Chancellor tried to justify the move by saying that such schemes were in surplus, that some had had contribution holidays and that they could therefore easily afford the tax. It is true that many occupational pension schemes are in surplus, but those surpluses will not last. A large income reduction will be taken annually from those funds. In the not-too-distant future, even funds in surplus will face problems.
  Many occupational funds are not, or are hardly, in surplus. I have seen estimates that suggest that up to half of them will go below the minimum funding reserve soon. They will soon face serious challenges. A decision to top up from employers would take from the resources available to companies for other purposes. One implication of that is lower investment—precisely the opposite of what the Chancellor said that he was doing. The alternative is that the pension funds will seek higher dividends from companies to keep the income flow coming through and maintain the level of pension funds. If that happens, it will again be at the expense of the what the Chancellor seemed to want—more investment by companies rather than higher dividends. Again, he will not achieve his objective.
  Whatever company pension schemes with final-salary, defined-benefit schemes do, the effect will be to accelerate the move away from such schemes. I think that that is inevitable, but to accelerate it is damaging because there can be no doubt that final-salary, defined-benefit schemes are best and give the best results for employees. I would not be at all surprised if most final-salary company pension schemes moved, for new employees, towards being money-purchase or defined-contribution schemes. That is one direct result of what the Chancellor has done.
  The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) mentioned the position of local authority pension funds. I agree that many local authority funds, which are often not clearly in surplus, will face the choice of reducing their employees' pensions—I will be interested to see how Labour Members react to that—or of increasing council tax to fund their pension schemes. That is another implication of that ACT move that did not come out at first because no one understood what the Chancellor was doing.
  The most serious implication is for people with personal pensions and group money-purchase schemes. They have no way out. Their ultimate pensions depend entirely on the size of their individual investment funds. Overall calculations are difficult because individual funds differ, but it is clear that something like 10 to 15 per cent. a year more in contributions will be required from individuals if they are to maintain their pensions. It will vary depending on age and circumstances, but it will certainly be substantial. To maintain their pensions, they face what is in effect a significant tax on them because
  670
  they will have to raise the higher sum themselves from their income. If they do not, their pensions will be reduced when they retire.
  What will the Government do about the state earnings-related pension scheme? If the impact on personal pensions is what I have described, many people will not find it so attractive to stay in such schemes. The Government have not yet addressed that implication. Above all, at a time when we all acknowledge that we need to encourage millions more people to put much more money into retirement schemes at a much earlier age—something that I thought that the Government supported—I find it astonishing that their first steps are in the opposite direction.
  I welcome the review of individual savings accounts. I am on record in pamphlets and speeches as recommending something along those lines. As we need to encourage individuals, including people at the lower end of the income scale, to save more for their retirement, it makes more sense to give tax relief to schemes that encourage them to keep their money in savings for a much longer period. One of the disadvantages of tax-exempt special savings accounts and personal equity plans is that they do not do that. With TESSAs, savings come out after five years and there are other problems. With PEPs, savings can be withdrawn at will.
  I favour the principle of a review but have two warnings. First, it is important to allow the holders of existing PEPs and TESSAs to continue to have the tax reliefs available to them through those until the completion of the TESSA or PEP involved. To do otherwise would be to have encouraged people to go into the schemes and then to have changed them halfway through.
  Secondly, if reliefs are passed into individual savings accounts, as seems to be suggested by the press releases so far, there is an important implication for the permitted ceiling. I am worried about the emphasis on encouraging people in the lower earnings range to be more involved in individual savings accounts. I agree with the principle, but I am worried about it being done at the expense of everyone else. I hope that this is not right, but there was a hint that it would be done by putting a sharp ceiling on the funds that one could hold so that people with significant PEPs could find that the successor individual savings accounts were nothing like as attractive as what they have now. If that were to be the case, it would be a backward step.
  I am also worried that the annual ceiling that people are able to contribute to individual savings accounts may be lower than the current PEPs one of £9,000. If that happened, it would be a retrograde step because we need to be concerned not just about those on lower incomes who are saving for retirement, but those on middle incomes.
  I for one would not object to an individual savings account, subject to those serious reservations. I certainly would not object if the holders of such accounts had to keep them for a good deal longer than five years—they should hold them until retirement. Above all, one of the most serious objections to the Budget is that if there are to be changes to individual savings accounts and provisions for retirement by 1999, the steps taken on ACT are the most disastrous run-in to those changes.
  7 pm
  Mr. Tom Pendry: I, too, would like to join in the general chorus of praise for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's excellent Budget. In content and delivery it was inspirational and it was the best Budget that I have heard in 27 years as a Member. From the responses that I have heard, other than those from Conservative Members, most other sensible people share my point of view.
  In the short time available, I should like to refer the Chancellor and his team to the importance of the tourism and hospitality sectors and their potential for securing new, worthwhile jobs in the years ahead. That is very much in line with one of the main themes of the Budget. In fact, in a recent address at Malmö, the Prime Minister recognised that travel, tourism and hospitality are among the most important growth areas of the global economy of the 21st century.
  I am sure that the Chancellor would also endorse that view, because he will be familiar with the contents of Labour's policy statement, "Breaking New Ground", which we successfully launched just before the general election. In that document, we promised to create an economic climate in which the tourism and hospitality sectors would thrive. To be fair to the Chancellor, he has made a good start with the Budget.
  In that context, I should like to refer my right hon. Friend to a recent publication by the World Travel and Tourism Council, following the summit of the Eight, entitled "Travel and Tourism Creating Jobs". That document mirrors a great deal of what we spelt out in our policy document. In particular, it highlighted the importance of investment, training and education with a view to improving the skills, service and quality of the product and encouraging public and private sector partnerships.
  It is regrettable that the tourism and hospitality industries are so fragmented and that national and local accounting, and general economic indicators do not specifically identify their importance. Often, their impact on the economy is not realised and underestimated.
  In 1993, the United Nations body responsible for national accounting recommended that Governments should create a satellite account for travel and tourism in an attempt to rectify the situation. I hope that the new Government will give a lead in that respect, by highlighting the importance of those industries and their contribution to the national and global economies.
  All hon. Members will be aware that tourism is a successful industry, which employs 3 million people. It is forecast to provide 300,000 new United Kingdom jobs in the next decade. In truth, however, it could do much more and this Government, and every Government, could do a great deal to assist its future growth. I hope that the Chancellor will ensure that the goals that we set ourselves in "Breaking New Ground" will be adhered to. In that document, we stated that the tourism and hospitality industries had much to contribute to a prosperous and equitable society. That is part of Labour's vision and such a society would make those industries develop new opportunities to ensure the well-being and wealth of our country.
  As I have already stated, the Budget makes a good start in that direction. I must say, however, that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor could have gone further by
  672
  addressing a particular worry of the tourism industry. In the November Budget, the previous Government announced that airport passenger duty would double to £10 for flights in the United Kingdom or to another European country, and £20 for worldwide departures. I am concerned about the effect on the valuable in-bound leisure tourism market. Currently, it is worth £12.7 billion in foreign exchange earnings. It is already suffering from the impact of a strong pound.
  An extra £20 on APD for a Concorde flight or a business class fare is unlikely to matter to the business traveller. It will, however, make those spending their own money on a short break, a budget off-season holiday or a family trip to Britain think twice. Given that APD is charged per head, it can amount to as much as 25 per cent. of a child's fare. I ask the Chancellor to consider in the next Budget an ad valorem tax or the possibility of exempting children from that increase.
  On the subject of APD, I am sure that the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs would also deplore the way in which many of the scheduled airlines advertise headline fares that are exclusive of APD and airport taxes. That is misleading and places tour operators at a severe competitive disadvantage, because I understand that they are required by the Association of British Travel Agents code to include such compulsory extras in their brochure prices.
  Many thousands of tour operators and travel agents across the country sell domestic and overseas holidays. They have been affected not only by APD but by the impact of changes made by the previous Government to insurance premium tax. May I ask the Chancellor to expedite the promised review of the introduction of the discriminatory level of insurance premium tax, whereby travel agents are taxed at 17.5 per cent. IPT when selling the same or similar travel insurance as BUPA or building societies, which are taxed at 4 per cent? The travel industry argues convincingly that the VAT avoidance practices that that measure was designed to plug never existed. Travel agents are losing a valuable share of the travel insurance business, and the market has been distorted as a result of the previous Government's action.
  I hope that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will address those issues when he replies to the debate. For the first time, perhaps, the tourism, travel and hospitality industries are looking to the Labour party to champion their cause. I hope that we shall not let them down when they request reasonable measures from the Government.
  Job creation was central to our policy as set out in "Breaking New Ground". I remind my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that many travel-related jobs are in small and medium-sized enterprises—the backbone of the market economy. A high proportion of those jobs go to women, minorities and young people. There are good opportunities for those who require job flexibility because of study commitments or family reasons.
  Another advantage of utilising the job-creating potential of the travel and tourism sectors is that jobs created by them can be targeted at particular regions of the country through promotion or infrastructure developments.
  A report released last year by the World Travel and Tourism Council, on the economic impact of travel and tourism in the United Kingdom, showed clearly that that

  673
  sector currently generates 11.6 per cent. of the country's gross domestic product, which is higher than the world average of 10.7 per cent.
  The Chancellor is well aware that unemployment is possibly the principal social economic challenge facing most countries. With most new jobs being created in the service sector, which is the dominant part of the economics of industrial nations such as our own, travel and tourism is one of the key services. It is already responsible, directly and indirectly, for more than 10 per cent. of global employment, GDP and investment. It offers unparalleled and largely unrecognised potential for job creation in the 21st century.
  In the past 25 years, international travel and tourism has grown by more than 500 per cent. Domestic tourism, which represents by far the largest proportion of the market, has also expanded dramatically in that same period.
  In short, the Government are introducing major new initiatives to combat unemployment. Let us make sure that the job-creating potential of travel and tourism is high on that agenda. That was a pre-election promise in "Breaking New Ground". Let us deliver it, just as we are delivering on other pre-election promises.
  The Budget has been well received by the tourism industries. The commitment to reduce the strength of sterling is helpful, as the overall number of visits to Britain was down by 1 per cent. at the end of April, and by 7 per cent. in April itself. Cuts in corporation tax will have a favourable impact on the tourism business. Tax measures to encourage the British film industry are also helpful, as films can play an important role: they attract visitors to this country, as the success of the British Tourist Authority's movie map has shown.
  All in all, the Budget has been a good start, but there is more to be done if we are to optimise the benefits to our society that tourism can bring.
  7.10 pm
  Mr. Michael Jack: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for being called to speak in the debate, as much of what the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) said about tourism will have resonance on the Fylde coast, an area which I represent. Unfortunately, however, he did not touch on some of the hidden items of the new Government's ideas that will affect tourism—the minimum wage and the social chapter, both of which will have deleterious effects on employment prospects in Blackpool and Fylde.
  Budgets are as interesting for what they say as for what they do not say. I listened carefully to what was, in presentation terms—it is never an easy task—a well-delivered Budget. The Chancellor gave us a little clue about forthcoming attractions, not all of them particularly attractive. He seemed to be outlining a policy that would allow him, in 2001 or 2002—having taken a very tough fiscal stance, as he has done in this Budget—to make some form of monetary easement, perhaps for short-term political advantage.
  To that end, I fear that we are seeing just the beginning of further tax rises. Some commentators have indicated that, in terms of addressing our so-called structural deficit,
  674
  the Chancellor has not gone far enough. Indeed, they put forward the view that if the Budget's objective was to control consumer spending, he may not have gone far enough. I might not entirely agree with that strategy, but I am sure that that is what he is doing. I fear that there will be further fiscal tightening to come.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, rightly reminded us that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), the former Chancellor, left this country's public finances in an excellent state. It was with some surprise that, one year after we last published estimates, I saw in the Red Book that the total Inland Revenue tax take had increased by some £10 billion.
  I remember the guffaws from Labour Members at our Red Book figures in the previous Budget, when we improved public finances. We were attacked for our timetabling for the closing of the fiscal balance. We have now seen that we were right. We beat the public sector borrowing requirement estimates in the Red Book by some £3 billion. The legacy that my right hon. and learned Friend laid down has come to fruition in the figures that the Labour Government have at their disposal. That is, perhaps, another reason why my right hon. and learned Friend would not necessarily have gone down the same route that the present Government have taken.
  What does the strategy that the Chancellor is following mean? It seems that he has taken the Pontius Pilate approach to setting monetary targets, which he sub-contracted to the Bank of England. In trying to deal with consumer spending, he lays us open to the first serious risk of the Budget. He has given the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England the task of hitting his inflation target. I shall have a word or two to say about that in a moment. That committee will not want to miss his target.
  There is a very real danger, as Roger Bootle reminded us in The Times today, that there will be an over-tightening of monetary policy, with sterling continuing to rise, which will affect our manufacturing industry to the extent that there may be a form of monetary overkill. When we look at the inflationary factors in the economy at present, we see tight control over the important price indexes. We do not see a runaway in terms of earnings, at around 4.5 per cent. The marketplace is extremely competitive and will remain so because of the advantage to those who bring in goods from overseas.
  The Chancellor seems to have ignored that in his strategy. In fact, on monetary policy, he has almost become a Chancellor without ambition. It is noteworthy that he relaxed my right hon. and learned Friend's tight inflation target of 2½ per cent. or less. I can remember the current Chancellor attacking the Conservative Government for having an inflation target that was above some of the European comparators that he chose, but now that he is in office and he can see the dangers of an over-tight monetary regime, he has given himself room for manoeuvre, so much so that he has upped his inflation target to 2¾per cent. for the next financial year. It is quite remarkable in some ways how the Red Book does not look ahead more than one year in terms of tax revenues and two years in terms of spending revenues.

  675
  The right hon. Gentleman is also a Chancellor without ambition in terms of the potential of the British economy. Any Chancellor who goes backwards in his growth forecast for the British economy to a forecast of 2¼ per cent. shows little faith in his own policies, which he says are supposed to improve the productive capacity of the economy, increase investment and do all the other supply-side things to which his Budget alluded.
  It is quite interesting that, when the smoke clears, one sees how little ambition the Chancellor has on inflation and on growth in the economy. That is, perhaps, not surprising, because forecasting is difficult, particularly when it comes to monetary policy. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who is in her place, reminded me of that when I asked specific questions on interest rates. Her reply was a telling contribution:
  "it is not possible to be sure about the precise level of interest rates required to hit an exact inflation rate ten months ahead."—[Official Report, 3 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 147.]
  We know about the uncertainties of forecasting inflation rates and growth.
  Other right hon. and hon. Members tellingly pointed to the fact that, now that the smoke has cleared, the fizz has gone out of last Wednesday's Budget champagne. By Thursday, a headline in the Financial Times pointed out that "Poorest Households Fare Worst". If a Conservative Budget had received such a headline, we would have been taken to the proverbial cleaners, but Labour Members cheered. These were socialists cheering. What a great beginning for socialists, who raised so many expectations in the election that those at the bottom of the pile might benefit. Those are the people whom the new Chancellor clobbers straight away.
  By Sunday, the journalists were warming to the task in their critique of the Budget. David Smith in The Sunday Times entertained me over my cup of tea to the headline. "Brown gets into a budget mess". That is a pretty quick downward road to disaster for the Budget.
  We also find that, despite all the meticulous planning of the Budget, within 24 hours the Paymaster General is rowing back from his proposals on foreign income dividends. That is a technical but important area of detail for Britain's overseas trade, involving the location of foreign companies with large-scale foreign interests in this country. When those companies blanched and said that they might have to move away, the Paymaster General quickly rowed back. That is not an issue to be tackled by amateurs, but the Government have taken an amateurish approach to a difficult subject.
  One could argue that the same amateurism was shown over advance corporation tax. It is true that previous Conservative Governments took action in that area. One of the arguments that the Chancellor advanced was that the measure would achieve two ends. He said that it would encourage investment because it would take the pressure off companies to distribute profits. But that argument does not hold up. The former Chancellor, Norman Lamont, did not achieve that result when he reduced tax credits from 25 to 20 per cent.
  The second argument advanced was that the measure would provide some sort of beginning for a change in corporate tax. The United States has a classical corporation tax system, and the percentage of profits distributed through the imputation system is greater there
  676
  than it is in the United Kingdom. The case has not been made for a change in ACT bringing the investment results suggested by the Chancellor.
  The more telling point involves the impact on individuals. My right hon. Friend the former Chief Secretary went as far as to say that considerable extra contributions could be required, particularly for those with personal, as opposed to final salary, pensions. It is a tawdry little Budget—the Government have not come clean and spelt out its financial implications.
  We are supposed to live in the world of open government, but it takes the money page of the Financial Times to open the eyes of the individual. In his moment of discomfiture, I refer the Chief Secretary to what he may have read on Sunday. Using PensionStore as its source, The Sunday Times makes clear the effect of the abolition of ACT relief on personal pension holders who invest £100 a month. Assuming a 9 per cent. return per annum before abolition, a person aged 30 would have to pay another £20.12 a month to deal with the consequences of the Budget. Someone aged 40 would have to pay £13.69 and someone aged 50 would have to pay £7.52.
  That measure has come from a Government who talk about building for the long term. Their monetary stance has made life exceedingly difficult for people who will now face considerable rises in their mortgage interest payments. Those payments will also rise considerably because of the reduction in tax relief on mortgage interest. A hidden tax has been introduced. It is incumbent on the Government to come clean and publish far more data, to ensure that people understand precisely what it is that the Government have in mind, so that they can make the appropriate personal finance arrangements to get their house in order.
  I also ask the Government to give a commitment tonight to come clean as quickly as possible on the subject of personal savings accounts. People who are trying to decide whether to invest in PEPs or TESSAs will be in doubt about what they should do. We are talking not about fat-cat speculators, but about ordinary individuals with modest savings, who have been left in the dark about what the Government have in mind.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I know that my right hon. Friend is an expert in corporation tax matters. When I, as an ordinary investor, receive my dividend from a company, I also receive a tax credit, which I am able to spend the next day; I am credited with the tax that has been paid by the company. Surely, pension schemes were being credited with that money, then when a pensioner received the benefit later, he would pay income tax on what he received from the pension company. The Government have introduced double taxation: the pensioner will be taxed and the company will be taxed.
  Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend is right. To develop that line of thinking: the Government have taken £5.4 billion out of the investment potential of those pension funds. Where is that money supposed to be coming from? It is already clear that companies are suggesting that their pension holidays will soon be over and they will have to find more money from somewhere to meet their obligations. The comments that I have just made about personal pension funds show that the impact will come sooner rather than later. The Government will rue the day that they introduced that measure.

  677
  Some people—including one correspondent in a national newspaper—have suggested that the measure will improve the performance of pension funds. That is a fair line of argument, but a dawn raid of unparalled proportions on the long-term future of people's savings was not the method to use. The measure was introduced by a Government who are supposed to believe in the long term.
  One of the saddest items in the Budget is the removal of tax relief on the contributions of those who have taken out private medical insurance. It is a nasty, spiteful tax in which the Government can have no pride. It is little wonder that those on the Treasury Bench are looking away from me while I make these remarks. [Laughter.] Labour Members may laugh, but many people—some of whom took out private health insurance because their unions or their employers made it available to them as a benefit—wanted to keep that benefit into their old age, and the tax relief helped them to do so. Labour Members can chuckle as much as they like now, but they should wait until the first elderly person comes through their advice bureau door and asks why he has had to give up the benefit.
  The Treasury has offered no costed information on the impact of that measure on the national health service. The only information that I have received on the subject has come from the Association of British Insurers. I concede that it is biased, because it represents the insurance industry. Its press release states:
  "If half the 550,000 over-60s with medical insurance give up their cover, they would only need to cost the NHS £440 each in a year for the anticipated £120 million saving in tax relief to be used up."
  The press release concludes with a telling remark that is chilling for the Chief Secretary:
  "Yet the average paid out annually in claims for this age group is some £760".
  Where will the extra money come from, to deal with any one person—never mind about half the total number—who falls out of the health care insurance system?
  The people affected by the measure are not evenly distributed around the country. They are concentrated in certain areas such as the Fylde coast and the south coast, where there are large percentages of elderly people. The Government should give a clear assurance from the Dispatch Box tonight that they will assess the costings and the impact of that measure on each and every health authority in the United Kingdom.
  There was a remarkable throw-away line in the Budget involving personal taxation, which points the way to the future. The Chancellor said that he wanted to introduce a 10p starting rate when it was prudent to do so. I am looking forward to the Government's definition of prudence, but I am also looking forward to how they will deal with the 10p starting rate, because I think that therein lie some fundamental changes to the way in which income tax will operate.
  The one commitment the Chancellor has not given is what will happen to the 20p band—that has been left unsaid and it would be useful to know what the long-term tax objective is. Do I see 20p going and 10p arriving? If I do see that occurring, will it be on the first £1,000 or £2,000 of income? If that is the way in which the Chancellor's mind is working, I see the 20p band going
  678
  and he might be bold enough to make some further changes—changes to the allowances. Unless he does that, the 10p band will remain utterly illusory, in that it will be basic-rate and higher-rate taxpayers who will be the beneficiaries of 80 per cent. of the arrival of a 10p tax rate. It will do nothing for low-paid taxpayers.
  I believe that that forecasts future changes in allowances and even changes in the basic rate structure. It will be incumbent on us to keep an eye on that scenario, because there are too many variables changing. It would be another golden opportunity for the Government to impose not only the 17 tax increases we have had so far, but the 18th, 19th, 20th and beyond.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Ivan Lewis: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this historic Budget debate—the first Budget by a Labour Chancellor for nearly 20 years.
  It feels especially appropriate that I am making my maiden speech in this debate, because 12 years ago, at the age of 18, I began my working life on a work and training programme for Outreach—a voluntary organisation in my constituency—working with people with learning disabilities. Many of my colleagues, who, at that time, were young or long-term unemployed people, went on to take university degrees or gain responsible positions in the public and private sectors.
  I went on to found and work for a local voluntary organisation, Contact Community Care, before becoming chief executive of the Manchester Jewish Federation in 1992 and remaining in that post until my election. I, therefore, know more than most about the benefits of the sort of opportunity that the Government seek to extend to all today's young and long-term unemployed people.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor and the Treasury team are to be congratulated on an excellent Budget, which gives practical effect to our fundamental belief that social justice and economic prosperity are inextricably linked. The Budget lays the foundations for a radical reforming Government, who will rebuild Britain as one nation—a Government who recognise that improved public services cannot be delivered without sound and prudent economic management, but that sound economic management can never include spending millions on welfare and not work, or on the national health service internal market rather than patient care.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is to be congratulated, not only on the Budget, but on his first nine weeks of bold and much-needed reform. One measure on which I want to focus is his decision to end self-regulation of the banks and financial institutions. My local authority, Bury, lost £6.5 million in perhaps the greatest banking scandal of all time—the collapse of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. It is reasonable to believe that, had the new system of regulation been in place, that scandal would have been uncovered at a far earlier stage and who knows how many investors would have been saved from ruin? My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) deserves much credit for his work to date on that issue.
  Equally important to me, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on his appointment of Mr. Howard Davies to head the new regulatory body. Any man who, like me, has suffered a life-long, passionate and traumatic

  679
  relationship with Manchester City football club deserves recognition for staying power and stress-management skills, if for nothing else. Following the election, Mr. Davies will be reassured that sometimes years in the wilderness do have a happy ending.
  The Budget will make a real difference to the lives of my constituents, especially young people, pensioners and lone parents. Approximately 500 under 25-year-olds will be given the chance to earn and the chance to learn—young people rescued from the futility and alienation of unemployment and given the chance to become stakeholders in our society.
  A country that claims to be decent and civilised and seeks economic competitiveness cannot afford any more lost generations. Of course, it is right that the welfare-to-work programme is paid for by the windfall tax on the excess profits of the privatised utilities—resources taken from the few and provided for the benefit of the many. Corporate freedom must also mean corporate responsibility.
  The reduction of value added tax on fuel will also be welcomed by my constituents, especially the 15,000 pensioners who suffered more than most when that unjustifiable warmth tax was introduced by the previous Government. Lone parents are at last to be assisted, not scapegoated. The proposals to expand child care places are especially welcome. As a patron of my local Kids Club Network out-of-school child care clubs, I am particularly pleased with the emphasis on that form of child care and the recognition given to the excellent work of Kids Club Network throughout the country. The extra resources for health will help my local providers plan on a long-term basis and replace competition by collaboration and co-operation—patient care, not bureaucracy, will once again top the national health service's agenda.
  Bury, South is the constituency where I was born and where I have lived all my life, which is why I am especially proud to be standing here today, delivering my maiden speech. The constituency is situated to the north of Manchester, in the valley of the River Irwell, in the shadows of the Pennines, at the edge of the east Lancashire plain. It comprises three distinct communities—Radcliffe, Whitefield and Prestwich, all of which, given their acute sense of identity, would like their own referendum on the devolution of power from Bury.
  Radcliffe is an old Lancashire mill town, famous for its paper-making industry. Like many similar towns, it has suffered from the devastation of manufacturing industry in the 1980s, although some paper mills have survived and remain an important source of local employment.
  A fine example of a thriving and successful British company in Radcliffe is Fragrance Oils Ltd., which sells its perfumes successfully on the world market. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), and I had some difficulty explaining to our wives the pleasant odour that stuck following our visit to the perfume plant during the general election. Radcliffe has been designated a regeneration area and its residents look with optimism and hope to the new Government to create economic conditions that encourage long-term investment and partnership.
  Ainsworth is a small, picturesque and beautiful village on the edge of Radcliffe. Its community association is a fine example in modern times of community pride and
  680
  shared responsibility in action. Whitefield and Prestwich are commuter-belt communities, each with a proud history. In recent years, Whitefield has sadly become synonymous with the M62 relief road—a proposed widening of the M62 motorway, which was subsequently abandoned by the previous Government. To date, that abandoned road scheme has cost £25 million to £30 million of taxpayers' money, blighted a once-pleasant residential area and exposed incompetence of the highest order in both the Department of Transport and the Highways Agency. Not only do my constituents deserve redress for their suffering, but they, more than most, will welcome the Government's determination to end the love affair with road building and seek a truly integrated public transport system.
  The third community is Prestwich, which is known for its great municipal park, Heaton park, which also straddles the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer). Prestwich was home to a significant nationally known psychiatric hospital until recently, when, like many similar institutions, most of its services were removed and the land sold for use as a superstore.
  I have been a long-time strong and passionate supporter of community care and an opponent of the institutionalisation of people with mental health problems and learning disabilities, but there is much local evidence that community care sometimes fails society's most vulnerable members because of a lack of co-ordination between social and health care providers. That is an issue which the Government must address. Prestwich is also proud to have a new partnership between business, the voluntary sector and the local authority, which is working hard to regenerate the locality.
  Another distinctive element in my constituency is harmony and mutual respect between the different faith communities. Bury, South has one of the most vibrant and thriving Jewish communities in Britain. I am proud to be a member of that community, with its impressive myriad learning establishments and charitable organisations.
  Bury, South is part of a metropolitan borough that also incorporates the constituency of Bury, North. Bury is especially proud of its family of schools, and the partnership between the local education authority, parents, teachers and governors has been the springboard to high standards of education achievement. In 1996, Bury LEA was second nationally in the league tables covering GCSEs with five or more grades A to G and fifth in the key stage 2 tables.
  The Labour local authority is also proud of its community safety and environmental partnerships, which are models of good practice. Bury has achieved national acclaim for its innovative work involving young people in decisions that affect their lives. Sadly, over a number of years, that imaginative and innovative work has been undermined by budget cuts far worse than those in similar local authorities. I cannot overstate the importance of creating a local government funding regime that is fair and rational, but I am delighted by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's announcement of increased revenue and capital investment in our schools.
  We are realistic about public spending constraints, but simply request that we receive our fair share of the existing cake. The quality of local children's education now depends on it.

  681
  In a maiden speech, it is customary to pay tribute to one's predecessor. In my case, that is not difficult, as our differences were always political and never personal. David Sumberg was regarded as a decent parliamentarian by Members on both sides of the House. Many will remember him as a Ronnie Corbett lookalike. Indeed, his visual place in history will be preserved for ever as he sat immediately behind Sir Geoffrey Howe—now the noble Lord Howe—during his historic statement which led to the fall of the then Prime Minister in 1990.
  As well as being PPS to the then Attorney-General, David Sumberg will also be remembered as an effective and independent member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. His questioning of Ministers during the Pergau dam and arms to Iraq affairs demonstrated his sharp brain and strong commitment to the integrity of the Select Committee process. He was also given the honour of seconding the Loyal Address in November 1989.
  David Sumberg had a high regard for his predecessors and Members representing parts of the constituency when the boundaries were changed. I mention in particular Frank White, Jim Callaghan and the late Michael Fidler, who were excellent constituency Members who were respected in the House. I suspect that they would have found the new Parliament quite a culture shock with many more women and young people making us a truly representative people's Parliament.
  The Budget that we have discussed in the past few days not only makes good the Government's election pledges, but reflects the people's priorities. It stands for work not welfare, patient care not bureaucracy, stability not boom and bust, long-term investment not short-term exploitation. The people of Bury, South have welcomed the Budget and the foundation it lays for the economic and social regeneration of our country.
  7.41 pm
  Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak for the first time in this important debate on the Budget. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) on his eloquent, knowledgeable and thoughtful maiden speech.
  I am very conscious of the huge privilege that the electors of Bury St. Edmunds have bestowed on me. It is truly an honour to represent such a beautiful and historic part of Suffolk—a county which I have long felt was the true Garden of England.
  Mine is a new constituency, resulting from boundary changes effected since 1992. One half of the constituency was formerly represented by my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) and the other half by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and Ipswich, North (Mr. Lord), who is in the Chair and whose elevation to the post of Deputy Speaker was widely and warmly celebrated in the county. My hon. Friends have advised me wisely and well over the months and I thank them for their many kindnesses. They did more than give me good advice, however; they also gave me some excellent parts of their former constituencies—for which I was enormously grateful on the evening of 1 May, as I had to sit through two nail-biting recounts.
  I have learnt that Suffolk people are quiet but single-minded in their determination to ensure that their local interests are protected and advanced by hard-working,
  682
  effective local Members of Parliament. My immediate predecessors have set very high standards in that regard and I shall do my best to emulate them.
  With the indulgence of hon. Members, I should like briefly to describe the geography of my constituency. I seek not merely to follow a convention of the House, but to assist some of my constituents who are still not quite sure which constituency they live in, given the new, radically reshaped boundaries.
  To the west is Bury St. Edmunds, a market town of true distinction. It is a veritable jewel in the crown in the county of Suffolk. It was once the county town and, morally, in many people's eyes, it still is. It retains its impressive 11th century layout together with remarkably unspoilt narrow streets and fine Georgian squares. Thomas Carlyle called it
  "a prosperous, brisk town beautifully diversifying".
  That remains true today, as Bury boasts the largest sugar beet factory in the country and the largest malt extract manufacturer in the country. The highly successful independent brewery Greene King is also a major employer in the town. Its excellent product does not yet appear to be available in Bars in the Palace of Westminster, but I shall be working on that.
  To the east of my constituency lies Needham Market, a growing settlement, and Stowmarket, a town once famous for its woollen industry and now known for the major businesses of ICI and Muntons.
  To the north are the attractive villages of Redgrave, the Thornhams and Gislingham, which represent the most northern parts of Suffolk, bordering on Norfolk. To the south are the beautiful villages of the Bradfields, Felsham and Gedding, which form our border with south Suffolk.
  My constituency is an attractive place for many reasons. That is why so many people choose not only to retire there, but to live and work there. The majority of us in Bury St. Edmunds share a common desire to preserve and conserve what is best in our environment and our way of life while, at the same time, being flexible enough to take advantage of economic developments that benefit the area. As the new millennium approaches, Bury St. Edmunds will meet the challenge of economic change.
  The Budget purports to address the problems created by economic change. Perhaps almost all of us on both sides of the House agree that economic change is inescapable and that the notion, "Stop the world, I want to get off", is practically and intellectually unsustainable. It is simply not an option for a modern, mature, western industrialised democracy.
  However, the Conservative response to dealing with economic change, such that increases in living standards and better public services are delivered, remains poles apart from that of the Government as outlined in the Budget. It is more in sorrow than in anger that I say that the Budget does not do enough to advance the values of free enterprise, thrift, personal responsibility and personal prosperity that are in sympathy with the real instincts of the British people.
  The Budget was skilfully presented; there is no doubt about that. However, when a senior Member said to me that it was a cunning Budget and that the Chancellor was a cunning man, it put me in mind of the dictum of the first Viscount of St. Albans, Francis Bacon, who said,
  "Nothing doth more hurt in a state than that cunning men pass for wise."

  683
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a cunning man, but I fear that he is not a wise man. He is not a wise man because he believes that he can take about £10 billion over three years from the corporate sector on advance corporation tax—and more with the windfall tax—without affecting investment levels or the standard of living of individuals. As my right hon. Friends the Members for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) and for Fylde (Mr. Jack) said, the abolition of the dividend tax credit will affect companies and individuals, no matter how much it is argued to the contrary. Companies face a choice between contributing more to their pension schemes—reducing investment to pay for it—and cutting pension benefits for their employees. By the same token, individuals with personal pensions must either cut their living standards today to put more into their schemes than they would have to otherwise, or take the hit delivered by the Budget—lower living standards—when they draw their pensions in the future.
  The ACT change will be a disincentive to investment in other ways. It will lead to a switch by investors in United Kingdom equities to foreign equities and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) has said, to a much less efficient market in capital. Let us not forget the windfall tax, which will reduce dividends and thus hit those in pension funds and other shareholders. It will exert upward pressure on utility prices and downward pressure on investment.
  Those tax increases may not be all that visible, but they are certainly not painless, as I believe the public will recognise in due course. The other, more visible, tax increases in the Budget have already dismayed many of my constituents. The rise in petrol duty will hit rural dwellers who rely on their cars as their sole means of transport. Mortgage payers in my constituency will pay more as a result of the MIRAS change. People in Bury St. Edmunds do not understand why that is necessary to dampen down the housing boom, given that Suffolk is nowhere near experiencing such a boom.
  The news on the spending side that there will be more funds for Suffolk schools and hospitals has raised expectations. Next year and the year after, I shall monitor the position to ensure that Suffolk receives its fair share of what money is available.
  There was one disappointing omission from the Budget. Just before the Budget, I conducted a survey of several hundred small businesses. The majority of business men advised me in writing that a reduction in business rates was the best way of assisting them. For the sake of shops and other small and medium-sized businesses in Bury St. Edmunds, Stowmarket, Needham Market and other villages in my constituency, I ask the new Government to consider giving business rate relief on at least the first £1,000 of a business's rateable value, as we proposed in our general election manifesto. Given new Labour's track record of purloining the best bits of Tory economic policy, I confidently expect the Chancellor to include such a measure in his next Budget. Conservative Members will keep up the pressure on him to do so.
  The more I study the Budget, the less economic justification I see for it. It would appear that the Chancellor has jacked up less visible taxes now in order to raise revenue that he will then use to cut more visible taxes with a fanfare of trumpets at some future date—say March 2001, if I may pick a date entirely at random.
  684
  Be that as it may, it is clear to Conservative Members that such economic success as the new Government can achieve will be due to the excellent economic circumstances that we bequeathed on leaving office.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was the brilliant architect of a lasting economic recovery, based on historically low inflation and low interest rates, falling borrowing and falling unemployment, and an improved balance-of-payments performance.
  It is true that this remarkable inheritance was not appreciated at the last election and Conservative Members have some hard lessons to learn from that, but I give notice, in a friendly and, I hope, helpful way, that we shall put across a fresh and reinvigorated Tory economic argument next time. In the meantime, we shall be unstinting in our determination to lay bare the deficiencies in the Government's economic approach of which the British public need to be made aware.
  I thank the House for its generous welcome and I thank hon. Members for listening to my views on the critical issue of the country's economic future.
  7.54 pm
  Mr. Russell Brown: I apologise for trying to intervene earlier, having not yet made my maiden speech.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) on his excellent maiden speech. Obviously, I hope to follow suit. I make my first speech with a certain amount of trepidation, but, as a great deal of courtesy has been shown to others in a similar position, I am sure that I shall be able to survive the ordeal.
  Like many other Members who have been elected for the first time, I hoped for many months that I would achieve victory on polling day and become the first-ever Labour Member of Parliament for Dumfries. Although tremendous effort was put into our campaign, however, it is true to say that, even in our wildest dreams, we had never contemplated the size of the eventual majority.
  I pay tribute to my predecessor, Sir Hector Monro. He was a local man, who served the constituency well for more than 30 years. He was admired by many people in all walks of life, and he cared passionately about the people whom he represented in the House. Throughout his career, he faced many difficult times—both in ministerial posts and as a Back Bencher—but none more difficult than the tragedy of the Lockerbie air disaster of 1988. At that extremely difficult time, he showed truly statesmanlike qualities; I am sure that lesser mortals would have broken under such pressures. Let me add, in view of the latest speculation about the Lockerbie disaster, that I—like my predecessor—have every confidence in the Scottish legal system, and I urge that the suspects be brought to Scotland for a fair trial.
  Sir Hector showed his calibre in many ways. Another perfect example was on an occasion when, although his own wife was not in the best of health and although he and I were at opposite ends of the political spectrum, he showed great concern and sent good wishes when my wife and I were seriously injured in a road accident some years ago. That was the calibre of Sir Hector Monro, who will definitely be a hard act to follow.
  What of my constituency, Dumfries? It is a large rural seat measuring nearly 2,500 sq miles, whose industry is centred on agriculture, tourism, textiles, forestry and food

  685
  processing. There is some light engineering, but the only heavy industry is boiler making, which takes place on the outskirts of my home town of Annan. That boiler-making company is now a subsidiary of the Rolls-Royce group, and, in its early days, the site saw the manufacture of the world's first submarine. Tragically, it is intended to resurrect that same submarine off the coast of the Isle of Man in the near future.
  The constituency is also home to a number of well-known companies such as ICI, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd., Gates rubber company and Glaxo Wellcome. Unfortunately, one of the directors of Glaxo Wellcome told me earlier today that the site in my constituency is to be sold. I shall, of course, seek reassurances in the coming days on behalf of the local community and members of staff working on site.
  Tourists are attracted to the constituency in great numbers by the scenery, history and tradition of the many towns and villages, which include Gretna—the marriage centre of Scotland, if not Europe or even the world—Lochmaben, supposedly the birth place of Robert the Bruce, and Dumfries itself, the resting place of Scotland's national bard Robert Burns.
  At this time of year, the different communities hold their common riding and march riding ceremonies, which in some instances date back a number of centuries. It is not uncommon to see the populations of our towns and villages double or even treble on one day when visitors flock to follow those ancient ceremonies and traditions.
  Only on Saturday last, the main street of my home town was thronged with thousands of people to watch the closing ceremony of our day of celebrations, which involved 27 pipe bands from many different parts of Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. It is a ceremony to stir the heart of any Scot, and one which saw the return of many people to their home town from many parts of the country, and even front different corners of the world, to be back among loved ones and to share the excitement of our traditions.
  Dumfries is a rural constituency but it is not a rural backwater. It has provided many firsts—for example, the world's first savings bank, which was founded by the Rev. Henry Duncan in the village of Ruthwell in 1810. The building is now a museum. The only Buddhist temple in Britain is to be found at Eskdalemuir, near Langholm. It was established in 1967 and officially opened in 1988.
  The first operation in Europe to be performed under anaesthetic was carried out on 19 December 1846 by a Dr. Scott at the original royal infirmary at Dumfries, about two days earlier than many other claims. The first nursing lectures in Great Britain—possibly in the world—were delivered in 1854 at the Crichton royal hospital, Dumfries, six years before Florence Nightingale's. How sad it is that in 1997 the Scottish Office, under the previous Government, has decreed that the constituency's only nursing college, after such a long time, must move to Bell college in Hamilton next year.
  I mentioned earlier that Robert Burns is buried in St. Michael's churchyard, Dumfries. He wrote a number of his great works while residing in the locality as an Excise man between 1788 and his untimely death in 1796.
  Other famous literary names are associated with the constituency, including Hugh MacDiarmid, a 20th century poet who was born Christopher Murray Grieve in the
  686
  town of Langholm in 1892. The author J. M. Barrie was educated at Dumfries academy. It is said that he dreamed up the magical story of "Peter Pan" having been inspired by a Dumfries garden.
  The world's first pedal cycle was invented in southern Scotland between 1838 and 1840 by a gentleman called Kirkpatrick Macmillan. Without him, I wonder whether we would have ever heard that famous command from a former Member for Chingford, when he instructed the unemployed in the 1980s to get on their bikes and go to look for work. I am sure that we would have heard that same comment.
  It would be somewhat remiss of me if I did not mention one of the greatest engineers ever, who was born in the village of Westerkirk, near Langholm. Thomas Telford started his career as an assistant bridge builder in the town and was responsible for the construction of the Caledonian canal, more than 900 miles of roads in Scotland and more than 100 bridges. He undertook significant improvements to harbours in Wick, Aberdeen, Banff and Leith. The expertise of Thomas Telford went way beyond the Scottish border when he superintended the construction of the Shrewsbury-Holyhead road, which involved the Conway bridge and the Menai suspension bridge.
  As a rural constituency, Dumfries has been especially hard hit by the beef crisis, but I am heartened by the positive attitude that has developed over recent weeks. However, I am not so naive as to think that a solution is imminent. At the same time, I urge right hon. and hon. Members to be supportive of action that is being taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to move us towards the lifting of the ban and thereby relieving the pressure on rural economies throughout the country.
  The future of our nation will be based on a strong economy, the foundations of which are built upon a strong industrial base. It must be an economy that looks to the future in the long term rather than what we have seen in recent years with the boom-and-bust economics of the previous Government.
  Communities, families and individuals are all seeking security, hope or prospect—in other words, something around which to build their futures. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed the first signs of such a future in his Budget statement last week. The Budget delivered exactly what was promised to the country during the Labour party's election campaign and spelt out in the party's manifesto.
  Investment in industry, whether in the form of technology, research and development, infrastructure or the training of staff has been in decline for a number of years. The proposed reduction in the rate of corporation tax will encourage much-needed investment, and increased capital tax allowances for small and medium firms will be of particular benefit to rural constituencies where small and medium firms are in abundance.
  As a nation, we cannot go forward if we are spending on benefits and keeping families on the breadline, and in many instances in poverty. It must be understood that rural poverty exists. The fact that we now spend as much on the benefit system as we do on our children's education is a clear sign of where we have gone wrong over the past 18 years. In 1979, we were spending twice as much on education as we were on benefits. We need to turn the

  687
  situation round. The welfare-to-work programme will set about reversing an 18-year trend. Our young people and long-term unemployed are looking for hope and a future. They are looking also for proper jobs combined with training.
  The Budget statement is also about our children's education and their future. Additional funding from the windfall levy will equip our schools in the race towards the 21st century. Additional funding in the next financial year will resource our schools in our push towards raising standards.
  The move away from red tape and bureaucracy and the transfer of moneys into frontline patient care was the promised start for our national health service. To this, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is giving a further commitment for the next financial year. Such action has been greeted with great relief in my constituency—a constituency trapped in red tape, with a health board and two trusts. I look forward to early action on that issue. Bureaucracy, fraud and red tape must be tackled. I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health commenting on those matters.
  I understand fully the position in which we find ourselves with the private finance initiative, but we must mould it into a system that meets the need for which it was designed and provides the hospitals that are needed. It should not be a pool of money to be drawn upon and wasted in paying consultants' fees.
  If there is a downside to the Budget, it must be in the increase in road fuel duties. I endorse the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but such an increase hits rural areas especially hard. In rural areas, 25 per cent. of households do not own a private car. During the working day, the number of isolated households can rise to 50 or even 60 per cent. because the family car is being used elsewhere or because no public transport is available. We must aim to improve the transport network, particularly in rural areas, if we are keen to reduce traffic levels on roads in rural areas.
  In rural areas, there is perhaps concern not so much about fuel duty but about the disparity of pricing by oil companies. I know that, in my constituency, a journey of 30 miles can include a price variation in fuel of 8p or 9p a litre. That issue must be addressed.
  I thank right hon. and hon. Members for the friendliness and appreciation that they have shown and I look forward to taking part in many more debates in the coming years. I am honoured to speak in support of the Budget statement.
  8.8 pm
  Mr. Peter Brooke: It is a pleasure to follow a notable trio of maiden speeches—those of the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) and the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown). I congratulate all three on their speeches.
  I thank the hon. Member for Bury, South for the pleasant words that he said about his predecessor, David Sumberg, and I share with him an admiration for Howard Davies, with whom I coincided at the Treasury. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds is my constituent. I was as delighted by his victory as I was warmed by his maiden speech. All Conservative Members
  688
  would want me to thank the hon. Member for Dumfries for his tribute to Sir Hector Monro, who sat in the House, and on the Conservative Front Bench, for a long time. A hundred of the most pleasant hours that I have spent in the House were spent as Whip on the Wildlife and Countryside Bill when Sir Hector led us in Committee.
  I apologise through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to those on the Treasury Bench for the fact that, in speaking late in this four-day debate, due to mechanical problems outside my control, everything that could be said about the Budget has already been said, and I shall not be able to subject it to any new-minted critical analysis such as my right hon. and hon. Friends subjected it to last week and today.
  I heard some of the contributions from my right hon. and hon. Friends and read all those that I did not hear, as I have those from hon. Members on the Government Benches. Many of the latter were maiden speeches. They were excellent in themselves, but, by tradition, they were spared from any obligation to be controversial. Effectively, therefore, we had a rerun of the general election from the Labour Benches in largely unsubstantiated mantras.
  Such response as was made to the effective Opposition criticisms came from the Treasury Bench, although the Financial Secretary, while promising debate and discussion of the issues before the House during consideration of the Finance Bill, clearly demonstrated by her silence on Thursday night in answer to some reasonable, relevant and logical questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) that she did not think that this four-day debate should be sullied by anything as robust as discussion.
  The Chief Secretary intervened in the speech of my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor on Thursday afternoon, but only to demonstrate that old alliance between France and Scotland in a Caledonian interpretation of Marshal Foch's belief that attack is the best form of defence of a hopeless position. He did not defend the Government's position on ACT and pensions; he simply put up another pensions hare, but several fields away.
  Sir Winston Churchill once took similar aim at a hare that was several fields away at Blenheim, at which the gamekeeper said that there was no possibility of him hitting it. Sir Winston—as he then was not—said that he just wanted that small animal to feel that it had some part to play in our proceedings. The Chief Secretary's intervention had the same quality of engaging irrelevance.
  The other response, of course, to our criticism concerning pensioners was reversion to VAT on fuel which the Financial Secretary used not once, but twice on Thursday evening. It was a poor riposte in itself, as pensioners were protected from VAT on fuel, and a worse one still when the Government are putting it about that, although we cannot see them, they really wear green underclothes.
  The Paymaster General did at least say that the Government would think again on foreign income dividends, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) referred, though it was an embarrassingly early admission when the Budget was only two days old.
  In 1782, after a Treasury review—nothing changes in our national life—into embezzlement in the Paymaster General's office, which pursued six Paymasters General

  689
  beyond the grave and even found that Lord North owed a bob or two, the great Edmund Burke was appointed Paymaster General as Mr. Clean—again, nothing changes—and brought in a Bill which stated that the penalty for forging the Paymaster General's signature would be death without benefit of clergy. Twenty five years later, Parliament relented and substituted 14 years in Australia as a penalty.
  When I was Paymaster General, I always thought that 14 years in Australia was a pretty heavy price to pay for my signature, but now that we have a proper, rich Paymaster General again, as in the 18th century, perhaps it will become worth while. Ironically, the present Paymaster General says that he will try to persuade people not to go to Australia.
  Apart from having been Paymaster General, I ought also to have declared an interest as a former member of the staff of the Financial Times, to which hon. Members on the Treasury Bench paid a perhaps unintended compliment. Before the Budget, they accused the Opposition of making too much of the Financial Times matter, while the Opposition accused the Government of making too little of it. As the media would be the first to remind the Opposition of how little they matter in the current scheme of things, the charge against the Government is the more serious one.
  It was always said of Dalton's resignation, not least in the Treasury, that it was an example of the divine providence that watches over the affairs of this nation. The Government's compliment to the Financial Times was that either it had a scoop or its forecasting was brilliant. I notice that no one tried to deny that a senior Minister had said something. Any senior Minister stupid enough to speak to the Financial Times in the run-up to the Budget would also, presumably, be stupid enough in due course to reveal his identity. If he pre-empts that by confessing to the Government Chief Whip, I am confident that, in this era of open government, his name will be posted on the notice board in the Noes Lobby or at least in the London Gazette.
  On the Budget itself, I have three and a half things to say. The first relates, with proper alphabetical attention, to ACT. On Monday last week, the Speaker was kind enough to call me during Social Security questions. I asked the Minister answering the question whether the Government acknowledged the international recognition of the sound basis of British pensions, and for a reassurance that the Government would not threaten that sound basis in any particular.
  The Minister answered the first part of the question, but not the second. He either knew what was in the Budget, or he serendipitously guessed it. In either case, by his silence, he avoided misleading the House. It took only two days, however, for the Chancellor to take a Gladstonian axe to that sound basis, which internationally is on a pinnacle with only one other country.
  As I understand chaos theory, not least from Mr. Stoppard's recent play, a butterfly can stretch its wings in one continent and a decent-sized earthquake can occur in another. The Chancellor, perhaps through marrying chaos theory with endogenous growth theory, has achieved a subtly antithetical effect, in which one can drop an annual £5 million boulder into the placid pool of
  690
  recognisably successful pensions policies, and a little old lady in a rural sub-post office has to pay more for her postage stamp.
  The Government's germane responses to criticisms of the effects of their ACT move—if one ignores the hare several fields away—have been two. The first, which I take to have been included in Labour Back-Bench briefing because it has featured in several speeches from Back Benchers, is that some pension schemes are in surplus and some companies are enjoying pension holidays. As those holidays will now come to an end, I enjoyed the Financial Secretary's observation that
  "companies will benefit as a result."—[Official Report, 3 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 508.]
  There is the true voice of the Puritan speaking.
  To be fair to the Financial Secretary, I think that she was referring to the Chancellor's conviction that his policy will transform long-term investment. There has been some evidence during the debate that the Government may have been caught by surprise by some of the adverse consequences of their actions. The mis-selling argument was several fields away but, even if it had been in the same field, it is odd for the Economic Secretary, after appearing as the friend of private pensions, to be so ruthlessly taking away with one hand what she seemed to be giving back to private pension holders with the other.
  My greater anxiety, however, relates to the Chancellor's conviction that he knows how the myriad companies in this land make up their individual minds about dividend and investment policies. I am old enough to have been running a British subsidiary of a foreign company in the mid-1960s when the then Labour Government obliged me to pay dividends, unless I could prove that I needed the money in the business. Apart from the fact that this Government have intellectually reversed that policy by 180 degrees, I seriously doubted then whether the man in Whitehall knew best, and whether the hours and hours that I spent persuading Inland Revenue officials that I needed the money was a productive use of my time or theirs.
  We shall need a great deal of what the Financial Secretary called discussion and debate on the Finance Bill to test the Government's assumptions and to excise the worst adverse consequences.
  My second comment is on the hypothecation of the windfall tax. Anyone who has served as a Minister in the Department of Education and Science can approve more money going into education and training, assuming that it is properly targeted. I am no doubt guilty of being more Calvinist than the Chancellor, although my family lived in Ulster for two and a half centuries where the people are the best savers and the best givers in the country. I must confess that, if the particular purpose to which the windfall tax is being applied is of such over-arching significance—rather than being aimed at a diminishing target—my immortal soul would be improved if I suffered some hardship in achieving it rather than doing so via a soundbite about fat cats, who, in this instance, are long since Macavities anyway. The puritans are letting themselves down if redemption does not involve some suffering for the rest of us. The fact that we all feel relaxed about the Budget is a greater tribute to adroitness than to seriousness, because it makes us potentially less insistent that the harvest of the windfalls be well employed.

  691
  That brings me to my third point: the Secretary of State for Education and Employment was confident on Thursday afternoon that local authorities will use the bounty bestowed upon them for the purposes that the Government intend. When I was an Education Minister, half the relevant local authorities vired from education into housing and the other half from housing into education. I spent one of the most bizarre hours of my political life when Liverpool, having taken the £3 million that I had granted it the year before for the polytechnic's computer and transferred it into housing, then solemnly asked me to give it another £3 million the next year for the computer so that the money could go into housing again. I am, of course, reassured by the Secretary of State's confidence. However, it takes us back to the central faultline of the Government's attitude to decentralisation, to which I have alluded before: they are in favour of devolution, but expect the devolved powers to be used in line with policy from the centre.
  Finally, I shall deal with the half thing. For two months, this Government have blamed everything on their predecessors—although with less style than the Conservative Leader of the House in 1951, Captain Harry Crookshank. In his winding-up speech during the Queen's Speech debate, he said that all Governments find skeletons in the closet when they come to Whitehall but that his Government had found the skeletons swinging from the chandelier. The present Leader of the House declined my invitation to say when this Government will start taking responsibility for their actions. However, in economic policy terms, they are incontrovertibly on their own after this Budget.
  8.21 pm
  Dr. George Turner: I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech in the Budget debate. Budgets do much to determine the well-being of those who send us here and, rightly, strongly influence their judgment of us.
  Before addressing any Budget issues directly, I wish to express to the House my personal delight at being here at all. I am greatly honoured that the people of North-West Norfolk have elected me. I should also like to follow the traditions of the House by mentioning my predecessors and by providing a brief sketch of my constituency—it is, after all, 33 years since a Labour Member has been able to do so.
  Informed Members will know that, although somewhat camouflaged by a name change and minor boundary revisions, mine is one of the nation's truly great historic constituencies. The name North-West Norfolk accurately describes the geography of the constituency, but King's Lynn is indisputably the centre of it and gave the constituency its name for many years.
  Sir Robert Walpole, the nation's first Prime Minister, represented King's Lynn in this place, and his family long dominated the politics of west Norfolk. Happily, not all the political customs of that time have survived to this day. However, the Walpole family motto, "Say what you think", has strongly influenced many of those sent to represent my part of Norfolk in Parliament. Saying what one thinks has not always won friends in political circles, but it clearly expresses an expectation of the people of Norfolk—and particularly of my constituents. When in doubt, I follow its guidance and, to date at least, I have come to no harm—nay, I have had not even a rebuke from Excalibur itself.
  692
  I have known three of my immediate predecessors personally. At the beginning of my election campaign, I was particularly pleased to meet Derek Page—now in another place—who served from 1964 to 1970. He was the last Labour Member to represent the constituency—a fascinating man who became disillusioned with old Labour, but has now fully endorsed new Labour—and many in Norfolk recall his time with affection. When I met him, I felt that the baton had been handed to me to bring to this place and, for the first time, I felt that I would win the seat.
  Derek lost his seat in 1970 to an equally interesting politician, Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler, who won the seat as a Conservative. He not only said what he thought but, in a moment of high drama in this Chamber, crossed the Floor of the House to join the newly born Social Democratic party. He narrowly lost his seat at the next election and, despite his substantial personal following in Norfolk, never realised his ambition to return to the House. Notably, he, too, now supports new Labour.
  I hold out no hope for such conversion of my immediate predecessor, Mr. Henry Bellingham, who will be well known to Conservative Members as he served for 14 years on their Benches. They will know that he was, by word and by action, a most loyal supporter of the previous Government. Some say that his loyalty was penance for his ancestor John Bellingham who, just yards from where I stand, assassinated Prime Minister Spencer Perceval in 1812. In his maiden speech, Mr. Henry Bellingham declared an ambition to remove the blemish he felt that that dastardly act had attached to his family name. I hope that history will judge that he did so.
  I am certainly pleased to take this opportunity to pay public tribute to Mr. Bellingham. In Norfolk, he was widely recognised for the pains that he took in handling constituency work. He went to great lengths on behalf of constituents with problems—whether pursuing officials of government or quango at a national or most local level. His efforts earned him considerable respect and affection within the constituency, and were certainly a factor in limiting my majority at the election. Interestingly, some officials have sought to dampen my enthusiasm for following Mr. Bellingham's example and pursuing them on constituency issues. However, after only modest exposure to my new role, I am certain that nothing less will do in my part of Norfolk.
  My constituency has many features worthy of note—not least the town of King's Lynn, with its 1,000-year-old port and mediaeval, Elizabethan and Georgian architecture. Its port and fishing industries remain sources of employment, but they are surpassed today by the many small and medium-sized businesses to be found in the industrial estates that were mainly stimulated when the town had an overspill agreement with London.
  Many will know my constituency for the beauty of its countryside and coastal regions. To the north lie marshes and superb sand beaches which provide natural havens for wildlife and joy to the discriminating visitor. There are many pleasing coastal villages, and the town of Hunstanton remains popular with a variety of visitors and family holiday-makers. More recently, those northern towns and villages, like many others in Norfolk, have attracted people who come to Norfolk at the end of their working lives seeking quality of life for their retirement.

  693
  A number of huge agricultural and sporting estates lie inland, and they are typical of those that were the very cradle of the agricultural revolution. There is also the royal residence on the beautiful Sandringham estate. Agriculture remains of considerable importance to Norfolk. Hon. Members may be interested to know that more than 200 years ago in the village of Heacham in my constituency agricultural workers gathered with their farming employers to petition Parliament for a minimum wage, which they wished to see linked to the price of corn.
  My constituency also contains a marshland area to the west, much of which was reclaimed from the sea by Dutch engineers in the 17th and 18th centuries. It has a unique landscape, provides fertile soil and is divided by waterways. It is home to some of the nation's finest and most fiercely independent horticulturists, fruit growers and small farmers.
  My constituency has almost 100 towns, villages and hamlets. It has a rich variety of landscapes, activities and people. It is home to some of the richest and some of the poorest in our land. It is certainly one of the most rural constituencies in England to be represented by a Labour Member. The House will understand that it is a particular honour for me to be here tonight representing North-West Norfolk.
  However, let me not leave the House with the impression that I represent a rural idyll. Many important needs of my constituents have been much neglected for many years. I am glad that the Budget addresses many of those issues. Unemployment, including that of young people, remains at intolerable levels. Even in Lynn, where rationalisation has led to job losses, there are far too many low-skill, low-wage jobs. Many of our villages lack well-paid employment for people who historically looked to the land for work. In the 30 years that I have lived in Norfolk, there has been a dramatic decline in the numbers required to work large estates.
  As the previous chairman of the education committee, I know all too well that too many of Norfolk's school buildings require major investment. The county has suffered from an historically low spend on education. The road network in Norfolk, particularly the A47 strategic link, still cries out for improvement and tightly constrains economic development. I have also recently had to inform Ministers that the plight of our fishing fleet requires urgent attention. Rural poverty is every bit as debilitating as its urban equivalent. It will be my priority to see that the urgent needs of my constituents are given proper regard in the deliberations of the House and in the decisions of Ministers.
  Hon. Members will gather that I am pleased to give a warm welcome to the Budget. Through the windfall tax, it addresses the need to help many people, especially the young in my constituency, to find work. It deals with the problems of our schools and of the health service. Importantly, it keeps the election promises that I made. After a weekend in Norfolk talking to my constituents, I politely warn Conservative Members that by asserting otherwise they will earn themselves a reputation for veracity in opposition no better than that which bedevilled their latter years in government.
  I bring a warm welcome for the Budget from Norfolk with but one caveat. The right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) referred to the problem
  694
  encountered in rural communities who need to use cars. People who live in villages where they count the number of buses per week rather than per hour view differently the stick of extra taxes, however green the purpose and however well intentioned the Chancellor imposing them. During the lifetime of this Parliament, it will be essential to use broader measures—both carrot and stick, not just stick—to ensure that the interests of rural people are properly reflected in Budget decisions. I look forward to Ministers providing that range of policies.
  I hope that I shall not be too controversial if I say a few words about advance corporation tax and pensions, a subject which seems to vex many Conservative Members. I have been a trustee of a pension fund and for many years I have repaid my mortgage through a personal equity plan. I have made it my business at least to try to understand some of the effects of advance corporation tax. If one is to judge the merits not of imposing a tax—which is how Conservative Members refer to it—but of removing a tax benefit, the question that one should ask is why one would introduce such a tax benefit if it did not exist. The answer is that one would not.
  If the Chancellor is to take money from people to give tax advantages for certain forms of behaviour, the correct way to do so is to give the tax incentive to the individual who will save the money. We should not try to do so through pension funding by reason of contortions in logic. That is too remote from the pressures that can be put on individuals to recognise the benefits of thrift and saving for their pensions.
  I carefully investigated the actions of the previous Government when they reduced the level of ACT from 25 to 20 per cent. At that time, I read in the newspapers—the same ones that I read this weekend—the dreadful predictions of how much more I would have to put into my PEP. Those predictions were wrong: my PEP has gone up by 35 per cent. whereas they referred to effects at 2 or 3 per cent. My PEP has gone up by 35 per cent. because what really matters to people is our country's economic well-being, not jiggering around with pensions because of tax considerations. What matters is good, sound management and sound judgment of areas in which to invest both in this country and internationally.
  I believe that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is right in trying to stoke the boiler of the train we are on so that we all move faster, while Conservative Members are in danger of having an academic argument about how we move up and down the corridors of the train: if one walks forward up the train, one may gain time, but really to gain time one must get the train to move faster. History will judge that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made a sound judgment in his Budget proposals.
  8.36 pm
  Mr. John Swinney: I congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) on his maiden speech. I suspect that the Prime Minister will read the Official Report tomorrow morning with some trepidation, given the family history of some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. However, I am sure that the Prime Minister has nothing to fear from the hon. Gentleman's supportive remarks.
  There have been many changes in the House of Commons as a result of the general election. We shall see later the congestion in one Lobby and the lack of

  695
  congestion in the other, if I may put it so delicately. I am sure that people expected enormous changes from the Budget. Instead, from what we heard last Wednesday and from what we have seen as the debate has unfolded over the weekend and today, we have a Budget steeped in a remarkably Conservative tradition. Tory spending targets have been not only maintained, but intensified by the decisions taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Treasury team. People around the country must be asking themselves what was the point of having a change of Government, given that the new Labour Government are maintaining the Conservative tradition. There have been many soundbites and initiatives since the election, but it is difficult to get hold of the substance of change.
  Much has been made of the enthusiasm with which Order Papers were waved last Wednesday. In the resource-saving drive that the House of Commons should be undertaking, we should be a little more sparing with the number of Order Papers that are given out so as to minimise such behaviour when Budget euphoria dies down after a mere couple of days.
  The Government received a substantial proportion of their mandate from Scotland. Hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that I want to deal with the Budget's relevance and significance for Scotland. Tomorrow, in the Scottish Grand Committee, courtesy of a debate initiated by the Liberal Democrats, we shall have an opportunity to debate specifically the impact of the Budget on Scotland. I welcome that opportunity to go over the points in more detail.
  I want to concentrate on three points about the Budget and its relevance to Scotland which I believe are of enormous importance. Much has been made of the overheating of the economy. There have been sustained attempts to get answers from Opposition Front Benchers on whether they agree with the Government that the economy is overheating. Some of the indications of the overheating of the economy are quite clear. House prices in the south-east of England and in London have increased by 17.4 per cent. in the past year, compared with an increase of only 2 per cent. in Scotland, which does not even represent a real-terms increase. The economy of the south-east of England is driven by consumer spending while the economy in Scotland is much more dependent on exporting and investment.
  One of the consequences of the Chancellor's Budget is, undeniably, higher interest rates. A nod was given quite clearly in that direction to the Bank of England's monetary policy committee on Wednesday. That is of course dismal news for the Scottish economy, where interest rate increases are the last thing on earth that our economy is looking for. Indeed, on Radio 5 on Thursday the chief economist of the Royal Bank of Scotland was quoted as saying that if monetary policy were set on Scottish conditions, substantially lower interest rates would be required.
  The chief economist of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), Mr. Ian Duff, made the point that overheating is a factor of the south-east of England and not of economies in other parts of the United Kingdom—not just Scotland. Intense economic activity in one part of the United Kingdom causing enormous economic hardship in other parts has bedevilled us for the past 25 years. The Government have done absolutely nothing in the Budget to stop that pattern being repeated.
  696
  It is interesting that prestigious economists in Scotland are now taking the view that UK economic policy is harming and penalising the Scottish economy. We desperately need an economic strategy focused on growth and certainly not one focused on engineering deflation.
  My second point concerns the increase in petrol prices, to which the hon. Members for North-West Norfolk and for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) referred in their maiden speeches. I must express the strongest possible concern about the proposed increase in petrol duty announced by the Chancellor under the guise of environmental concerns—which we all share. The increase does not just mean an extra £60 a year—which is what we calculate will be the impact on rural users in Scotland as a result of the Budget. There is also the additional £300 increase that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), the previous Chancellor, had already put in place. When one considers that those increases have been implemented less than nine months apart, one realises that the burdens increasingly falling on rural communities are enormous.
  In many parts of my large, rural constituency in Scotland, there is absolutely no alternative to using a car as an essential lifeline because we fall into the category defined by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk where buses may appear once or twice a week. The increase in petrol duty is therefore a penalty for rural areas and shows no imagination whatever in trying to tackle the real problem of urban congestion and energy use in an appropriate and effective way without jeopardising the essential interests of rural communities.
  My third point relates to the enthusiasm in the form of waving Order Papers in response to the bounty of new spending announced. During the election campaign, the economic arguments that my party advanced were somewhat ridiculed by many of those who sit on the Treasury Bench these days, including the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who conveniently announced that one of the central points of our arguments concerning the new Government's belief that abolishing the assisted places scheme would enable class sizes to be reduced to an appropriate level in Scotland was based on a fraudulent or deficient calculation on the back of an envelope. Although our arguments were rebutted by the hon. Gentleman, we have of course now found out that the savings cannot quite generate the achievements for which the Government were looking. That leads me on to examine some of the other alleged increases in spending in the Budget.
  The real-terms increase of 1.6 per cent. in health spending in Scotland is welcome, but far from enough to meet the growing problems in the health service there. On education, there is an increase of £1 per pupil per week in Scottish schools. At least six or seven schools in my constituency could benefit from complete refurbishment in a programme which can hardly afford the refurbishment of one primary school in each constituency in Scotland.
  I am glad that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) is in the Chamber. It is clear from this morning's newspapers that he was very busy over the weekend with his calculations about the £5 billion hole in the Government's finances. We have been busy calculating on the strength of his calculations, and our calculation is that the Secretary of State for Scotland will have to find

  697
  about £80 million merely to ensure a standstill budget—despite the very laudable commitments given by the Government on Wednesday. If he were to find that amount, although there would be increases in health and education spending, there would also be cuts in industry and enterprise, housing, law and order, social work—one can take one's pick of the services there to be cut.
  Not only are the Government prepared to accept the previous Government's spending targets—they are determined to intensify the squeeze on certain services. As though the council funding crisis were not bad enough just now in Scotland, how much more severe must it become before public services are undermined to an irreconcilable level?
  The Government have also announced changes to advance corporation tax, on which many Conservative Members have concentrated. We should not lose sight of the impact that that will have on the distinctive Scottish financial community, where many of the pension fund schemes mentioned in debates over the past few days carry out many of their investment decisions.
  We now have a Chancellor, a Chief Secretary to the Treasury and an Economic Secretary who represent Scottish constituencies. Despite all that presence in the high offices of the Government, we do not seem to have a Budget that is particularly appropriate for Scotland. It leaves us wondering whether the Westminster system can ever deliver a Budget which meets the needs of the people of Scotland and presents an economic package that will work for our community rather than always serving the interests of the south-east of England.
  I noticed in the rather handy pocketbook which was distributed last week the Government's commitment to moving towards a fairer tax system. I find that a rather bewildering remark when, on reading all the announcements made on Wednesday, people like Mr. Cedric Brown, the former chief executive of British Gas, will end up paying no more income tax than before the Budget.
  Undoubtedly, the services in our communities will suffer as a result of the Budget. That is the price of following very restrictive spending targets which are totally inappropriate to the needs of a modern and developing society. I suspect that many people in Scotland will be left wondering what on earth was the point of voting Labour when all they get is the worst of the Tory spending targets.
  8.48 pm
  Mr. John Grogan: By way of a maiden speech, I have four very modest boasts to make and a couple of observations to pass on last week's people's Budget. My initial and proudest boast is that I am the first non-Tory ever to speak in this historic Chamber on behalf of the citizens of the ancient market towns of Selby and Tadcaster and the surrounding villages.
  The country as a whole has had to put up with the Tories for the past 18 years, but in Selby we are talking centuries. Indeed, reputedly, Oliver Cromwell was the last non-Tory to get a look in locally. True enough, in October 1905, there was a brief electoral experiment in pluralism when a Liberal by the name of Joseph Andrews was elected in a by-election. Unfortunately for him, he lost his
  698
  seat three months later in the general election of January 1906. Even more unfortunately for him, the House did not sit in the three months he was a Member, so he never got the chance even to say a few words. I am doubly grateful, therefore, to have got this far tonight.
  Selby, in many ways, is classic middle England with lots of understated English virtues and a touch of Yorkshire sangfroid thrown in for good measure. Local people take the changes that life brings—wars, industrial change, revolutions or mere general elections—in their stride. My result was declared at 4.35 am on 2 May. My supporters and I spilt out on to the streets of Selby at about the same time as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was joining the festivities on the south bank, amid wild scenes of excitement and celebration. As dawn broke in Selby, the excitement reached us, too. Two early shift workers crossed the road and shook my hand—well, one of them crossed the road and the other thought about it and waved from the other side. By 10 am, I am glad to report to the House, Selby had put behind it all that early morning exuberance and I was able to walk through the streets unrecognised.
  Three Tory Members of Parliament have followed Joseph Andrews in Selby since 1906. The first two were colonels. Michael Alison, my predecessor, was not a colonel, but he is a gentleman. He served the area with distinction. During his time in the House, he was instrumental in achieving the abolition of tolls on the bridge over the River Ouse in Selby. He promised to do that in his maiden speech in 1964, and that is a lesson for us all in keeping our promises. He leaves to me the task of securing the much-needed Selby bypass. One phrase in his maiden speech strikes me. Discussing the Atlantic alliance, he said:
  "Our tie-up should be with the Europeans, not only in defence but in economic development."—[Official Report, 17 December 1964; Vol. 704, c. 638.]
  Those are wise words and it is a shame that so many who agree with his sentiments are now so isolated in the modern-day Tory party he leaves behind.
  In his later years as a Member of Parliament, Michael was known simply and affectionately as the Minister for God, given his distinguished role as the representative of the Church Commissioners. That brings me to my second modest boast. I can exclusively reveal to the House tonight that I was sounded out for a job within three days of arriving here. I was in the Lobby, trying to look confident but inconspicuous, when a Government Whip approached. Panic overtook me. What had I done wrong? I had only been here three days. Instinctively, I felt for my jacket pocket. Perhaps I had inadvertently switched off my pager which, of course, links us all—rightly—with mission control. To my surprise, the Whip merely said that he had heard that I was very devout. I did not disagree, calculating that being seen as very devout was probably a plus in new Labour. The Whip then said that he understood that I went to church every week. This was pushing things a little, but it occurred to me that I was being considered for the short-list for the same post that my predecessor had held. I had to confess—that is probably the right word—to being a Roman Catholic and point out that although this did not debar me from being a Member of the House, unlike in previous centuries, it might cause some problems as the representative of the Church Commissioners. I am delighted to see that my

  699
  hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), who is much better qualified for the post, has now landed the job.
  My third modest boast is that I was a direct contemporary at university of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). Although in recent years, it might be said that his political career has been more spectacular than mine, I at least have the compensation that I have retained just a little bit more of my hair. The right hon. Gentleman was the president of the world-famous Oxford debating union, when I was president of the less world-famous student union. In an early example of practising the politics of the many and not the few, under my leadership the student union tried to take over the debating union and throw open its doors to the student population as a whole. We went down to one of the less well-known but many heroic defeats that characterised Labour politics at the time. I learnt my political lesson about the futility of such heroic defeats, but I fear that if the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks maintains his current policy mix of anti-European and anti-devolution rhetoric, he too will have to get used to many heroic defeats in the years to come.
  My final boast is that I am one of the 25 or so newly elected Labour Members who can claim a working background in business. For two years, I ran a small conference business. At times, it probably owed as much to the business techniques of Arthur Daley as to those of ICI, but I learnt the importance of cash flow, training, long-term planning and investing in people. My central contention is that last week's Budget established Labour as the party that best understands what makes the British economy tick, that is most aware of the needs of British business, and that demonstrably wants to enable more people to succeed economically.
  We have heard many Opposition Members criticising the welfare-to-work programme. We have heard that employers will allegedly exploit the system and have a revolving door for subsidised labour on their books every six months. Aside from the obvious arguments about proper monitoring, Opposition Members do not realise what we are about or the seriousness of our intent. The Budget represents a new approach to economic management, which is totally different from that of Conservative Members. The way to run a successful market economy is not to adopt the philosophy of recent years, which was based on devil take the hindmost, every person for themselves, not paying bills on time, exploiting every loophole and doing down your colleagues. That economic philosophy has left us with disastrously low investment and training levels. It never was the philosophy favoured by the most successful of our companies or by the more intelligent minds in the Conservative party.
  The Government want to encourage a new corporate culture based on far-sighted companies. Before the election, some eminent members of the business community produced a business agenda for Europe and hon. Members may recall that the former Deputy Prime Minister gatecrashed the press launch. The agenda referred to
  "Companies which aim to be in business indefinitely and seek to maximise returns over a long period of time. A far sighted firm must be and remain highly competitive. That means not so much the ability to screw the last halfpenny out of any deal as the ability to
  700
  engage the enthusiasm and commitment of employees and business associates, to induce them to make the investments of skills and capital that will be jointly beneficial.
  The importance of co-operation, against a background of competitive markets, should be clear."
  It is that co-operation between Government, business and employees that the Budget offers. Welfare to work will enable employers to take on some of our long-term unemployed, to help to motivate them, to train them, to harness their talent and to reap the rewards by keeping on those who succeed. A far-sighted company is one that recognises obligations beyond its shareholders and that its long-term health and prosperity depend on creating a society in which everyone has a stake.
  My two remaining brief observations relate to the three dominant industries in my constituency—coal, power and beer. Selby boasts more working coal mines than any other constituency, Europe's largest coal-fired power station at Drax, and three major breweries in the market town of Tadcaster. New Labour believes in promoting vigorous, fair competition. All that these industries are crying out for is such vigorous and fair competition.
  I welcome the Chancellor's review of excise duties on beer. UK beer duty is seven times that of France, resulting in the flood of duty-paid and illegal imports into the United Kingdom. I hope that the Chancellor will in future embark on a strategy of approximating duty to the French level. Some 75 brewing and pub companies have promised to pass on any reduction in duty to their customers. Paradoxically, the greater the cut in duty, the greater the benefit to the Treasury, as other tax revenues—especially from the pub trade—increase.
  The coal industry wants to compete on equal terms with its principal competitors, gas and nuclear power. The sweetheart deals between the regional electricity companies and the new gas-fired power stations are anti-competitive and mean that, in many cases, the consumer has to pay a premium on his electricity bills. We still produce the cheapest deep-mined coal in Europe and, with the development of clean coal technology, coal can be clean. It would hardly be far sighted for any Government to meet the new tough carbon dioxide emissions simply by allowing what remains of the British coal industry to wither away.
  I do not call for coal to be given a chance out of some romantic sentiment, but out of practical economics. A sensible energy policy is one that maintains diversity of supply and different energy sources. Economic logic surely dictates that whether through action in Brussels or Whitehall, the workings of our electricity pool—as complicated and unfair as our local government grant system—are examined and opened up to competitive pressures.
  The Budget—with its emphasis on welfare to work and encouraging long-term investment, while supporting frontline services such as education and health—has established Labour's economic credentials. Like the majority of British people, I support it with some enthusiasm, but with a degree of delight that, contrary to the views of some, there is, and has always been, a radical and progressive alternative approach to the Budgets of the past 18 years.
  8.59 pm
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I would like to congratulate all hon. Members who have made maiden speeches; my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) and the hon. Members for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) and for Selby (Mr. Grogan), whose speech was particularly amusing. I share with him a loss of hair—in fact, I think I am ahead of him in that respect. I also share with him a concern for small businesses, although probably not of the Arthur Daley variety.
  I was particularly impressed that the hon. Member for Dumfries ventured to criticise part of the Budget—the increase in fuel duty. We both represent rural seats and can make common cause on that issue. In a moment, I will be able to tell the maidens whether making a second speech is any less daunting than making a first.
  I think there is no economic justification for the Budget. The economy is in good shape, as even the Red Book confirms. This is a political Budget, produced for political reasons about which I shall say more in a moment. It has been done in a rush. The likely blight to the venture capital industry caused by only the vaguest of announcements about possible changes which will not take place for nine months, but which will be backdated to Budget day, is one example. In common with the announcement of the Bank of England's independence, it is a sign of the Government's discourtesy to this House and their arrogance. Incidentally, they might also explain why the document, "Public Expenditure 1996–97: Provisional Outturn", was not available in the Vote Office after the Chancellor sat down.
  The precedent for having a Budget immediately after an election exists—in 1979, we had the Geoffrey Howe Budget. That early Budget put in place a fundamental shift in the conduct of economic policy in this country—a shift that was clearly signalled before the election. By contrast, Labour's victory in May—far from being a vote for a new economic strategy—was a massive endorsement of the policies that they have inherited. To get elected, Labour had to endorse Conservative economic strategy, lock, stock and barrel. Labour even had to go to the extraordinary lengths of promising to implement Conservative spending plans, programme by programme.
  Labour has spent the past 20 years—and the past decade in particular—learning a new language of free enterprise, sound money and the importance of markets. But I am afraid that some of the things in the Budget lead me to conclude that, for Labour, this is still a second language. That was clear enough from the text of the Chancellor's Budget speech, much of which, I am aware, was written by Treasury officials. I recognise some of the phraseology—some of which almost seemed to have come from Conservative party literature. But several paragraphs did not sound quite right. For example, the Chancellor said that his goal was
  "to ease inflationary pressures without damage to industrial and exporting prospects and to do so in a way that is consistent with our long-term objective of high and stable growth and employment. In this way, we can moderate the upward pressure on interest rates and on the exchange rates as well as further our objective of sustainable public finances.
  I have therefore decided to tighten fiscal policy."—[Official Report, 2 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 305.]
  702
  That is the old language of fiscal fine-tuning. I could not help thinking that, unlike most of the speech, this passage was written by the Chancellor himself. In his speeches in the House 10 years ago, he was a far more committed supporter of fiscal fine-tuning than he is now.
  The fact is that rather than merely say, "We want to raise taxes because, sooner or later, we will want to spend the money," which is the truth, the Chancellor tried to cloak some of the tax rises that he announced in something more respectable. That is what has been behind all the talk about output gaps, overheating and black holes. The plain fact is that output gaps are impossible to measure, as Treasury officials will have briefed the Chancellor. I think that there is a recondite footnote in the Red Book that more or less makes it clear that the Treasury does not believe in the idea of measuring such a gap.
  As for overheating, if the economy is really doing so, a few billion pounds on taxes will not make a scrap of difference. That was the lesson of the 1980s. The way to tackle overheating would be through interest rate and exchange rate policy. With Bank of England independence, that is what we are going to get.
  While on the subject of exchange rates, I would like to ask the Treasury Front-Bench team a few questions, including, for example, whether we have an exchange rate policy. Does the Chancellor really want to moderate upward pressure on the exchange rate and, if so, does that also mean that he wants some downward pressure? Does that mean that there is a ceiling above which the Government will not tolerate, or will seek to avoid, allowing the exchange rate to rise? If there is to be intervention in the foreign exchange markets to achieve this, by whose direction will that be done and whose reserves will be used—those of the Bank of England or those of the Treasury? We now have two authorities controlling two sets of reserves.
  I want some answers to those questions tonight from the Minister and I hope that the answers will not fall into the category of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) earlier described as "engaging irrelevance".
  In his efforts to find a black hole, the Chancellor sent the forecast to the National Audit Office for vetting. Unfortunately for him, it did not oblige. In fact, it did the opposite and underwrote the credibility of the forecast of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). Far from being a black hole in the accounts, there has turned out to be a medium-sized pot of gold for Labour. It is to be found on page 12 of the Red Book. That gives the game away. It shows that, despite a reduction in the growth forecast, tax receipts are forecast to rise by no less than £10 billion in the next two years. That is where the improvement to the public sector borrowing requirement comes from and nowhere else.
  Unfortunately, the Red Book contains very little text to explain all that. I suppose that Labour scarcely wanted to flag up the fact that it had inherited even better public finances than the Opposition had been stating. I can only say to that, so much for the new transparency in the accounts.
  The Chancellor announced that he will now submit his fiscal forecast for an annual review by the NAO. I support that as a principle, but the NAO is probably not best equipped to do that work. If he really wants transparency and credibility for his forecasts, he would do better to set

  703
  up an independent fiscal policy committee—a counterpart to the independent Monetary Policy Committee—to do the job, as I suggested last year in a publication for the Social Market Foundation.
  Other hon. Members have talked a great deal about the damage that the Budget will do by increasing business taxation, which will ultimately hit pensioners. I will not go over that again except to say that the 17 tax rises in the Budget must constitute one of the biggest broken promises of any incoming Government. After all, only in September the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, said:
  "We have no plans to increase tax at all."
  We can be confident that the Government will not rest at 17, which is why I am sure we have to have another Budget next spring.
  Rather than repeat points about tax, I shall briefly mention spending. Whether the Chancellor has really learnt his free-enterprise lines to get him through the election or whether he believes them does not ultimately matter very much. What matters is whether he can fend off the inevitable demands for higher spending. It is now extremely unlikely that Labour will stick to its commitment to deliver Conservative spending totals, for several reasons.
  First, the Government have saddled themselves with extra costs in the public sector as a consequence of the introduction of the minimum wage, the knock-on effect for local government and other parts of the public sector on pension schemes that the advance corporation tax change will bring and also expensive new legislation, big and small, such as the compensation for the banning of handguns.
  Secondly, on top of all those factors will come tough decisions on public sector pay, local council grants, social security uprating, school budgets and hospital budgets. All those areas will feel the strain. They are all areas from which Labour drew support disproportionately during the general election and to which nods and winks, if not actual promises, have probably been given recently.
  A third reason why spending will be difficult to control, as I explained in The Observer just over a week ago, is that Labour's new monetary policy will probably cost the Government money. The Chancellor has tried to discourage the Bank of England from flexing its new interest rate muscles too vigorously by giving it a 2½ per cent. inflation target with a 1 per cent. band either side rather than asking it to deliver a ceiling of 2½ per cent. inflation. That will make the spending totals difficult to hit. Totals are based on cash figures and any increase in inflation will mean cuts in real terms in departmental spending programmes. The Budget now forecasts a rise in inflation to 2¾ per cent.
  The inevitable result will be bids from spending Departments to protect themselves in the face of higher inflation. I do not really think that the Treasury forecasters believe that the Red Book numbers add up. They show higher tax receipts to help the public sector borrowing requirement, but no higher spending from the higher inflation they forecast.
  Most important of all, spending will rise because Labour is a ripe target for the spending pressure groups in the public sector. It is not so much that many who voted for Labour will want their shilling. It is rather that
  704
  a glance at the composition of the parliamentary Labour party tells us all we need to know. The Labour Benches have been swelled by a new intake of 179 who are predominantly from public sector backgrounds. I do not say that disparagingly; it is just a matter of fact. In the years ahead, those Labour Members will become a powerful voice for more resources and higher pay in their former professions.
  By my reckoning, no fewer than 115 of the parliamentary Labour party are former teachers or university lecturers. Of the new intake, more than two thirds have a background in local government, administration or social work—all areas which feel they have been hard pressed over the years and which ache for release from the Tory corset. That is why in the long run, spending will rise and that is why we shall find that the spending review will decide Labour's future.
  Even in his first weeks, the Chancellor has had to offer something to satisfy the hunger of the big spenders. There has been the drawing down of the reserve which is not just bad financial discipline, but a harbinger of the spending pressures that, sooner or later, will give the Chief Secretary to the Treasury sleepless nights. All that is happening during an economic upswing. If the Labour Government last until the inevitable downturn in the business cycle, we shall really start to see the spending pips squeak.
  9.11 pm
  Mr. Phil Woolas: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech in this important and historic debate. It is not, of course, historic because of my contribution, but because of the importance of the people's Budget to the fortunes of our people. It is a great honour to be called to speak at the end of this debate. I have chosen the one day when rain in Manchester would have been welcome. My constituency straddles real Lancashire and real Yorkshire so hon. Members can guess that cricket is dear to our hearts.
  It is a greater honour—more important than speaking today—to represent the people of Oldham, East and Saddleworth. My constituency, formed by boundary changes, is truly among the most beautiful. Indeed, the many hon. Members from both sides who visited the former constituency during the Littleborough and Saddleworth by-election would have to concede that in our Pennine hills and valleys, we have a precious jewel. If, in the words of Blake, the countenance divine shone forth upon our clouded hills and if Jerusalem was builded here, it happened in Saddleworth.
  Here, we also have the patent on dark satanic mills. In truth, my constituency is the best of constituencies and the worst of constituencies. In the Oldham parishes of St. Mary and St. James, we know the daily price of poverty, of social deprivation and of all the symptoms that the people's Budget is setting out to cure.
  The real number of unemployed people in Oldham is estimated at 18,634—some 17 per cent. of the work force or one in five. In the estates of Higginshaw, St. Mary's, Derker, Sholver, Glodwick and Clarksfield, the people's courage in the face of what was described as "the price worth paying" is testament to their spirit. It has withstood, with the same fortitude as the Pennine hills that those villages nestle against, all that the free enterprise elements

  705
  of the past 18 years have thrown against them. In the villages of Shaw, Crompton, New Hey, and Milnrow, industry and integrity, in the words of my school motto, have guided the transformation from weaver's sheds and mills to the modern economy. In the Oldham suburbs of Waterhead and Lees, the same spirit can be seen.
  Those who truly want to see the beauty of Britain should come with me to Austerlands cricket club, perched 900 ft above sea level on the Pennine watershed. To the west is Greater Manchester, heartland of the industrial revolution. In the distance, are the great docks of Liverpool and on the far horizon are Jodrell bank and the Welsh hills. To the east, one can see Saddleworth, home of the Pennine culture of brass bands and true northern grit.
  The villages of Denshaw, Delph, Dobcross, Diggle, Uppermill, Greenfield and Grasscroft are truly God's own country. It was in my constituency more than 100 years ago that the Independent Labour party was formed. There, for the past 100 years, democratic socialism, liberalism and conservatism have battled for the soul of the people. There, Tom Mann preached the cause of trade unionism, and Victor Grayson swept all before him in the famous by-election of 1907. There, the former Member for Oldham, Winston Churchill, warned, in the sort of language that only he could command—and, it must be said, with a heavy dose of new Labour—that liberalism and free trade was
  "the cause of the left-out millions."
  In 1906, he looked forward to
  "the universal establishment of minimum standards of life and labour and their progressive elevation as the increasing energies of production permit."
  We will not have to wait much longer.
  It was also in my constituency that the people of Lees under their banner of "Death or Representation", marched to Peterloo to demand universal suffrage. Some met their deaths. To be the new representative of Lees humbles me beyond words. As a new Labour candidate, I cannot claim that the Lees brigade were strictly on message. I hope that my former campaign manager will forgive me if I say that new Labour has been warmly welcomed by the successors of Aamon Wrigley. Not only did Aamon help to form the ILP, his family went on to create the Wrigley's spearmint chewing gum empire. Unkind souls might say that between the Labour party and chewing gum, we have done more for jaw-ache than for anything else.
  No description of my constituency would be complete without reference to "them there hills". Brooding to the east, above Greater Manchester and east Lancashire, is Saddleworth moor. Nowhere in England does such beauty strike such fear. We all remember those forbidding moors. For the sake of all our children, people in Oldham work together. As their representative, I shall oppose any move to release Myra Hindley and Ian Brady. For it is in the attitude of the people, not the common geography, that the true spirit of Pennine folk, Yorkist and Lancastrian alike, is found.
  The alternative service book has one way of putting it. In communion, we say:
  "Though we are many, we are one body because we all share one bread."
  In Oldham, we have another way of putting it, "If you kick one, we all limp." Not only because of convention but because they shared that common outlook, I wish to pay tribute to my three predecessors.
  706
  From Geoffrey Dickens, I learned that the good representative is an advocate of all the people. Ever one for the soundbite, his populism masked a popular politician respected by all, whatever their persuasion. If I am a fraction as succesful a constituency Member as Geoffrey, I will be proud indeed.
  The Liberal Democrat, Chris Davies, understood that also. In his short time as the Member for the constituency, he worked tirelessly and proved himself a doughty campaigner for the people. I suspect that despite our respective parts in the political turmoil between our two parties at the by-election, we share much more in outlook than we differ on.
  For Labour, Bryan Davies, who represented the seat of Oldham, Central and Royton, was a magnificent Member of Parliament. It seems strange to me to be paying tribute to him given the huge amount of service he has yet to offer. In Oldham, we all hope and expect that he will be given that opportunity. As the previous Member for Enfield, as secretary of the Parliamentary Labour party, and as a friend and adviser in circumstances where egotists would not have bothered, he has gained the friendship and respect of those with whom he worked.
  It is that common spirit which I will seek to articulate. I will articulate the social diversity of my constituency—from the grinding poverty and exclusion of Glodwick to the beauty and prosperity of Saddleworth. I will seek to build opportunity for all, recognising that it is by the strength of our common endeavours that we achieve more together than we achieve alone. This Government and Labour Members have set their course according to that and it is against that that we will be judged.
  The Prime Minister was right when he said that we are the servants not the masters, but what divides those on the Labour Benches from those on the Conservative ones is our understanding that the Government are the master of the economy. We must never again allow free trade and the free market to determine people's fate. This Budget takes control for the people.
  From my time with the GMB, I remember a story that stuck in my mind for 10 years. A magazine article described how in the early 1980s different groups from around the country had been brought together and asked to give their prognosis for the economy in the forthcoming 10 years. The economists, of course, got it wrong; the media, of course, could not see beyond tomorrow's headlines; and the politicians were way off target. But one group got it spot on—the dustbin men, or the refuse operators as we should properly call them. They predicted exactly what would happen to the economy. In paying tribute to the Budget, it is testament to say that the bin men of Oldham welcome it with open arms.
  9.21 pm
  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) on his appointment as Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I wish him well in his post. He will shortly respond to the debate and will have a number of questions to answer. I should like to summarise if I can some of the questions that have been posed in the debate by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I should also like to pick up on one or two comments made by Labour Members.

  707
  The main feature of the debate is that we have finally got near the truth of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced last week. It was a massive, unnecessary, tax-raising Budget—new Labour in presentation certainly, but old Labour in all its effects.
  The Chancellor said that it was a Budget for the long term. He was right in one sense, because it hit the long-term plans and aspirations of millions of savers and pensioners. The damage caused by the. Budget will indeed be long term.
  The Budget was also completely unnecessary: the Government have a golden inheritance. They have taken over the strongest economy in Europe, which has been brought about because of structural reforms, privatisations, deregulation and reform of trade union law, all of which were opposed all the time by all of the Labour party. It was our reforms, however, that not only transformed the output of the economy, but, combined with the strict control on public expenditure that we managed, delivered the steady reduction in unemployment which was far more effective and far more secure in dealing with the problems of long-term and youth unemployment than the present Government's attempts through their welfare-to-work programme. Again, those supply-side reforms were opposed day in and day out, night after night, by all the Labour party, including hon. Members who are now on the Government Front Bench.
  Old Labour attitudes broke out once or twice in today's debate, but, nevertheless. I sincerely congratulate the hon. Members for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) and for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas) all of whom made confident and fluent maiden speeches. We very much appreciated their tributes to their immediate predecessors, all too many of whom used to sit on the Benches behind the Treasury Bench.
  The debate has not, however, answered why the Government are forcing through a tax-raising Budget of this scale. The PSBR last year was £3.3 billion better than expected. That rate of improvement in the public finances is set to continue all the way through the current financial year and into the future, due mainly to buoyant tax revenues. The reason for this huge, tax-raising Budget is no clearer if we examine exactly who has been hit and how.
  The Chancellor increased the duty on road fuel. He also increased, from the day of the Budget statement itself, duty on heating oil. As was shrewdly spotted by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), the Chancellor has raised this additional revenue by putting up these duties five months earlier than we planned in our Budget statement last November. In addition, he increased road fuel duties by more than we had planned—by a full 6 per cent. above inflation. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) rightly pointed out the burden that this imposes on a rural constituency. That point was also made by the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney), who also represents a large rural area.
  With the additional increase in hydrocarbon duty, and by bringing it forward a full five months, the Chancellor has on his hands a real and genuine windfall. It is far greater than the cost of the 3 per cent. cut in VAT on
  708
  heating oil. It adds up to an additional £735 million this year. That was not altogether clear from his Budget statement.
  The Budget represents an enormous additional burden not just on the driving public, but, because he has put up the duty on heating oil, on the people who rely on that form of heating in their homes, outweighing by far the benefit of the cost of reducing VAT on domestic heating.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) reminded the House that when we increased VAT on domestic heating to 8 per cent. we fully compensated pensioners. Indeed, it is now clear from a written parliamentary answer that a single retirement pensioner was no worse off by the increase in VAT on fuel because of the uprating in the pension and the other benefits that we increased at the same time. A retirement pensioner couple were made better off by the increase in VAT on fuel.
  The consumer and the home owner were directly hit by the Budget, but the great burden of tax fell on the corporate sector. How comforting that sounded to Labour Members on Budget day; what a shock it was to them to find that the subterfuge lasted less than 24 hours. The immediate and total abolition of dividend tax credits for pension funds is, in truth, a savage blow, not to City directors, but to millions of ordinary savers and employees.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: Could my right hon. Friend suggest how I might respond to one of my constituents who has run a family business for many years and has been trying to keep his staff in work? He has told me that the increased burden on his pension contributions puts the whole of that policy at risk.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I recommend that my hon. Friend passes on to his constituent the thought that the Labour party cannot be trusted to do what they say they will do before an election. I shall quote to my hon. Friend what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said during the general election campaign:
  "All Labour's proposals will protect and improve the quality of life of pensioners. By contrast, a Conservative fifth term offers insecurity and fear for pensioners."
  The then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, said:
  "My message is, be warned—your pension isn't safe with the Tories."
  What hollow words they were. Even while uttering those words, the Labour leadership must have been planning to reduce people's entitlement to pensions—a policy which we have now seen in the Budget.
  Following the tax change and the abolition of the tax credit on dividends, a typical 35-year-old will have to increase his contribution by nearly one third if he is to maintain his future pension entitlement. A 45-year-old will have to increase his contributions by nearly a quarter.
  The National Association of Pension Funds has said that the change in the Budget will cost pension funds about £4 billion a year. But remarkably, the Financial Secretary, who is in her place, when referring to the tax credit abolition on Thursday, said:
  "The measure is good for pensions and pensioners, not bad for them … People should understand that our reforms will benefit pension funds."

  709
  I should like to give the hon. Lady the opportunity to correct what must have been an error or, at the very least, give the Chief Secretary an opportunity during his wind-up speech to correct what his colleague has said, which is seriously misleading and has been directly contradicted by all the independent advice from actuaries, pension fund managers, trustees and business men. A pension change that takes £4 billion a year or more out of pension funds cannot be reconciled with the Financial Secretary's comment, when she said:
  "People should understand that our reforms will benefit pension funds."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 3 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 507.]
  I hope that the Government will use the opportunity of today's debate to correct that highly misleading statement.
  What is particularly stupid about the proposals is that Britain has a comparative advantage in the field. We have £650 billion worth of private pension funds under management, which is more than the rest of the European Union put together. Those other countries face appalling strains on their public finances stretching into the next century. We, by and large, have avoided that because we have been successful in persuading people to provide for their own future.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House must realise that people cannot rely entirely on a state pension for a decent, comfortable and secure old age; they have to make provision for themselves by way of private pensions. What do the Government do in the face of our achievement, almost unique in Europe, in having built up a massive private pension sector? They tax it, they attack it and they try to take it over for the state. In summary, they have imposed a savings tax on at least half the population of Britain.
  In some cases, it will be individuals who suffer lower pensions or have to make higher contributions to maintain the level; in other cases, it will be companies—companies, moreover, who will therefore invest less. The Post Office has apparently warned the Government that the Budget changes will cost it around £150 million—money that it will now have to put into its pension fund rather than use for investment. That £150 million—every year—is more than the Post Office raised last year by the 1p increase in the price of a stamp. So much for the Government's claim that this was a Budget for investment.
  Another sector has been hit by the Budget in this way—local authorities, which also have funded pension schemes. The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman)—a new Member, whom we welcome to the House—has written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on behalf of local government pension funds. In his letter, he says:
  "the abolition of A.C.T."—
  advance corporation tax—
  "would add at least 3 per cent. or £300 million to our employers' pension costs … No such increase could be afforded by local authorities without making further cuts to services to their local residents. … we would be bound to seek compensating increases to the revenue support grant."
  The hon. Gentleman obviously has the authority of the local authorities to make that representation to the Government. I hope that the Chief Secretary, in winding up the debate, will use the opportunity to tell the House what he is going to do about that, how he will answer the
  710
  questions asked by his hon. Friend and whether he will compensate local authorities. After all, he has accepted the principle of compensating outside bodies; charities are to be compensated in due course for the reduction in the funds they receive from dividend income. Will he apply the same principle to compensate local authorities or will he accept the service cuts that his hon. Friend outlines in his letter? I hope that the Chief Secretary will address himself explicitly to that question.
  There is an even bigger expenditure time bomb at the centre of the Budget. In his Budget statement, the Chancellor raised the inflation level without raising the expenditure limits. He raised a cheer among his more impressionable Back-Benchers when he announced more spending on health and education, but all he did was announce that he was raiding next year's reserve—a reserve he inherited from the Conservatives—which he thereby leaves dangerously low to deal with real contingencies, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk pointed out. That means no new money for the national health service or anything else in the current financial year; it means not a penny for the NHS or education before next April. So all the strains and stresses on current expenditure remain entirely unrelieved. That brings me back to another bigger problem. The Chancellor has raised his estimate of inflation for the next two years and more. Obviously, he has very little confidence in his new Bank of England mechanism. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) pointed out, his inflation target is less rigorous than the one that he inherited.
  Let us consider the impact on the NHS of raising the inflation forecast. Higher inflation in the current year and in future obviously means higher costs, but no more money has been provided this year, and the cash limits remain the same. Therefore, the Chancellor has imposed an immediate and savage squeeze on the real resources. He might have tried to put a bit of sticking plaster over the hole in the NHS budget by allocating more money to health from the reserve, but that does nothing for expenditure in the current year; nor does it affect other sectors of public expenditure that experience the same fiscal squeeze.
  The Budget adds up to a major and sustained reduction in real public expenditure over each of the three survey years ahead. It was all documented subsequently by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, but none of it was clear from the Red Book, despite its so-called openness and candid presentation.
  Alert and technically minded hon. Members will see that, on page 108 of the Red Book, the Chancellor has taken full credit for the extra inflation that he is now anticipating by adding an extra £1.8 billion in higher inflationary revenues in the current financial year and £3 billion in the next financial year. The Chancellor has taken full credit in his Red Book forecasts for his failure to control inflation, while allowing no extra expenditure for health, education, transport, the environment, law and order or anything else.
  When the Chief Secretary replies to the debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] He asked for 15 minutes, so I am not taking his time, if that is what the Chancellor is gesticulating about. When the Chief Secretary replies, will he explain why he is imposing a real cut in actual public

  711
  expenditure and whether his plans are realistic in the light of the expenditure that the Government have carried forward from our last Budget?
  In summary, we have a tax-raising Budget which does great damage to the long-term prospects of savings and pensioners. It is a betrayal of all the assurances that were given about taxes before the Budget. It attacks long-term planning, destroys savings and undermines investment. Moreover, it promises more Government expenditure, but actually plans for less. So, two months into this Parliament, the new Government have already betrayed their taxation and expenditure promises. This evening, there is an opportunity to pass judgment on that and I urge the House to do so.
  9.43 pm
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alistair Darling): In the short time remaining before the end of the debate, I shall return to some of the points made by the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), but I start by reciprocating his good wishes and his welcome to me. I welcome him to his new role as shadow Chief Secretary. He was a Treasury Minister for much of the previous Parliament, but we cannot blame him for everything, as he resigned just over a year before the election because he could not support the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). He is now reinstated on the Front Bench and is among friends, united in their scepticism. We shall never forget his treatise on the duty paid by ferry terminal tugs, which occupied us for several hours one evening when we considered the Finance Bill some two years ago.
  The excellent maiden speeches that we have heard are a testament to the quality of the new intake. There have been a number of them, not just tonight but throughout the Budget debate. The speech of one Conservative Member, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley)—I can certainly agree with him that that is a nice part of the world—was controversial, which is probably no bad thing nowadays. Another issue on which I agree with him is the need to promote thrift, although I warn him about the dangers of going on about the real instincts of the people. A man with a majority of just over 300 should be a bit more cautious.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), whose constituency I visited on the first day of the election campaign—despite that, he won—spoke fluently about the problems faced by his constituents, especially the young people. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) spoke extremely well. He knows a good deal about his constituency, and I think that the whole House will have appreciated the tribute that he paid to Sir Hector Monro, a very decent man whom all hon. Members will remember with much fondness.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) spoke with considerable knowledge, and I am grateful for his support. He made some points about our rural transport policy, and I appreciate what he said. We presented proposals relating to fuel duty in the Budget, but other measures announced by the Government will benefit rural communities. We shall return to those at other times.
  I did not hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), but I understand that he, too, spoke well. I have driven through his constituency many
  712
  times, and was always assured by the Labour party organisers that we had no chance there. It just shows how wrong they were. I note the point that my hon. Friend made about beer duty, especially with regard to his constituents in Tadcaster.
  In a witty speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas) spoke extremely well. It was interesting that he should claim Winston Churchill as a future member of new Labour; no doubt we shall debate that in the future. He also paid a warm tribute to our former colleague Bryan Davies, which I am sure all Labour Members greatly appreciated.
  I shall return to some of the main points that have been raised during the Budget debate. First, however, it is worth reminding ourselves of the main strategy set out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor at the beginning of that debate. As a new Labour Government, we have the objective of maintaining high and stable levels of growth and employment, so that we can achieve the higher living standards that we all want. It is simply not true that—as Opposition Members have claimed—poor people have lost out. In fact, in terms of proportion of income, poor people have gained far more from the Budget, not just because of the reduction in VAT on fuel and the new deal. It is a bit rich for Opposition Members, especially Conservative Members, to go on about poor people, given that if they had had their way, VAT on fuel would have risen to 17.5 per cent.
  We want to promote economic stability. Some of the hardest decisions that we have had to make, on public spending and on other matters, have been driven by the recognition that we need that stability. We want to encourage long-term investment. We start from a difficult position. The nationalists ask themselves why people voted for the Labour party. People voted for us because we told the truth: we told them that hard decisions would have to be made and that there were no quick fixes. We have inherited low levels of investment, a history of boom and bust and a history of short-termism, and we have had to put public finances in proper order.
  Let me now deal with one of the matters that have concerned many Opposition Members: our corporation tax proposals.
  Mr. Peter Lilley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Darling: In a minute, by all means. The shadow Chancellor has not been present all day, but I shall give way to him nevertheless.
  The House must bear in mind our central proposal to reduce corporation tax from 33 to 31 per cent., and corporation tax for small companies from 23 to 21 per cent. We have not heard a word about that from Opposition Members, but the fact is that we have reduced corporation tax, which will improve company performance. We have also reduced a distortion in the tax system, so that the system is neutral in regard to decisions on investment and distribution of profits. Opposition Members must ask themselves whether the Tories would reinstate the tax credit system if they were ever returned to power.
  Mr. Lilley rose—
  Mr. Darling: I shall certainly give way to the shadow Chancellor. Perhaps he can tell us whether the Conservative party would reinstate that system if it was ever returned to power.
  Mr. Lilley: If the Minister can explain to me how it is that taking £5 billion out of long-term investment through pension funds can encourage and increase investment, we shall be open to persuasion on that very question. The Financial Secretary said that the removal of that money would make no difference to investment funds. If that is so, why is it necessary to protect charities from the impact of the Chancellor's decision?
  Mr. Darling: I note that the right hon. Gentleman did not answer the question. We should remind ourselves that it was the Conservative party which would have taken away tax relief from pension contributions. We shall return to more about that on Wednesday.
  The right hon. Gentleman might think about the example of the United States, where many companies have grown faster than British companies and done much better than companies here. They have concentrated far more on the growth of capital value rather than having to respond to the constant pressure of paying out dividends, which can be so harmful.
  We believe—it is an important point that Conservative Members must understand—that the tax system should not distort investment decisions. That is surely the right principle. We believe that we have taken the right decision for the long term.
  Conservative Members should understand also that the value of a pension fund depends on the value of the stock market. It depends also on quality of investment and growth. When Conservative Members examine the predictions made by pension funds for the next 15 or 20 years, they should remember that, at the end of the day, the determining factor is the ability of companies and of the Government to create an environment in which investment is encouraged and companies grow.
  It is worth bearing in mind also that the stock market has grown by about 5 per cent. since the general election. That tends to suggest that many people have a confidence in this Government that they did not have in the Tory Government.
  The key to our proposals is a climate that will lead to more wealth creation, so that we can increase people's standard of living. It should be remembered that it was the Tories who reduced tax credits in 1983. The stated reason was to get money into the Exchequer because of the dire straits then facing the economy. They did not reduce corporation tax. Instead, they reduced tax credits to take money into the Exchequer.
  The Conservatives should be extremely wary, given some of the predictions that we read in the newspapers. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who arrived in the Chamber despite his mechanical difficulties, as yet undisclosed, told us that pension mis-selling was a hare in another field. It may be that to the right hon. Gentleman, but for the many who were mis-sold personal pensions, it is far from being a problem removed. For them, it is a very real problem. Some of those who persuaded people to opt out
  714
  of occupational pensions are those who are making dire predictions about the effect of our policies. I urge everybody to take their predictions with a pinch of salt.
  Conservative Members have asked about the plight of local authorities, but for 18 years we had a Conservative Government who clobbered local authorities. Suddenly, Conservatives are worried about pensions and the amount of public spending that is available to local authorities. They should bear it in mind, when considering the effects of the changes that we have made, that it is likely that they will have less impact on many local authority funds than early retirement costs.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Darling: Not at the moment. Perhaps I shall allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene when I take up the points that he raised.
  Improved company performance will be reflected in long-term share prices. We believe that the changes that we have made are justified.
  I shall refer briefly to the windfall tax. I think that I should, because the shadow Chief Secretary did not mention it once. After all, it was the feature of the Budget that the Conservatives were to complain about for the next few months, yet there was not a word about it save for the contributions of a few Opposition Back-Bench Members. The Conservatives are the only people who will not accept that privatised utilities enjoyed excess profits that they were not investing in the infrastructure, as they promised. Most people believe that our proposal to implement the windfall tax, and to use that money to get people back into work, providing them with the training, skills and education that will mark out the United Kingdom as a place to invest in for the future, is entirely right. That is why we were supported at the recent general election, when we made our policy clear.
  I have no doubt that the Liberal Democrats have had some fun over the weekend with their Sunday-for-Monday press release on the Government's spending proposals. I do not shrink from the fact that we have had to make some hard decisions on public spending. We said that we would take those decisions, and we are doing so. Despite that, we have enabled local authorities, their local education authorities and the health authorities to plan better next year, by announcing that we would allocate them £1 billion and £1.2 billion for their spending next year.
  The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) at least had the courtesy to admit, when I asked him about the matter earlier, that in real terms, health spending would go up by 2¼ per cent. and spending on schools would go up by 2.7 per cent., which is not what he was telling the newspapers over the weekend.
  Spending is increasing. The Liberal Democrats wanted only £500 million; we have allocated £1 billion.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: May I point out to the Chief Secretary that £500 million was for this year? He has given the health service not a penny this year. As he and the Chancellor have said that there will be no spending round this year, they have acknowledged that the inflationary effect will take effect this year and next year. That is why £5 billion is taken out of the spending.

  715
  When will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House how deep the cuts in departmental spending are to be, where social security is to find more than £2 billion, where local authorities are to find more than £1.7 billion and where education and health are to find more than £80O million each? Where will the money come from? When will he tell the House?
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman need not worry about that. We shall keep the House informed, as we always keep the House informed.
  Throughout the debate, the Liberal Democrats have told us how they would spend more money here and more money there. Whenever they are asked where the money is to come from, it is a tax that someone else will pay. I noticed in their manifesto that they said that they would increase fuel duties, yet they condemned us for doing the same thing.
  On tax, it is curious that some Conservative Members say that taxes did not go up enough, whereas others say that taxes went up too much. We have had to take the decisions announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to pay off the debts that the Tories left us. We are determined not to get into a situation where this country is saddled with debt, with the result that debt interest payments are so high that not only does that impede our economic performance, but money that could otherwise be spent on services is being spent on repaying debt.
  The same applies to the housing market. The Conservatives left the country with a legacy of boom and bust. There are many people in various parts of the country who are still living with negative equity. Nearly every hon. Member on the Conservative Front Bench bears responsibility for the unsustainable Lawson boom of the late 1980s. The only one who can claim an exemption is the leader of the Tory party, who can genuinely claim that he was too young at the time and had nothing to do with it. The rest of them are all guilty.
  We have inherited a situation that we would not have chosen. We are prepared to take the tough decisions necessary to put the country on a proper long-term footing. Unlike the Conservatives, we have maintained our manifesto promises and we are delivering them.
  We promised that we would not increase the top and basic rate of tax, and we have kept that promise. We said that we would cut VAT on fuel to 5 per cent., and we have delivered on that promise. We said that we would not extend VAT to food, children's clothes, books, newspapers and public transport fares, and we have kept that promise as well. We said that we would examine the interaction of the tax and benefit system, and already that work is in hand. We said that we would introduce a new individual savings account, and we have delivered on that promise as well.
  We said that we would introduce a Budget to begin the task of equipping the British economy and reforming the welfare state to get young people back into work, and to give them the education and training opportunities that they want. We have delivered on that promise. This is a party which delivers on the promises that it made to the British people.
  It is interesting to observe the defence by the Conservatives of private medical insurance, where they are defending only a few people—in the past seven years, the
  716
  number of people getting the tax subsidy has barely changed. In 1990, there were 350,000 private medical insurance contracts. Seven years later, there are only a few thousand more than that. We have chosen to remove that subsidy from the few to benefit the many, to help to pay for the reduction of VAT on fuel. That illustrates the different priorities of the Labour party and the Conservatives. We benefit the many people in this country, not just in that individual measure. The Conservatives are concerned about the few, which is one of the many reasons why they were thrown out of office on 1 May.
  This is a Budget for the future. It will give this country economic stability and create the right conditions for more investment, not just in industry but in infrastructure. It will ensure that we have a fair tax system and it will implement the people's priorities in the areas of education and health. I am sure that the House will endorse the Budget tonight, just as the whole country has endorsed it in the past few days. It is a Budget for the future, and it commands support up and down the country.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 342, Noes 196.

  Division No.42]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Ainger, Nick

  Cann, Jamie

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)

  Casale, Roger

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Ashton, Joe

  Clapham, Michael

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Austin, John

  Banks, Tony

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Barnes, Harry

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Barron, Kevin

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Beard, Nigel

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Coaker, Vernon

  Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Colman, Tony (Putney)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Connarty, Michael

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cooper, Yvette

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Corbett, Robin

  Berry, Roger

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Best, Harold

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Betts, Clive

  Cousins, Jim

  Blackman, Liz

  Cranston, Ross

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Crausby, David

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Borrow, David

  Cummings, John

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Dafis, Cynog

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)

  Darvill, Keith

  Burden, Richard

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Burgon, Colin

  Davidson, Ian

  Butler, Christine

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Byers, Stephen

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Caborn, Richard

  Dawson, Hilton

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Denham, John

  717

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Doran, Frank

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Dowd, Jim

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Drew, David

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kemp, Fraser

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Edwards, Huw

  Khabra, Piara S

  Efford, Clive

  Kidney, David

  Ellman, Ms Louise

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ennis, Jeff

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Etherington, Bill

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Fisher, Mark

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Laxton, Bob

  Flint, Caroline

  Lepper, David

  Flynn, Paul

  Levitt, Tom

  Follett, Barbara

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Foulkes, George

  Linton, Martin

  Fyfe, Maria

  Livingstone, Ken

  Galloway, George

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Gerrard, Neil

  Love, Andrew

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McCabe, Stephen

  Godsiff, Roger

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Goggins, Paul

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McDonnell, John

  Grant, Bernie

  McFall, John

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Grocott, Bruce

  McKenna, Ms Rosemary

  Grogan, John

  McNulty, Tony

  Gunnell, John

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McWilliam, John

  Hanson, David

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Mallaber, Judy

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Marek, Dr John

  Healey, John

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Heppell, John

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hesford, Stephen

  Martlew, Eric

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Maxton, John

  Hill, Keith

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Meale, Alan

  Home Robertson, John

  Merron, Gillian

  Hood, Jimmy

  Michael, Alun

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hope, Phil

  Milburn, Alan

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mitchell, Austin

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Mountford, Kali

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mudie, George

  Hurst, Alan

  Mullin, Chris

  Hutton, John

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Illsley, Eric

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Norris, Dan

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jamieson, David

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Olner, Bill

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  718

  Osborne, Mrs Sandra

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Pearson, Ian

  Spellar, John

  Pendry, Tom

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Pickthall, Colin

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Pike, Peter L

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Plaskitt, James

  Stevenson, George

  Pollard, Kerry

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Pond, Chris

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Pope, Greg

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Pound, Stephen

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Stott, Roger

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Stringer, Graham

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Stuart, Ms Gisela (Edgbaston)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Purchase, Ken

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Radice, Giles

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Rammell, Bill

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Rapson, Syd

  Timms, Stephen

  Raynsford, Nick

  Tipping, Paddy

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Todd, Mark

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Touhig, Don

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Trickett, Jon

  Rogers, Allan

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Rooney, Terry

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Roy, Frank

  Vaz, Keith

  Ruane, Chris

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Watts, David

  Salter, Martin

  White, Brian

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Sawford, Phil

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Sheerman, Barry

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Wills, Michael

  Singh, Marsha

  Winnick, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wood, Mike

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Woolas, Phil

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Worthington, Tony

  Wray, James

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Wright, Tony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Snape, Peter

  Mr. David Clelland and

  Soley, Clive

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Brady, Graham

  Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)

  Brake, Thomas

  Amess, David

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Arbuthnot, James

  Breed, Colin

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Baker, Norman

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Baldry, Tony

  Burnett, John

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Burns, Simon

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Burstow, Paul

  Bercow, John

  Butterfill, John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Blunt, Crispin

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Cash, William

  Boswell, Tim

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Chidgey, David

  719

  Chope, Christopher

  Lidington, David

  Clappison, James

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Livsey, Richard

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Loughton, Tim

  Luff, Peter

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Collins, Tim

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Colvin, Michael

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  MacKay, Andrew

  Cotter, Brian

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Cran, James

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Madel, Sir David

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Maples, John

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Mates, Michael

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Duncan, Alan

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Evans, Nigel

  Merchant, Piers

  Faber, David

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Moore, Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Feam, Ronnie

  Norman, Archie

  Flight, Howard

  Oaten, Mark

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Öpik, Lembit

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Page, Richard

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Paice, James

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Paterson, Owen

  Fraser, Christopher

  Pickles, Eric

  Gale, Roger

  Prior, David

  Garnier, Edward

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Rendel, David

  Gibb, Nick

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gill, Christopher

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Ruffley, David

  Gorrie, Donald

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Gray, James

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Green, Damian

  Sanders, Adrian

  Greenway, John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Grieve, Dominic

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

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

  Hammond, Philip

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hancock, Mike

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Harvey, Nick

  Spring, Richard

  Hawkins, Nick

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hayes, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Heald, Oliver

  Streeter, Gary

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Stunell, Andrew

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Syms, Robert

  Horam, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Townend, John

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Tredinnick, David

  Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)

  Trend, Michael

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Tyler, Paul

  Keetch, Paul

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Viggers, Peter

  Key, Robert

  Wallace, James

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Walter, Robert

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Wardle, Charles

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Waterson, Nigel

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Webb, Professor Steve

  Lansley, Andrew

  Wells, Bowen

  Leigh, Edward

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Letwin, Oliver

  Whittingdale, John

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  720

  Willetts, David

  Yeo, Tim

  Willis, Phil

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Wilshire, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Mr. Richard Ottaway and

  Woodward, Shaun

  Mr. Malcolm Moss.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made for imposing a tax on the amount of the windfall from which a company was benefitting on 2nd July 1997 in any case where—

  (a) an undertaking whose privatisation involved the imposition of economic regulation has been privatised by means of a flotation; and

  (b) the profits of the undertaking in the period after the flotation show that the company was benefitting on that date from a windfall from that flotation.

  MADAM SPEAKER then, pursuant to paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 51 (Ways and Means motions), put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the further motions.

  2. VALUE ADDED TAX (FUEL AND POWER)
  Resolved,
  That—
  (1) In section 2(1A) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994, for "8 per cent." there shall be substituted "5 per cent.".
  (2) This Resolution applies in relation to any supply made on or after 1st September 1997 and any acquisition or importation taking place on or after that date.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

  3. SPIRITS (RATE OF DUTY)
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made increasing the rate of duty set out in section 5 of the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979.

  4. BEER (RATE OF DUTY)
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made increasing the rate of duty set out in section 36(1) of the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979.

  5. WINE AND MADE-WINE (RATES OE DUTY)
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made increasing the rates of duty set out in the Table in Schedule 1 to the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979.

  6. CIDER (RATES OF DUTY)
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made increasing the rates of duty set out in section 62(1A) of the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979.

  7. HYDROCARBON OIL (RATES OF DUTIES AND REBATES)
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That—
  (1) In relation to times before the coming into force of section 7(2) and (3) of the Finance Act 1997, section 6(1) of the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979 ("the 1979 Act") shall have effect as follows—

  (a) for "£0.4168" there shall be substituted "£0.4510"; and

  (b) for "£0.3686" there shall be substituted "£0.4028".

  721
  (2) In relation to times after the coming into force of section 7(2) and (3) of the Finance Act 1997, section 6(1A) of the 1979 Act shall have effect as follows—

  (a) in paragraph (a), for "£0.4168" there shall be substituted "£0.4510";

  (b) in paragraph (b), for "£0.3586" there shall be substituted "£0.3928"; and

  (c) in paragraph (c), for "£0.3686" there shall be substituted "£0.4028".

  (3) In section 11(1) of the 1979 Act, for "£0.0194" and "£0.0250" there shall be substituted "£0.0200" and "£0.0258", respectively.
  (4) In section 14(1) of the 1979 Act, for "£0.0194" there shall be substituted "£0.0200".
  (5) This Resolution shall have effect as from 6 o'clock in the evening of 2nd July 1997.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
  The House divided: Ayes 335, Noes 137.

  Division No. 43]

  [10.16 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Clapham, Michael

  Ainger, Nick

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Ashton, Joe

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Austin, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Banks, Tony

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Barnes, Harry

  Colman, Tony (Putney)

  Barron, Kevin

  Connarty, Michael

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cooper, Yvette

  Beard, Nigel

  Corbett, Robin

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Cousins, Jim

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cranston, Ross

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Crausby, David

  Berry, Roger

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Best, Harold

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Betts, Clive

  Cummings, John

  Blackman, Liz

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Borrow, David

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Darvill, Keith

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Davidson, Ian

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Burden, Richard

  Denham, John

  Burgon, Colin

  Dismore, Andrew

  Butler, Christine

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Byers, Stephen

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Caborn, Richard

  Doran, Frank

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Dowd, Jim

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Drew, David

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Cann, Jamie

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Edwards, Huw

  Casale, Roger

  Efford, Clive

  Cawsey, Ian

  Ellman, Ms Louise

  722

  Ennis, Jeff

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Etherington, Bill

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Fatchett, Derek

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Fisher, Mark

  Laxton, Bob

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lepper, David

  Flint, Caroline

  Levitt, Tom

  Flynn, Paul

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Follett, Barbara

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

  Linton, Martin

  Foulkes, George

  Livingstone, Ken

  Fyfe, Maria

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Galloway, George

  Love, Andrew

  Gardiner, Barry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gerrard, Neil

  McCabe, Stephen

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Godsiff, Roger

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Goggins, Paul

  McDonnell, John

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McFall, John

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Grant, Bernie

  McKenna, Ms Rosemary

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McNulty, Tony

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Grogan, John

  McWalter, Tony

  Gunnell, John

  McWlliam, John

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hanson, David

  Marek, Dr John

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Healey, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Maxton, John

  Heppell, John

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hesford, Stephen

  Meale, Alan

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Merron, Gillian

  Hill, Keith

  Michael, Alun

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Home Robertson, John

  Milburn, Alan

  Hood, Jimmy

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hope, Phil

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Mountford, Kali

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Mudie, George

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Mullin, Chris

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hurst, Alan

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hutton, John

  Norris, Dan

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Illsley, Eric

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Olner, Bill

  Jamieson, David

  O'Neil, Martin

  Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Osborne, Mrs Sandra

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)

  Pendry, Tom

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jewell, Ms Tessa

  Plaskitt, James

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pollard, Kerry

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pond, Chris

  Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

  Pope, Greg

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pound, Stephen

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kidney, David

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Primarolo, Dawn

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  723

  Purchase, Ken

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Radice, Giles

  Stott, Roger

  Rammell, Bill

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Rapson, Syd

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Raynsford, Nick

  Stringer, Graham

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela (Edgbaston)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Rogers, Allan

  Rooney, Terry

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Timms, Stephen

  Roy, Frank

  Tipping, Paddy

  Ruane, Chris

  Todd, Mark

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Touhig, Don

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Trickett, Jon

  Salter, Martin

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Sawford, Phil

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Vaz, Keith

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Watts, David

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  White, Brian

  Singh, Marsha

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Wills, Michael

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Winnick, David

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wood, Mike

  Snape, Peter

  Woolas, Phil

  Soley, Clive

  Worthington, Tony

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Wray, James

  Spellar, John

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Wright, Tony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Wyatt, Derek

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Stevenson, George

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Mr. David Clelland and

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

  NOES

  Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)

  Collins, Tim

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Colvin, Michael

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Baker, Norman

  Cotter, Brian

  Baldry, Tony

  Cran, James

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Dafis, Cynog

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Brake, Thomas

  Faber, David

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Breed, Colin

  Flight, Howard

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Burnett, John

  Fraser, Christopher

  Burstow, Paul

  Gale, Roger

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Garnier, Edward

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Cash, William

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Gorrie, Donald

  Chidgey, David

  Gray, James

  Clappison, James

  Grieve, Dominic

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Hancock, Mike

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Harvey, Nick

  724

  Hayes, John

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Salmond, Alex

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Sanders, Adrian

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Horam, John

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

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

  Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Spring, Richard

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Keetch, Paul

  Steen, Anthony

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Stunell, Andrew

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Swinney, John

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Syms, Robert

  Leigh, Edward

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Lidington, David

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Livsey, Richard

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Townend, John

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Tredinnick, David

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Tyler, Paul

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Madel, Sir David

  Viggers, Peter

  Wallace, James

  Malins, Humfrey

  Walter, Robert

  Maples, John

  Wardle, Charles

  Mates, Michael

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Wells, Bowen

  Merchant, Piers

  Welsh, Andrew

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Moore, Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Norman, Archie

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Oaten, Mark

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Öpik, Lembit

  Wills, Phil

  Paterson, Owen

  Wilshire, David

  Pickles, Eric

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Prior, David

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Yeo, Tim

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Rendel, David

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

  Mr. Richard Ottaway and

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Mr. Malcolm Moss.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  8. TOBACCO PRODUCTS (RATES OF DUTY)
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made increasing the rates of duty set out in the Table in Schedule 1 to the Tobacco Products Duty Act 1979.

  9. VEHICLE. EXCISE DUTY (INCREASE IN RATES)
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That provision may be made increasing the rates of duty set out in Schedule 1 to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994.
  The House divided: Ayes 332, Noes 192.

  Division No. 44]

  [10.28 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Barron, Kevin

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Ainger, Nick

  Beard, Nigel

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)

  Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ashton, Joe

  Berry, Roger

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Best, Harold

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Betts, Clive

  Austin, John

  Blackman, Liz

  Banks, Tony

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Barnes, Harry

  Blizzard, Bob

  725

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Etherington, Bill

  Borrow, David

  Fatchett, Derek

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Fisher, Mark

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Flint, Caroline

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Flynn, Paul

  Follett, Barbara

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

  Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)

  Foulkes, George

  Burden, Richard

  Fyfe, Maria

  Burgon, Colin

  Galloway, George

  Butler, Christine

  Gardiner, Barry

  Byers, Stephen

  Gerrard, Neil

  Caborn, Richard

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Goggins, Paul

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Cann, Jamie

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Caplin, Ivor

  Grant, Bernie

  Casale, Roger

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Grocott, Bruce

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Grogan, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Gunnell, John

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Hanson, David

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Healey, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Heppell, John

  Colman, Tony (Putney)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Connarty, Michael

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hill, Keith

  Corbett, Robin

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Home Robertson, John

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cousins, Jim

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cranston, Ross

  Hope, Phil

  Crausby, David

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cummings, John

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Hurst, Alan

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hutton, John

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Darvill, Keith

  Illsley, Eric

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jamieson, David

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Denham, John

  Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Doran, Frank

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dowd, Jim

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Drew, David

  Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Kemp, Fraser

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Edwards, Huw

  Kidney, David

  Efford, Clive

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ellman, Ms Louise

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Ennis, Jeff

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  726

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Radice, Giles

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Rammell, Bill

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Rapson, Syd

  Laxton, Bob

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lepper, David

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Levitt, Tom

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Rogers, Allan

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Rooney, Terry

  Linton, Martin

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Roy, Frank

  Love, Andrew

  Ruane, Chris

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  McCabe, Stephen

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Salter, Martin

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Sawford, Phil

  McDonnell, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McFall, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McKenna, Ms Rosemary

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McNulty, Tony

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Singh, Marsha

  McWalter, Tony

  Skinner, Dennis

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Marek, Dr John

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Martlew, Eric

  Snape, Peter

  Maxton, John

  Soley, Clive

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Merron, Gillian

  Spellar, John

  Michael, Alun

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Milburn, Alan

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mitchell, Austin

  Stevenson, George

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Stott, Roger

  Mountford, Kali

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Mudie, George

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Mullin, Chris

  Stringer, Graham

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela (Edgbaston)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Norris, Dan

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Timms, Stephen

  Olner, Bill

  Tipping, Paddy

  O'Neill, Martin

  Todd, Mark

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Touhig, Don

  Osborne, Mrs Sandra

  Trickett, Jon

  Pearson, Ian

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pendry, Tom

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pike, Peter L

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Plaskitt, James

  Vaz, Keith

  Pollard, Kerry

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Pond, Chris

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Pope, Greg

  Watts, David

  Pound, Stephen

  White, Brian

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Purchase, Ken

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wills, Michael

  727

  Winnick, David

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Wright, Tony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wood, Mike

  Wyatt, Derek

  Woolas, Phil

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Worthington, Tony

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

  Wray, James

  Mr. David Clelland.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)

  Gibb, Nick

  Amess, David

  Gill, Christopher

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Arbuthnot, James

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Gorrie, Donald

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Gray, James

  Baker, Norman

  Green, Damian

  Baldry, Tony

  Greenway, John

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Grieve, Dominic

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Bercow, John

  Hammond, Philip

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hancock, Mike

  Blunt, Crispin

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Body, Sir Richard

  Harvey, Nick

  Boswell, Tim

  Hayes, John

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Heald, Oliver

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Brady, Graham

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Brake, Thomas

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Horam, John

  Brazier, Julian

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Breed, Colin

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hunter, Andrew

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Burnett, John

  Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)

  Burns, Simon

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Burstow, Paul

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Butterfill, John

  Keetch, Paul

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Cash, William

  Key, Robert

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Chidgey, David

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Chope, Christopher

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Clappison, James

  Lansley, Andrew

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Leigh, Edward

  Collins, Tim

  Letwin, Oliver

  Colvin, Michael

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Lidington, David

  Cotter, Brian

  Livsey, Richard

  Cran, James

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dafis, Cynog

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Duncan, Alan

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Madel, Sir David

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Malins, Humfrey

  Faber, David

  Maples, John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Feam, Ronnie

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Flight, Howard

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Merchant, Piers

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Moore, Michael

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fraser, Christopher

  Norman, Archie

  Gale, Roger

  Oaten, Mark

  Garnier, Edward

  Öpik, Lembit

  728

  Ottaway, Richard

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Page, Richard

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Paice, James

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Paterson, Owen

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Pickles, Eric

  Townend, John

  Prior, David

  Tredinnick, David

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Trend, Michael

  Rendel, David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Robathan, Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Wallace, James

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

  Walter, Robert

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Wardle, Charles

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Waterson, Nigel

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Webb, Professor Steve

  Salmond, Alex

  Wells, Bowen

  Sanders, Adrian

  Welsh, Andrew

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Whittingdale, John

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Wigley, Dafydd

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

  Willetts, David

  Willis, Phil

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wilshire, David

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Spring, Richard

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Woodward, Shaun

  Steen, Anthony

  Yeo, Tim

  Streeler, Gary

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Swayne, Desmond

  Swinney, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Syms, Robert

  Mr. Paul Tyler and

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mr. Andrew Stunell.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  10. VEHICLE LICENSING (FEES WITH LICENCE APPLICATIONS)
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made enabling the Secretary of State to require payments to be made to him in connection with—
  (a) steps taken by him for facilitating the transmission of information to him electronically in connection with licence applications under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, and
  (b) the processing of such applications where information is so transmitted.

  11. WITHDRAWAL OF RELIEF ON MEDICAL INSURANCE PREMIUMS
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That—
  (1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3) below, relief under section 54 of the Finance Act 1989 shall not be given in respect of any payment where either—

  (a) the premium in respect of which the payment is made is a premium under a contract entered into on or after 2nd July 1997; or

  (b) the payment is received by the insurer on or after 6th April 1999.

  (2) Paragraph (1) above shall not affect the giving of relief in respect of a payment received by an insurer before 6th April 1999 where—

  (a) the premium in respect of which the payment is made is a premium under a contract entered into on or after 2nd July 1997 but before 1st August 1997;

  (b) the contract is one entered into in pursuance of a written proposal received by or on behalf of the insurer before 2nd July 1997;

  (c) the contract is not a contract entered into by way of the renewal of an earlier contract; and

  (d) if the payment is not itself a payment received before 1st August 1997, the insurer had before 1st August 1997 received an earlier payment in respect of a premium under the contract in question.

  (3) Paragraph (1) above shall not affect the giving of relief in respect of a payment received by an insurer before 6th April 1999 where—

  (a) the premium in respect of which the payment is made is a premium under a contract entered into on or after 2nd July 1997 but before 1st August 1997;

  (b) that contract is one entered into by way of the renewal of an earlier contract;

  (c) the period of insurance under the earlier contract ended before 2nd July 1997; and

  (d) if the payment is not itself a payment received before 1st August 1997, the insurer had before 1st August 1997 received an earlier payment in respect of a premium under the renewal contract.

  (4) For the purposes of the preceding provisions of this Resolution a contract shall be taken to have been entered into by way of the renewal of an earlier contract only if—

  (a) it was entered into by way of the renewal of a contract which was an eligible contract for the purposes of section 54 of the Finance Act 1989 when that earlier contract was entered into;

  (b) the insurer under the earlier contract and the insurer under the contract by which it has been renewed are the same; and

  (c) the period of insurance under the earlier contract ended immediately before the beginning of the period of insurance under the contract by which it has been renewed.

  (5) This Resolution has effect for the year 1997–98 and subsequent years of assessment.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
  The House divided: Ayes 377, Noes 113.

  Division No. 45]

  [10.43 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Breed, Colin

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Ainger, Nick

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Burden, Richard

  Ashton, Joe

  Burgon, Colin

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Burstow, Paul

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Butler, Christine

  Austin, John

  Byers, Stephen

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Caborn, Richard

  Banks, Tony

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Barnes, Harry

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Barron, Kevin

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Beard, Nigel

  Cann, Jamie

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Caplin, Ivor

  Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)

  Casale, Roger

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Cawsey, Ian

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Chidgey, David

  Berry, Roger

  Clapham, Michael

  Best, Harold

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Betts, Clive

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Blackman, Liz

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Borrow, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Clelland, David

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Coaker, Vernon

  Brake, Thomas

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Colman, Tony (Putney)

  730

  Connarty, Michael

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Cooper, Yvette

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Corbett, Robin

  Harvey, Nick

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Healey, John

  Cotter, Brian

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cranston, Ross

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Crausby, David

  Heppell, John

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Cummings, John

  Hill, Keith

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Home Robertson, John

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Hope, Phil

  Dafis, Cynog

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Dalyell, Tam

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Darvill, Keith

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Davidson, Ian

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Davies, Geraint

  Hurst, Alan

  Dawson, Hilton

  Hutton, John

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Denham, John

  Illsley, Eric

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jamieson, David

  Doran, Frank

  Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

  Drew, David

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Edwards, Huw

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Efford, Clive

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Ellman, Ms Louise

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Etherington, Bill

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

  Feam, Ronnie

  Keetch, Paul

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Kemp, Fraser

  Fisher, Mark

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Flint, Caroline

  Khabra, Piara S

  Flynn, Paul

  Kidney, David

  Follett, Barbara

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Foulkes, George

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Fyfe, Maria

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Galloway, George

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Gardiner, Barry

  Laxton, Bob

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Lepper, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Levitt, Tom

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Goggins, Paul

  Linton, Martin

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Livingstone, Ken

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Livsey, Richard

  Gorrie, Donald

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Grant, Bernie

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Love, Andrew

  Grocott, Bruce

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Grogan, John

  McCabe, Stephen

  Gunnell, John

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hancock, Mike

  McDonnell, John

  Hanson, David

  McFall, John

  731

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Salmond, Alex

  McKenna, Ms Rosemary

  Salter, Martin

  McNulty, Tony

  Sanders, Adrian

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McWalter, Tony

  Sawford, Phil

  McWiliam, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marek, Dr John

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Singh, Marsha

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Skinner, Dennis

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Maxton, John

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Merron, Gillian

  Michael, Alun

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Milburn, Alan

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

  Mitchell, Austin

  Snape, Peter

  Moffatt, Laura

  Soley, Clive

  Moore, Michael

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Spellar, John

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mountford, Kali

  Stevenson, George

  Mudie, George

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Mullin, Chris

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Stott, Roger

  Norris, Dan

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Oaten, Mark

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Öpik, Lambit

  Stringer, Graham

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela (Edgbaston)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stunell, Andrew

  O'Hara, Edward

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Olner, Bill

  Swinney, John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Osborne, Mrs Sandra

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pearson, Ian

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Pendry, Tom

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Timms, Stephen

  Pike, Peter L

  Tipping, Paddy

  Plaskitt, James

  Todd, Mark

  Pollard, Kerry

  Touhig, Don

  Pond, Chris

  Trickett, Jon

  Pope, Greg

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pound, Stephen

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Tyler, Paul

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Vaz, Keith

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Purchase, Ken

  Wallace, James

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Radice, Giles

  Watts, David

  Rammell, Bill

  Webb, Professor Steve

  Rapson, Syd

  Welsh, Andrew

  Raynsford, Nick

  White, Brian

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Rogers, Allan

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Rooney, Terry

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Roy, Frank

  Wills, Michael

  Ruane, Chris

  Winnick, David

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Wood, Mike

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Woolas, Phil

  732

  Worthington, Tony

  Wyatt, Derek

  Wray, James

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Mr. Jim Dowd and

  Wright, Tony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Mr. Kevin Hughes.

  NOES

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Lidington, David

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Baldry, Tony

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Blunt, Crispin

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Body, Sir Richard

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Madel, Sir David

  Brady, Graham

  Malins, Humfrey

  Brazier, Julian

  Maples, John

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Butterfill, John

  Merchant, Piers

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Norman, Archie

  Page, Richard

  Chope, Christopher

  Paice, James

  Clappison, James

  Paterson, Owen

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Pickles, Eric

  Collins, Tim

  Prior, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Robathan, Andrew

  Cran, James

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Ruffley, David

  Evans, Nigel

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Faber, David

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Flight, Howard

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Spring, Richard

  Fraser, Christopher

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Gale, Roger

  Steen, Anthony

  Garnier, Edward

  Swayne, Desmond

  Gill, Christopher

  Syms, Robert

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Gray, James

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Green, Damian

  Townend, John

  Greenway, John

  Tredinnick, David

  Grieve, Dominic

  Trend, Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Viggers, Peter

  Hammond, Philip

  Walter, Robert

  Hayes, John

  Wardle, Charles

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Wells, Bowen

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Horam, John

  Wilshire, David

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)

  Yeo, Tim

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Lansley, Andrew

  Mr. Richard Ottaway and

  Leigh, Edward

  Mr. John Whittingdale.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  12. CORPORATION TAX (RATES FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 1997)
  Resolved,
  That—
  (a) the rate at which corporation tax is charged for the financial year 1997 shall be, and shall be deemed always to have been, 31 per cent. (and not 33 per cent. as provided by section 58 of the Finance Act 1997); and
  (b) the small companies' rate for that year shall be, and shall be deemed always to have been, 21 per cent. (and not 23 per cent. as provided by section 59(a) of that Act).

  13. SURPLUS FRANKED INVESTMENT INCOME
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made in relation to sections 242 to 244 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

  14. TAX CREDITS (PENSION FUNDS)
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That—
  (1) In section 231 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988—

  (a) in subsection (2) for "Subject to section 241(5)" there shall be substituted "Subject to sections 231A and 241(5)"; and

  (b) at the beginning of subsection (3) there shall be inserted "Subject to section 231A,".

  (2) After section 231 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 there shall be inserted—
  "Restrictions on the use of tax credits by pension funds
  231A.—(1) No claim shall be made under section 231(2) for payment of the amount of a tax credit if or to the extent that the qualifying distribution to which the credit relates is income of a pension fund.
  (2) In the case of any pension fund, for any year of assessment the aggregate amount of the tax credits in respect of which claims are made under section 231(3) must not exceed the aggregate amount of the tax credits in respect of the qualifying distributions comprised in the income of the pension fund and brought into charge to tax.
  (3) Accordingly, no payment shall be made under section 231(3) in respect of so much of the excess there mentioned as is referable to a tax credit in respect of a qualifying distribution if or to the extent that the qualifying distribution is income of a pension fund.
  (4) In this section—

  "income", in relation to a pension fund, means income derived from investments or deposits held for the purposes of the pension fund;

  "pension fund" means any scheme, fund or other arrangements established and maintained (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) for the purpose of providing pensions, retirement annuities, allowances, lump sums, gratuities or other superannuation benefits (with or without subsidiary benefits);

  "scheme" includes any deed, agreement or series of agreements.

  (5) For convenience of identification only, the schemes, funds or other arrangements which are "pension funds" for the purposes of this section by virtue of the definition of that expression in subsection (4) above include, in particular, those whose income is, in whole or in part, exempt, or eligible for exemption, from tax under or by virtue of any of the following provisions—

  (a) section 512(2);

  (b) section 592(2);

  (c) section 608(2)(a);

  (d) section 613(4);

  (e) section 614(2), (3), (4) or (5);

  (f) section 620(6);

  (g) section 643(2).

  (6) The preceding provisions of this section do not have effect in relation to—

  (a) claims made in respect of tax credits to which entitlement arises by virtue of section 232(3); or

  734

  (b) claims made by virtue of arrangements having effect under section 788."

  (3) This Resolution has effect in relation to qualifying distributions made on or after 2nd July 1997.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
  The House divided: Ayes 332, Noes 199.

  Division No. 46]

  [10.57 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Connarty, Michael

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Ainger, Nick

  Corbett, Robin

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Cousins, Jim

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Cranston, Ross

  Ashton, Joe

  Crausby, David

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Austin, John

  Cummings, John

  Banks, Tony

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Barnes, Harry

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Barron, Kevin

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Beard, Nigel

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Dalyell, Tam

  Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Darvil, Keith

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Berry, Roger

  Davidson, Ian

  Best, Harold

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Betts, Clive

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Blackman, Liz

  Dawson, Hilton

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Blizzard, Bob

  Denham, John

  Borrow, David

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Doran, Frank

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Drew, David

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Edwards, Huw

  Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)

  Efford, Clive

  Burden, Richard

  Ellman, Ms Louise

  Burgon, Colin

  Ennis, Jeff

  Butler, Christine

  Etherington, Bill

  Byers, Stephen

  Fatchett, Derek

  Caborn, Richard

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Flint, Caroline

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Flynn, Paul

  Cann, Jamie

  Follett, Barbara

  Caplin, Ivor

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Casale, Roger

  Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Foulkes, George

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Clapham, Michael

  Galloway, George

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Goggins, Paul

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Clelland, David

  Grant, Bernie

  Coaker, Vernon

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Grocott, Bruce

  Colman, Tony (Putney)

  Grogan, John

  735

  Gunnell, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Marek, Dr John

  Hanson, David

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Healey, John

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Martlew, Eric

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Maxton, John

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Heppell, John

  Meale, Alan

  Hesford, Stephen

  Merron, Gillian

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Michael, Alun

  Hill, Keith

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Milburn, Alan

  Home Robertson, John

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hood, Jimmy

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hope, Phil

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Mountford, Kali

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Mudie, George

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Mullin, Chris

  Hughes, Ms Boverley (Stretford)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hurst, Alan

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hutton, John

  Norris, Dan

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Illsley, Eric

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Olner, Bill

  Jamieson, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Osborne, Mrs Sandra

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)

  Pendry, Tom

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Pollard, Kerry

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pond, Chris

  Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

  Pope, Greg

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pound, Stephen

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kidney, David

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Primarolo, Dawn

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Radice, Giles

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Rammell, Bill

  Laxton, Bob

  Rapson, Syd

  Lepper, David

  Raynsford, Nick

  Levitt, Tom

  Reld, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Rogers, Allan

  Linton, Martin

  Rooney, Terry

  Livingstone, Ken

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Love, Andrew

  Roy, Frank

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ruane, Chris

  McCabe, Stephen

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Salter, Martin

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McDonnell, John

  Sawford, Phil

  McFall, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sheerman, Barry

  McKenna, Ms Rosemary

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McNulty, Tony

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McWalter, Tony

  Singh, Marsha

  McWilliam, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  736

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Todd, Mark

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Touhig, Don

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Trickett, Jon

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Vaz, Keith

  Snape, Peter

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Soley, Clive

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Watts, David

  Spellar, John

  White, Brian

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Stevenson, George

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wills, Michael

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Winnick, David

  Stott, Roger

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Wood, Mike

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Woolas, Phil

  Stringer, Graham

  Worthington, Tony

  Stuart, Ms Gisela (Edgbaston)

  Wray, James

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wright, Tony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Timms, Stephen

  Mr. Jim Dowd and

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mr. Kevin Hughes.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)

  Collins, Tim

  Amess, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Arbuthnot, James

  Cotter, Brian

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Cran, James

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Baker, Norman

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Baldry, Tony

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Bercow, John

  Duncan, Alan

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Blunt, Crispin

  Evans, Nigel

  Body, Sir Richard

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Boswell, Tim

  Faber, David

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Fallon, Michael

  Brady, Graham

  Feam, Ronnie

  Brake, Thomas

  Flight, Howard

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Brazier, Julian

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Breed, Colin

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Fraser, Christopher

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Gale, Roger

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Garnier, Edward

  Burnett, John

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Burns, Simon

  Gibb, Nick

  Burstow, Paul

  Gill, Christopher

  Butterfill, John

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Cash, William

  Gorrie, Donald

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Gray, James

  Green, Damian

  Chidgey, David

  Greenway, John

  Chope, Christopher

  Grieve, Dominic

  Clappison, James

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  737

  Hammond, Philip

  Prior, David

  Hancock, Mike

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Rendel, David

  Harvey, Nick

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hawkins, Nick

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Hayes, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Ruffley, David

  Horam, John

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Salmond, Alex

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Hunter, Andrew

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

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

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Keetch, Paul

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Key, Robert

  Spring, Richard

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Steen, Anthony

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Streeter, Gary

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Stunell, Andrew

  Lansley, Andrew

  Swayne, Desmond

  Leigh, Edward

  Swinney, John

  Letwin, Oliver

  Syms, Robert

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Lidington, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Livsey, Richard

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Townend, John

  Loughton, Tim

  Tredinnick, David

  Luff, Peter

  Trend, Michael

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Tyler, Paul

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Tyrie, Andrew

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Viggers, Peter

  MacKay, Andrew

  Wallace, James

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Walter, Robert

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Wardle, Charles

  Madel, Sir David

  Waterson, Nigel

  Malins, Humfrey

  Webb, Professor Steve

  Maples, John

  Wells, Bowen

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Welsh, Andrew

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Merchant, Piers

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Willetts, David

  Moore, Michael

  Willis, Phil

  Moss, Malcolm

  Wilshire, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Norman, Archie

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Oaten, Mark

  Woodward, Shaun

  Öpik, Lembit

  Yeo, Tim

  Ottaway, Richard

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Page, Richard

  Paice, James

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Paterson, Owen

  Mr. Oliver Heald and

  Pickles, Eric

  Mr. John Whittingdale.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  15. INSURANCE COMPANIES AND FRIENDLY SOCITIES (TAX CREDITS)
  Resolved,
  That—
  (1) In paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 19AB to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988—

  (a) the words "the aggregate of" shall cease to have effect; and

  (b) paragraph (b) shall cease to have effect.

  (2) For the purposes of section 121 of the Finance Act 1993, Schedule 19AB to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall be deemed to have effect without the amendments made by paragraph (1) above.
  (3) Paragraph (1) above has effect in relation to distributions made on or after 2nd July 1997.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

  16. INSURANCE COMPANIES, FRIENDLY SOCIETIES AND LLOYD'S UNDERWRITERS
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made, in the case of insurance companies, friendly societies and Lloyd's underwriters, in relation to, or in connection with amending provisions relating to, distributions and tax credits.

  17. DEALERS IN SHARES AND OTHER SECURITIES
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made for and in connection with amending sections 95 and 732 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

  18. PAYMENTS REPRESENTING TAX CREDITS ETC
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made—

  (a) about payments to which section 687 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 applies;

  (b) about arrangements under which a person receives a payment representing any of the value of a tax credit received by another; and

  (c) for and in connection with amending section 699A of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

  19. UNAUTHORISED UNIT TRUSTS
  Resolved,
  That—
  (1) Where a qualifying distribution—

  (a) is made on or after 2nd July 1997 but before 6th April 1999 by a company resident in the United Kingdom, and

  (b) falls to be regarded by virtue of subsection (2) of section 469 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 as income of the trustees of a unit trust scheme to which that section applies, and

  (c) is not a foreign income dividend and does not (apart from this Resolution) fall to be regarded by virtue of any provision of the Tax Acts as a foreign income dividend arising to the trustees,

  the trustees shall be treated for all purposes of the Tax Acts (but not this Resolution) as if the qualifying distribution were a foreign income dividend.
  (2) Paragraph (1) above shall not apply—

  (a) if the unit trust scheme is a common investment fund established under section 42 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982; or

  (b) if, apart from section 469(2) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, the whole of the qualifying distribution would fall to be regarded as income of section 505 bodies.

  (3) In this Resolution—

  "foreign income dividend" shall be construed in accordance with Chapter VA of Part VI of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988;

  "section 505 body" means—

  (a) a charity, as defined in section 506(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988;

  (b) a body mentioned in section 507 of that Act; or

  739

  (c) an Association of a description specified in section 508 of that Act.

  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

  20. RELIEF FOR LOSSES ETC
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made limiting—
  (a) the period for which amounts may be carried back under section 393A of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 or paragraph 3 of Schedule 8, paragraph 4(3) of Schedule 11 or paragraph 23 of Schedule 15 to the Finance Act 1996; and
  (b) the amount that may be allowed by way of group relief on a claim under Chapter IV of Part X of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

  21. CAPITAL ALLOWANCES
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made amending the Capital Allowances Act 1990 for the purpose of—
  (a) allowing first-year allowances to be made under Part II of that Act in respect of expenditure incurred by small and medium-sized companies and businesses on or after 2nd July 1997 and before 2nd July 1998; and
  (b) modifying the operation of that Act in cases where machinery or plant is made available for use directly or indirectly as a consequence of any such arrangements as fall, in accordance with normal accountancy practice, to be treated as a finance lease or as a loan.

  22. RELIEF FOR FILM PRODUCTION AND ACQUISITION EXPENDITURE
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made increasing the amounts of film production and acquisition expenditure incurred before 2nd July 2000 that are relievable under section 42 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1992.

  23. STAMP DUTY (CONVEYANCES AND TRANSFERS ON SALE)
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That the following provisions shall have effect for the period beginning 8th July 1997 and ending 31 days after the earliest of the dates mentioned in section 50(2) of the Finance Act 1973—
  (1) Section 55 of the Finance Act 1963 and section 4 of the Finance Act (Northern Ireland) 1963 shall each be amended in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs (2) to (4) below.
  (2) Subject to the modification mentioned in paragraph (5) below, in subsection (1), for paragraphs (b) and (c) there shall be substituted—

  "(b) where paragraph (a) above does not apply and—

  (i) the amount or value of the consideration does not exceed £500, and

  (ii) the instrument is certified as described in section 34(4) of the Finance Act 1958 at £250,000,

  the rate of 50p for every £50 or part of £50 of the consideration;

  (c) where paragraph (a) above does not apply and—

  (i) the amount or value of the consideration exceeds £500 but does not exceed £250,000, and

  (ii) the instrument is certified as described in section 34(4) of the Finance Act 1958 at £250,000,

  the rate of £1 for every £100 or part of £100 of the consideration;

  (d) where paragraphs (a) to (c) above do not apply and—

  (i) the amount or value of the consideration does not exceed £500,000, and

  740

  (ii) the instrument is certified as described in section 34(4) of the Finance Act 1958 at £500,000,

  the rate of £1.50p for every £100 or part of £100 of the consideration and

  (e) in any other case the rate of £2 for every £100 or part of £100 of the consideration".

  (3) In subsection (1A) for "paragraph (c)" there shall be substituted "paragraph (e)".
  (4) In subsection (2)—

  (a) after the words "shall have effect as if' there shall be inserted "(a)", and

  (b) after the word "omitted" there shall be inserted—

  "and
  (b) in paragraph (d) for the words "paragraphs (a) to (c)" there were substituted the words "paragraphs (b) and (c)"."
  (5) In section 4 of the Finance Act (Northern Ireland) 1963, for the words "section 34(4) of the Finance Act 1958" wherever they occur, there shall be substituted the words "section 7(4) of the Finance Act (Northern Ireland) 1958".
  (6) This Resolution shall apply to instruments executed on or after 8th July 1997, except where the instrument in question is executed in pursuance of a contract made on or before 2nd July 1997.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of section 50 of the Finance Act 1973.
  The House divided: Ayes 367, Noes 147.

  Division No. 47]

  [11.11 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Burgon, Colin

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Burnett, John

  Ainger, Nick

  Burstow, Paul

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Butler, Christine

  Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)

  Byers, Stephen

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Caborn, Richard

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ashton, Joe

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Austin, John

  Cann, Jamie

  Baker, Norman

  Caplin, Ivor

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Casale, Roger

  Banks, Tony

  Cawsey, Ian

  Barnes, Harry

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Barron, Kevin

  Chidgey, David

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clapham, Michael

  Beard, Nigel

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Berry, Roger

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Best, Harold

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Betts, Clive

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Blackman, Liz

  Clelland, David

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Coaker, Vernon

  Blizzard, Bob

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Borrow, David

  Colman, Tony (Putney)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Connarty, Michael

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Corbett, Robin

  Brake, Thomas

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Breed, Colin

  Cotter, Brian

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Cousins, Jim

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Cranston, Ross

  Crausby, David

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)

  Cummings, John

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Burden, Richard

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  741

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Darvill, Keith

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Davidson, Ian

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Hurst, Alan

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Hutton, John

  Dawson, Hilton

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Illsley, Eric

  Denham, John

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Jamieson, David

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

  Doran, Frank

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Drew, David

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)

  Edwards, Huw

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Efford, Clive

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Ellman, Ms Louise

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Etherington, Bill

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Fatchett, Derek

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Kemp, Fraser

  Fisher, Mark

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Flint, Caroline

  Khabra, Piara S

  Flynn, Paul

  Kidney, David

  Follett, Barbara

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Foulkes, George

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Fyfe, Maria

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Galloway, George

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Gardiner, Barry

  Laxton, Bob

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Lepper, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Levitt, Tom

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Goggins, Paul

  Linton, Martin

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Livingstone, Ken

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Livsey, Richard

  Gorrie, Donald

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Grant, Bernie

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Love, Andrew

  Grocott, Bruce

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Grogan, John

  McCabe, Stephen

  Gunnell, John

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hancock, Mike

  McDonnell, John

  Hanson, David

  McFall, John

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Harris, Dr Evan

  McKenna, Ms Rosemary

  Harvey, Nick

  McNulty, Tony

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Healey, John

  McWalter, Tony

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  McWilliam, John

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mallaber, Judy

  Heppell, John

  Marek, Dr John

  Hesford, Stephen

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hill, Keith

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Home Robertson, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Hood, Jimmy

  Maxton, John

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hope, Phil

  Merron, Gillian

  742

  Michael, Alun

  Singh, Marsha

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Milburn, Alan

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Moore, Michael

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

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

  Mountford, Kali

  Soley, Clive

  Mudie, George

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Mullin, Chris

  Spellar, John

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Norris, Dan

  Stevenson, George

  Oaten, Mark

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  O'Hara, Edward

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Olner, Bill

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stringer, Graham

  Öpik, Lembit

  Stuart, Ms Gisela (Edgbaston)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Stunell, Andrew

  Osborne, Mrs Sandra

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Pearson, Ian

  Swinney, John

  Pendry, Tom

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Pike, Peter L

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Plaskit, James

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pond, Chris

  Timms, Stephen

  Pope, Greg

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pound, Stephen

  Todd, Mark

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Touhig, Don

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Trickett, Jon

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Purchase, Ken

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Vaz, Keith

  Radice, Giles

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Rammell, Bill

  Wallace, James

  Rapson, Syd

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Raynsford, Nick

  Watts, David

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Rendel, David

  White, Brian

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rogers, Allan

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Rooney, Terry

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Roy, Frank

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Ruane, Chris

  Wills, Michael

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Winnick, David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Wood, Mike

  Salmond, Alex

  Woolas, Phil

  Salter, Martin

  Worthington, Tony

  Sanders, Adrian

  Wray, James

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Sawford, Phil

  Wright, Tony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wyatt, Derek

  Sheerman, Barry

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Mr. Jim Dowd and

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Mr. Graham Allen.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Amess, David

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Baldry, Tony

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bercow, John

  743

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Lidington, David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Body, Sir Richard

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Boswell, Tim

  Loughton, Tim

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Luff, Peter

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Brady, Graham

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Brazier, Julian

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  MacKay, Andrew

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Burns, Simon

  Madel, Sir David

  Butterfill, John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Cash, William

  Maples, John

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Chope, Christopher

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Clappison, James

  Merchant, Piers

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Norman, Archie

  Collins, Tim

  Ottaway, Richard

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Page, Richard

  Cran, James

  Paice, James

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Paterson, Owen

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Pickles, Eric

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Prior, David

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Duncan, Alan

  Robathan, Andrew

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Evans, Nigel

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Faber, David

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Ruffley, David

  Fallon, Michael

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Flight, Howard

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Fraser, Christopher

  Soames, Nicholas

  Gale, Roger

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Garnier, Edward

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Gibb, Nick

  Spring, Richard

  Gill, Christopher

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Steen, Anthony

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Streeter, Gary

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Swayne, Desmond

  Gray, James

  Syms, Robert

  Green, Damian

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Greenway, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Townend, John

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Tredinnick, David

  Hammond, Philip

  Trend, Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Hayes, John

  Viggers, Peter

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Walter, Robert

  Horam, John

  Wardle, Charles

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Waterson, Nigel

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Wells, Bowen

  Hunter, Andrew

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Willetts, David

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Wilshire, David

  Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Key, Robert

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Yeo, Tim

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Lansley, Andrew

  Leigh, Edward

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Letwin, Oliver

  Mr. Oliver Heald and

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Mr. John Whittingdale.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  24. STATUTORY EFFECT OF RESOLUTIONS
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made amending section 1(3) of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

  PROCEDURE (FUTURE TAXATION)
  Resolved,
  That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters which may be included in Finance Bills, any Finance Bill of the present Session may contain the following provisions taking effect in a future year—

  (a) provision relating to income tax relief for interest payments;

  (b) provision in relation to distributions received by charities and persons to whom section 507 or 508 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 applies;

  (c) provision relating to tax credits;

  (d) provision relating to the taxation of dividends and other distributions of companies;

  (e) provision for or in connection with varying the rate at which tax is charged under or by virtue of sections 249 and 421 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988;

  (f) provision for and in connection with the abolition of foreign income dividends;

  (g) provision for interest on gilt-edged securities to be paid without deduction of income tax;

  (h) provision for tax to be deducted on the payment of public revenue dividends mentioned in section 118G(3) or (7) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988; and

  (i) provision substituting "August" for "May" in section 246(2)(b) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

  FINANCE [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to finance, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of amounts which, by virtue of that Act, are payable to charities and persons to whom section 507 or 508 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 applies in respect of distributions received by them.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing resolutions: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Secretary Margaret Beckett, Mr. Secretary Dobson, Secretary Harriet Harman, Mr. Alistair Darling, Mr. Geoffrey Robinson, Mrs. Helen Liddell and Dawn Primarolo do prepare and bring it in.

  FINANCE BILL
  Dawn Primarolo accordingly presented a Bill to grant certain duties, to alter other duties, and to amend the law relating to the National Debt and the Public Revenue, and to make further provision in connection with Finance: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 37].

  Paedophiles
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
  11.25 pm
  Mr. Eddie O'Hara: In this short debate—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could wait a few moments. Will hon. Members leave the Chamber quietly, because there is an Adjournment debate?
  Mr. O'Hara: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  In this short debate, I shall call for changes in the law relating to paedophilia to deal with an intolerable situation that occurred recently in my constituency. A person with a long history of convictions for offences against children, who had been detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, was about to be discharged back into the community. The local police announced that they were powerless to take action against him unless and until he committed another arrestable offence. The public reaction was one of outrage: there were public demonstrations and protests, petitions and direct action in the form of vigilante attacks against known and suspected child sex abusers.
  I can understand such reactions. Few offences rouse such basic, even primitive, instincts of fear, revulsion, protectiveness and lust for vengeance as sexual abuse of children. Commonly, people respond to child sex abuse through their hearts and stomachs, whereas the legislature—and I as a Member of this legislative assembly and as protector of my constituents' interests—must respond with a cool head. If current law is inadequate to protect my constituents' interests, I must seek improvements to enable it to do so effectively and in a fitting manner for a civilised society.
  I shall confine myself to examining the case that occurred in my constituency and to drawing lessons from it. I shall describe the incident in more detail. The paedophile in question has a case history dating back to 1979, when, at the age of 25, he was gaoled for three years for assaulting a nine-year-old girl in Leicester. In 1984, he was again gaoled for attacking a 14-year-old girl in a home in St. Helens, Lancashire. In 1990, he was sentenced yet again; this time to nine years for the rape of a 10-year-old girl in Manchester.
  In December 1996, he was released from that sentence, and returned to live in Manchester. Initially, he maintained regular contact with probation officers. In April 1997, he arrived in Huyton in my constituency and took up residence in a hostel for homeless men. By that time, he had changed his name to the one by which he is now known.
  The man gave false information about himself to the management of the hostel, but, fortunately, perhaps due to his limited intelligence, he was apparently unable to sustain the deceit, and thus very soon revealed to the management of the hostel some details of his case history. Contact was made with the probation service in Manchester, which confirmed that he was a predatory paedophile. The Knowsley social services and the local police were informed, schools were alerted and he was kept under surveillance.
  746
  News of the man's existence leaked out and there was growing concern in the community, but the police at that time had no justification to intervene on him. The justification came when the police were alerted to the fact that he was abroad in the community with a bag of colouring books and pens with which evidently he wanted to lure a child. He was arrested for a breach of the peace and, subsequently, under the Mental Health Act, detained in a psychiatric unit for the statutory 28 days. In that psychiatric unit, he was diagnosed as a psychopathic paedophile, and as such not amenable to treatment. He was thus free under mental health law to discharge himself into the community after the 28 days had elapsed. It was at that point that the local police made their public announcement that they were powerless to act until he committed another arrestable offence, which was, of course, when there was a public outcry from my constituents.
  The public response has taken many forms. There has been direct action in the form of vigilante attacks. They cannot be condoned, but they have a bearing on another approach to the problem—one that attracts wide public sympathy. That is the demand for a United Kingdom version of Megan's law, which is adopted in a number of states in the United States of America. Where this law is in force, there is full disclosure to the public of the identity of any sex offender who has taken up residence in a locality.
  A register of known sex offenders is to be compiled in the course of implementation of the Sex Offenders Act 1997, which received Royal Assent in March. My hon. Friend the Minister has, I understand, given full assurance that that register will be compiled without delay. Full disclosure is, however, not necessarily the best way to use such a register.
  The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, speaking on behalf also of the Children's Charities Consortium, offers a number of arguments against full disclosure. First, it encourages vigilantism, and the presumption in a law-abiding society is that that should be discouraged. Secondly, it may discourage offenders from registering and drive them underground, thus making the task of the police and other agencies more difficult. It is worth noting that the Huyton paedophile, if I may call him such for ease of reference, changed his name and gave false information to the hostel in Huyton.
  Thirdly, where the abuse is within a family, public notification will have an adverse effect on the welfare of the child and of other innocent family members. Fourthly, where the abuse is not within the family, public disclosure may undermine the struggle of the family to rebuild their lives at a time when what they most need is support.
  On the other hand, the NSPCC and the Children's Charities Consortium believe that the police should have the discretion by law to make information about specific offenders available to social services departments, education departments, health authorities and other relevant agencies, but that only in exceptional circumstances should disclosure be made to the public.
  It is interesting to note that the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales is also against general disclosure of a paedophile's identity and whereabouts, because of the risk to public order, and that the Association of Chief Police Officers also feels that

  747
  wide-scale public notification would be fraught with dangers and should be considered only in very special and specific circumstances.
  Despite the opposition by police organisations to full disclosure, they must have legal protection for the special circumstances that they acknowledge do occur. At the moment, the police can be exposed to legal challenge when they exercise that discretion without the protection of the law, as happened in north Wales recently. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister, being wise, will weigh those views with great care as he proceeds with the compilation of the register and ponders its use.
  The NSPCC and its related organisations made other recommendations about the compilation and use of the register and its interface with other registers, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will have been made aware of those. Given the time available, I shall not detain him with them now. I am sure, however, that he will take note of the wandering career of the Huyton paedophile and his change of identity when drawing up the rules for the compilation of the register.
  Ms Patricia Hewitt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, after I earlier alerted him to my interest in the subject. He has made several excellent points about an issue which is of great and growing concern to my constituents. I wish to draw to his attention the situation that recently arose in my constituency. A man was arrested for a series of sexual offences against children on the estate where he was living and was then found to have had previous convictions of a similar nature dating back 10 years. Of course, he would not be covered by the new requirement to register. I suggest to my hon. Friend that the discretionary power that he proposes for the police to be able to notify to the authorities the existence of somebody with a previous conviction might be the most desirable way forward to deal with the legitimate concerns of constituents that arose following that situation.
  Mr. O'Hara: I thank my hon. Friend for that useful intervention, which saves me making the same point myself. I am sure that the Minister has taken full note of it.
  One interesting response to the current problem in my constituency is the attempt of one group of parents to obtain a prohibitive steps order under the Children Act 1989. It is by no means certain that they will obtain a PSO as it must relate to a named potential victim. The parents are, however, to be commended for their attempt to turn current law to their present purpose. Even if they are successful, they will succeed only in displacing the problem from their locality. What is needed is an amendment to the law to ensure the protection of children everywhere from a known predatory paedophile, such as the one who settled in Huyton in April 1997.
  I seek amendments to current law, to address the situation that confronted my constituents and me in mid-June 1997. I first address the problem that, after being detained for 28 days under mental health legislation, that person was free to discharge himself into the community because his condition was diagnosed as being not amenable to treatment, even though the condition diagnosed was psychopathic paedophilia. I understand that there is a dispute in the world of psychiatry about
  748
  whether the condition is treatable, but that is not a matter for Home Office Ministers. What is a matter for Home Office Ministers is that that man has a tendency to commit child abuse and a record of such abuse, going back a long way. He predicts himself that he will reoffend. He has been arrested and sectioned for going out into the community equipped to lure a child, yet he can be released into the community under mental health law and be beyond the reach of the forces of criminal law until he commits an offence—not any old offence, but a sexual offence against a child; in other words, until he ruins a child's life, ruins a family and blights a community. In the case of most other offences, there is force in the argument that an offender who has served a sentence has paid a debt to society and that there should be a presumption in favour of the civil rights of that offender before the law. Paedophilia is not any old offence. To most people, the presumption is that the safety of the child mast be paramount and must—if necessary in certain cases—take precedence over the civil rights of a paedophile offender and potential re-offender.
  The change in the law that I seek is that the facility should be available in specific cases—and subject to diagnosis of the balance of risk—to detain paedophiles in custody. In such cases, the risk to the child would, if necessary, outweigh the rights of the potential abuser. Note that I do not specify medical diagnosis—it could be cross-disciplinary. In simple terms, I am asking the Minister to consider the availability of indeterminate sentences for paedophiles in special and specific cases.
  The other amendment to the law that I seek is similar. If the decision is made to release a paedophile into the community, the facility should exist in law to subject him or her to compulsory supervision—again, subject to a diagnosis and assessment of the balance of risk. The need for the provision was demonstrated last week when the Huyton paedophile left the secure clinic freely—as was his right—and took up residence in a hostel far from Huyton. There, he subjected himself voluntarily to a supervisory regime. Last week, he left the hostel—destination unknown. He was located, but the relevant authorities were powerless to intervene. The Minister can imagine the consternation that this caused to my constituents, who support my call for extended supervision of sex offenders on release. The National Association for Care and Resettlement of Offenders also calls for such supervision.
  There are aspects of the law relating to paedophiles which I have not touched for want of time and because they did not arise in the case to which I have referred at length. These include the possibility of electronic tagging, which may find favour in the light of ministerial announcements earlier today. There are also proposals to ease the experience of children giving evidence in court. I hope that the Minister will consider carefully the Pigott recommendations.
  Myriad organisations have pressed for a wide range of specific enactments and sanctions of widely differing desirability and practicality. My proposals are different, in that I approach the problem from the other end. I have tried to identify the loopholes in the law and have proposed a way of plugging them. I have not been over-specific, as I know that this is a difficult area of legislation, and I leave the detailed drafting to the experts in the field. I hope, however, that I have persuaded the Minister to review the gaps at the interface between

  749
  mental health law and criminal law, and to take appropriate legislative action. In particular, I hope that he will review the gaps that I have identified in the law as it relates to paedophiles. I look forward to his response.
  11.41 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) on raising such an important subject, which is of great concern to many people, and on doing so in a way that is a perfect example of how to treat a topic in an Adjournment debate. He raised the matter in a balanced way, and he will agree that we must combine a passion to act to protect children with great care to get it right.
  I have always been taken by the following quote from Gibbon:
  "The operation of the wisest laws is imperfect and precarious. They seldom inspire virtue, they cannot always restrain vice. Their power is insufficient to prevent all that they condemn nor can they always punish the actions which they prohibit."
  Being very angry about things that we despise is not enough: we must find ways to make sure that the law is effective and that the operation of the law addresses the issues that my hon. Friend has raised. There are gaps in the law and we must make sure that we get the systems right. My hon. Friend reflects the priorities of his constituents, and of the public generally, by drawing attention to a matter which has had a profound impact in his community in recent weeks.
  The Government are committed to doing all that we can to deter and punish those who sexually abuse and exploit children. At the top of the agenda is the need to ensure that there are effective measures in place to prevent frightening and tragic cases from occurring. We have legislation and controls that can be used against those who sexually abuse children, but we are not satisfied that children are given the protection that they need. We shall be taking action to ensure that the most vulnerable people in the community, particularly our children, receive the best care and protection possible, and that when crimes occur the offenders are caught and successfully prosecuted.
  I shall respond to my hon. Friend on the case to which he drew attention—the known and self-confessed paedophiliac offender who was recently released into the community and whom my hon. Friend referred to as the Huyton paedophile.
  The Government fully recognise the grave concerns raised by such cases. We are looking closely at the scope for further action on mental health and the criminal law to safeguard the public from people with apparently untreatable psychopathic disorders, particularly in relation to sexual offences. We shall consider whether more needs to be done to give the courts sentencing options sufficient to provide protection against sex offenders.
  One of the areas to which my hon. Friend referred, and which we shall be studying, is the possibility of using indeterminate sentences for child sex offenders, to allow them to be held as long as they pose a threat, rather than having to release them even when the Prison Service and they themselves know that they are likely to re-offend. It is clear from the example that my hon. Friend gave that
  750
  in some circumstances we are dealing with extremely devious individuals. He outlined the circumstances of a particular case fully and accurately and I do not need to repeat the description of events that he gave.
  My hon. Friend is also right to say that every time such a case comes up, there are calls for Megan's law to be introduced, as in some states in the United States of America. In the American experience, there are differences between states and also in the experience. My hon. Friend is right to say that the outcome has not always been intended. That is why the quotation that I gave from Gibbon is so relevant. We want to ensure that we put legislation and programmes in place that will work.
  There is evidence to suggest that there are cases without the complication of a psychopathic disorder, where it is possible to help the offender to recognise the problem and change his behaviour. Experience within the Prison Service has shown that if programmes are of sufficient intensity and duration, they can reduce rates of re-offending by as much as a quarter. Twenty-five establishments are involved in the programme and in 1996–97, 564 prisoners completed the sex offender treatment programme, with a further 116 completing the relapse prevention programme.
  Probation services are also tackling offending behaviour in programmes of work to reduce re-offending, including treatment programmes to deal with sexually deviant behaviour. These are for offenders who have been supervised following their release from prison and for those serving sentences in the community. We shall continue to draw on available research to identify what is effective and to make the best use of such treatment programmes.
  My hon. Friend mentioned adequate supervision after release from prison or during community sentence, which is crucially important. Measures are in place to ensure that all prisoners sentenced since 1 October 1992 serve at least half their sentence in custody, following which those serving 12 months or more and all young offenders receive compulsory supervision on release. All are at risk until the very end of their sentence: if they commit a further imprisonable offence before the end of their original sentence, the court dealing with the new offence may add all or part of the outstanding sentence to any new sentence that it imposes.
  Under the terms of the supervision licence, offenders must get approval from their probation officer for any work that they undertake and for their place of residence. Those are standard requirements. If necessary, licences can be extended to include additional requirements to prevent an offender from working with persons under a specified age or to require an offender to undertake a programme of treatment to tackle their offending behaviour.
  The Sex Offenders Act 1997, to which my hon. Friend referred, will certainly provide one of the key ways to increase public protection, by ensuring that the police know the whereabouts of sex offenders. My hon. Friend will be aware that Labour Members of Parliament campaigned for many years for a paedophiles register to be established.
  The 1997 Act contains a requirement for those convicted of certain sex offences to notify the police of their name and address and of any change in either. We shall be issuing guidance to the police, setting out the

  751
  principles and considerations that should apply to the use and disclosure of the information given by sex offenders under that Act. That guidance will focus on the risk to the public, the sharing of information between agencies and disclosure to third parties. We intend to ensure that the information on the register can be used to inform employers, schools and, where appropriate, members of the public as well as voluntary organisations, as part of a focused strategy to protect children from paedophiles. At the centre of our approach is the assessment of risk and, therefore, the prevention of that risk becoming a reality.
  We are well aware that the information will need to be handled carefully. There are certain pitfalls that we must avoid. We must not allow the information to provide opportunities for paedophiles to network. We also need to be careful, as my hon. Friend suggested, that the effects of the registration requirements are not so intrusive that paedophiles are driven underground. We must also ensure that the existence of the register does not encourage parents to develop a false sense of security, as the register will cover only sex offenders who have already been caught and convicted. Linked with the need to secure convictions, to which my hon. Friend also referred, there is the danger that information from the register which is spread too widely may hamper prosecutions for future offences by contaminating identification evidence. We must beware that, if it becomes known that a convicted sex offender lives in a particular area, there may be a temptation for people to take the law into their own hands. However abhorrent the crime, that is not the solution.
  During the passage of the Sex Offenders Act 1997, I tabled a new clause which would have clarified some of these issues on the face of the Bill. It is a matter of regret that it was not accepted by Ministers at that time. The line of approach for which we argued at that time will inform the advice given.
  My hon. Friend referred to a case in north Wales. I am aware of the judicial review hearing that took place last week and I do not wish to comment as the matter is sub judice, but I can assure the House that I will consider the judgment very carefully before any guidance is issued. At the moment, there are some misunderstandings about the restrictions on disclosure, but that case may help to clarify the issues.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt) raised the question of those convicted before the implementation of the Sex Offenders Act 1997, and she is right; we are looking at ways to ensure that that gap in the law is dealt with. That matter needs some careful thought, but there is clearly a gap. There are a number of ways in which we want to provide additional protections where it is known that there is a problem. That is a matter of active consideration at the moment.
  There are cases in which some strong measures may be necessary. A consultation paper was published earlier this year setting out options for making it an offence for a
  752
  convicted sex offender to work with or seek to work with, or to offer services to children. That would create an additional deterrent to prevent paedophiles from gaining access to children through their work. Although the onus would still be on the employer to carry out thorough checks of all potential employees, the new offence would enable action to be taken against any convicted sex offender who applied for a post. A number of difficult issues need to be addressed, such as how to define the kind of work and services to be included, whether the protection should extend to 16 and 17-year-olds and whether any ban should be lifelong. Those issues are being dealt with in the consultation exercise, the responses to which are currently being analysed. We shall shortly be considering the next steps.
  We are also taking action to increase the protection afforded to children who are adopted or fostered. Following the sentencing of Roger Saint, a former foster carer and adoptive parent who was convicted on 10 charges of indecent assault on a number of young boys placed in his care, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health has promised to close the loophole that gave local authorities discretion to place children for foster care or adoption with persons known to have convictions for child abuse. New regulations under the Children Act 1989 and the Adoption Act 1976 will be put before Parliament shortly.
  The limited time available does not allow me to go into some of the details about the way in which the National Criminal Intelligence Service database is being developed and used, the steps that we intend to take in relation to child pornography, which is a particularly pernicious activity, and the international action in which we are involved.
  Mr. Shaun Woodward: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Michael: We certainly wish to address the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South has raised in relation to child witnesses to try to increase the likelihood of paedophiles being convicted.
  I have spent some time talking about what is being done to increase protection for children against paedophiles. It is important to recognise that progress is being made in terms of operational success against individuals and groups, and of increased legislative powers to deter and punish those who commit these dreadful offences. We cannot, however, rest on our laurels in dealing with such offences. There are almost daily tragic reminders of the need for more effective action. We will do all that we can to deter, catch and punish paedophiles, and to ensure that, on the basis of assessing the risks involved, there is no hiding place left for those who pose a threat to children.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Twelve midnight.

HEALTH

  Information Technology
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for (i) increasing the use of information technology in communications and information management in the health service and (ii) achieving better value for money and functional effectiveness in these investments. [6069]

  Mr. Milburn
  The role of information technology in the National Health Service is currently under consideration.

  HIV Tests
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances HIV tests may be carried out on health professionals without their explicit and informed consent. [6593]

  Mr. Milburn
  HIV tests should not be carried out on health professionals without their explicit and informed consent. In very rare and exceptional circumstances where there is a serious public health risk, a magistrate may, on the application of the local authority supported by a certificate from the local authority's medical adviser, order that a person believed to have suffered or to be suffering from a specified disease, including AIDS, or carrying an organism capable of causing the disease, be medically examined and tested.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) annual and (b) other disclosure he proposes in respect of profits made by consortiums involved in NHS PFI schemes. [6554]

  Mr. Milburn
  The private sector companies which comprise a consortium involved in a Private Finance Initiative project with a National Health Service trust usually establish a new corporate entity known as a "special purpose vehicle". This is a limited company whose sole purpose and activity will be to sign the contract and take on the responsibilities under that contract. As a limited company it must observe the provisions of the Companies Acts and publish annual accounts; these must be lodged with the Registrar of Companies where they are available for public inspection.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if consortiums involved in NHS PFI schemes for NHS trusts are restricted in their ability to market or promote private health insurance. [6552]

  Mr. Milburn
  There is no specific national policy in place which restricts consortia involved in private finance initiative projects with National Health Service trusts from 308
  marketing or promoting private health insurance. However, all NHS trusts must ensure that the interests of NHS patients remain paramount and that the public service values of accountability, probity and openness underpin all decisions they take, as set out in the guidance documents Code of Conduct and Accountability" (1994) and "Standards of business conduct for NHS staff (1993). Particular emphasis is placed based on identifying and avoiding possible conflicts of interest and inducements.

  Individual NHS trusts are required to draw up a local code of conduct and accountability which must be based on the national guidelines and take into account local circumstances.

  Junior Doctors' Hours
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what resources the Government are providing to implement the recent agreement on junior doctors' hours. [6592]

  Mr. Milburn
  In 1997–98 £1.6 million central funding has been provided to support local medical workforce advisory groups and New Deal task forces, who will work together to reduce junior doctors' hours.

  Higher Specialist Training
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Government intends to make funding the implementation of the Calman report on higher specialist training a priority for purchasing authorities. [6595]

  Mr. Milburn
  Implementation of the reforms of higher specialist training was agreed by the previous Government in December 1993 on the basis that it would be managed at a pace and in a manner which minimised additional costs and enabled these to be absorbed. Continuing the phased implementation of the specialist registrar grade is a specific objective for health authorities and National Health Service trusts in the Priorities and Planning Guidance for the NHS: 1997–98.

  NHS Financial Review
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what are the terms of reference of the fundamental review of NHS spending; [6542]

  (2) which (a) ministers and (b) officials of his Department sit on the fundamental review of NHS spending panel; [6544]

  (3) what is the role of the Treasury in the fundamental review of NHS funding; [6543]

  (4) what is the timetable for reporting the conclusions of the fundamental review of NHS spending. [6483]

  Mr. Milburn
  My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in his statement to the House on 11 June, column 1143, said that terms of reference for Departmental reviews would be published shortly; that the review would take 12 months to complete, and its conclusions would inform a new set of public spending plans for the rest of this Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, said to the House on 25 June, column 916, that the review would involve Health Department officials, National Health Service staff
  309
  and people from outside both services, and that Ministers would be involved at all stages. Treasury officials are also involved in the review.

  Mr. Tony Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the health authority funding arrangements. [6419]

  Mr. Milburn
  An announcement will be made in due course.

  Prescription Fraud
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the annual cost of prescription fraud in Bolton, West; [6473]

  (2) what measures Bolton NHS Trust has taken to tackle prescription fraud; [6472]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the savings which will be made in Bolton West due to the proposed measures to tackle prescription fraud. [6471]

  Mr. Milburn
  The report of the Efficiency Scrutiny into Prescription Fraud, which was published last month, estimated levels of prescription fraud in England and Wales as £85 million to £115 million per year. It is estimated that the loss of revenue from patient charge evasion in Bolton Family Health Services Authorities in 1995–96 was approximately £0.1 million. We are not able to estimate the level of other forms of prescription fraud for the period.

  While we are in the process of implementing a number of measures aimed at reducing the level of prescription fraud as well as improving its detection, it is impossible to estimate the amount of savings that will result in particular health authorities.

  Guidance on the secure handling of prescriptions has been issued to all hospitals. We do not hold centrally information on the measures being taken by Bolton National Health Service Trust to tackle prescription fraud, but my hon. Friend may wish to contact the chairman of the Bolton Hospitals NHS Trust, Mrs. Peacock, Royal Bolton Hospital, Minerva Road, Farnworth, Bolton BL4 OJR.

  Vitamins and Dietary Supplements
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on prescription policy, with special reference to the continuing availability of vitamin and dietary supplements on prescription. [6418]

  Mr. Milburn
  Any vitamins and dietary supplements which are licensed as medicines under the Medicines for Human Use (Marketing Authorisations Etc) Regulations 1994 and the Medicines Act 1968 may be prescribed on the National Health Service by general medical practitioners unless they are listed in schedule 10 to the National Health Service (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992. Unlicensed vitamins and dietary supplements, unless they are listed in this same schedule, may also be prescribed on the NHS by general practitioners but such prescriptions may be subject to challenge by health authorities who may, subject to an appeals mechanism, require the practitioner to pay for them.

  Medical Students
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the Government plans to implement the medical work force standing advisory committee recommendation on increasing medical student numbers. [6591]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Medical Workforce Standing Advisory Committee's second report (June 1995) recommended an increase in medical student intake to 4,970 by the year 2000. This is currently being implemented by the Higher Education Funding Councils ahead of schedule and within existing undergraduate medical schools. Figures are provided in the table.

  Table 3. Entrants to United Kingdom medical schools

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Target

  4,119

  4,119

  4,119

  4,470

  4,470

  4,736

  4,834

  Actual

  4,320

  4,449

  4,531

  4,778

  4,699

  4,820

  n/a

  Source:

  Higher Education Funding council for England (HEFCE).

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the actions he proposes to take to ensure that guidance issued to health trusts on the allocations of power-assisted wheelchairs to severely disabled children is properly implemented. [6737]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Health Service Guidance about powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs, which was issued in May 1996, states clearly that the National Health Service should provide powered chairs for severely disabled people, including children, who could benefit from them. It is the duty of the health authority to assess local needs and determine local eligibility criteria for the supply of powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs, within the broad national framework set out by the NHS Executive. One of the criteria is that the disabled person should be able to handle the chair safely. It is therefore a matter of local decision whether individual disabled children are deemed to be capable of handling a powered chair safely. Health authorities are not allowed to refuse to supply a powered wheelchair solely on age grounds.

  NHS Doctors
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors were in the service of the NHS in 1996; and how many he estimates the service will require in each of the next five years. [6745]

  Mr. Milburn
  The statistics from the Department of Health Census of Hospital Medical and Dental Workforce of 30 September 1996 should be published at the end of July. The number of doctors working in general medical services on 1 October 1996 are given in the table.

  Number

  Unrestricted principals

  26,855

  Restricted principals

  115

  Assistants

  662

  Trainees

  1,305

  All practitioners

  28,937

  311
  Since February 1995, the Specialist Workforce Advisory Group (SWAG) has been advising Ministers on the numbers of higher specialist trainees needed in each hospital speciality in England and Wales. This is in order to ensure sufficient suitably trained doctors for consultant posts over the following five years. Because the factors affecting requirements are complex, SWAG reviews each specialty annually. At present, it does not review trainees in general practice, but there are proposals to do so.

  SWAG recommended an additional 1,500 higher specialist trainees for 1996–97. For 1997–98, SWAG's recommended increases were within a range of 250 to 850.

  NHS Trusts and Health Authorities
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will name each member of each NHS trust and health authority in Nottinghamshire; when they were appointed; and when their appointment terminates. [6794]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is as follows:

  Appointed from

  Appointed to

  Bassetlaw Hospital and Community Services NHS Trust

  Mrs. Valerie Dickinson (Chairman)

  1 December 1993

  30 November 1997

  Mr. Richard Hassctt

  1 December 1993

  30 November 1997

  Mrs. Linda Turner

  1 December 1995

  30 November 1999

  Mrs. Jennifer Lee

  1 December 1993

  30 November 1997

  Mr. Peter Reynard

  1 December 1995

  30 November 1999

  Mr. Robert Goslin

  23 December 1996

  30 November 2000

  Central Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  Mr. George Vere-Laurie (Chairman)

  1 November 1996

  31 October 1998

  Mrs. Elizabeth Hanson

  1 November 1996

  31 October 1999

  Mrs. Stephen Brown

  1 November 1994

  31 October 1998

  Mr. Martin Everitt

  1 November 1994

  31 October 1998

  Ms. Ann Vinter

  1 November 1994

  31 October 1998

  Mr. David Hunt

  1 November 1996

  31 October 1999

  King's Mill Centre for Health Care Services NHS Trust

  Mr. Derrick Venn (Chairman)

  1 November 1995

  31 October 1997

  Mr. Derrick Willingham

  1 November 1995

  31 October 1998

  Mrs. Frances Stein

  1 November 1995

  31 October 1999

  Mr. Brian Meakin

  1 November 1995

  31 October 1999

  Mrs. Angela Donen

  1 November 1995

  31 October 1998

  Mr. Michael Cannon

  1 November 1995

  31 October 1997

  Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust

  Mr. Norman Deakin (Chairman)

  1 December 1993

  30 November 1997

  Mr. Reginald Ilingworth

  1 December 1993

  30 November 1997

  Mr. Angus Walker

  1 December 1993

  30 November 1997

  Miss Sharon Turner

  1 December 1995

  30 November 1997

  Mr. Graham Martin

  1 December 1995

  30 November 1999

  Professor Ian Johnson

  1 December 1993

  30 November 1997

  Nottingham Community Health NHS Trust

  Mr. Ian Maclean (Chairman)

  1 December 1993

  30 November 1997

  Mr. A. Ripley

  1 December 1993

  30 November 1997

  Mrs. J. Sterck

  1 December 1993

  30 November 1997

  Mr. Brian Cooke

  1 December 1993

  30 November 1997

  Mr. Vivian Oliver

  1 December 1995

  30 November 1999

  Professor Clair Chilvers

  1 December 1993

  30 November 1997

  Nottingham Healthcare NHS Trust

  Mr. Robert Little (Chairman)

  1 November 1995

  31 October 1999

  Mrs. Hilary Markson

  1 November 1995

  31 October 1999

  Mrs. Usha Sood

  1 November 1995

  31 October 1997

  Mr. John Tarrant

  1 November 1995

  31 October 1999

  Mr. Gordon Waine

  1 November 1995

  31 October 1997

  Professor Alan

  Aitkenhead

  1 November 1995

  31 October 1997

  312

  Appointed from

  Appointed to

  Nottinghamshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  Mrs. Peter Featherby (Chairman)

  1 November 1996

  31 October 1998

  Mr. Mukesh Panchal

  1 November 1996

  31 October 1999

  Miss Mary Newby

  1 November 1996

  31 October 1998

  Mr. Alan Baines>

  1 November 1994

  31 October 1998

  Mrs. Geraldine Coppel

  1 November 1994

  31 October 1997

  Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, University Hospital NHS Trust

  Mr. Martin Suthers (Chairman)

  1 November 1994

  31 October 1998

  Mr. Geoffrey Longbottom

  1 November 1996

  31 October 1999

  Mr. Laurence Coppel

  1 November 1994

  31 October 1998

  Mrs. Christine Bowering

  1 November 1994

  31 October 1998

  Mr. Alan Hawksworth

  11 November 1996

  31 October 2000

  Professor Edwin Symonds

  1 November 1996

  31 October 2000

  North Nottinghamshire Health Authority

  Mr. Alan Tolhurst (Chairman)

  1 April 1996

  31 March 1998

  Mrs. Frances Kelly

  1 April 1996

  31 March 2000

  Mr. Albert Deakin

  1 April 1996

  31 March 1998

  Mrs. Chris Gunn

  1 April 1996

  31 March 2000

  Mr. Gordon Rees

  1 April 1996

  31 March 1998

  Mr. Brian Basford

  1 April 1996

  31 March 1998

  Nottingham Health Authority

  Sir David White (Chairman)

  1 April 1996

  31 March 1998

  Councillor Stephen Taylor

  1 April 1996

  31 March 1998

  Mr. Francis Boot

  1 April 1996

  31 March 2000

  Mrs. Clarice Turnbull

  1 April 1996

  31 March 2000

  Mr. Richard Turton

  1 April 1996

  31 March 2000

  Professor David Greenaway

  1 April 1996

  31 March 1998

  Surrogacy
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the timetable is for the review of the law on surrogacy; and if the public and interested bodies will be able to make submissions to the review team. [6433]

  Ms Jowell
  We expect the review team to issue a consultation document to a wide range of interested bodies later this summer, with copies being available to anyone else who asks for it. We shall make an announcement about the availability of the document and details of how to obtain a copy at the time it is issued. Following a sufficient period to allow responses to be made, we expect to receive the team's report early next year.

  Trust Boards
  Sir David Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many working days notice were given to hon. Members to make suggestions to him as to appointments to trust boards; and if he will make a statement. [6775]

  Mr. Milburn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health's letter to hon. Members inviting nominations for appointments to trust boards was an addition to the normal consultation processes, designed to widen the field of candidates to include more members of the local community. His letter of 26 June asked for nominations to reach him by 7 July, allowing seven working days in which to respond.

  Hospital Trusts (Disabled Employees)
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many disabled people are employed by each hospital trust in England and Wales. [7059]

  Mr. Boateng
  All employers in the National Health Service with over 20 staff must comply with the Disability Discrimination Act of 1995, which changed the definition of disability from that previously used. We are working with the NHS to consider how to monitor both the letter and the spirit of the law. Historic figures under the previous definition of disability are available in the annual "Employment Gazette/Labour Market Trends", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Rural Health Care
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the Government's definition of rural for the purposes of health care provision; and if the definition used is the same as that set out on page 9 of the Department of Health publication of November 1996, Developing Health and Social Care in Rural England. [6960]

  Mr. Milburn
  There is no generally used definition of "rural" for the purposes of health care provision.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will publish her Department's submissions relating to freedom of information legislation. [6036]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 4 July 1997 by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister,Official Report, column 294.

  Montserrat
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the recent natural disasters in Montserrat. [6416]

  Clare Short
  The Soufriere Hill volcano has been active since July 1995. There was an escalation in volcanic activity on 25 June that resulted in the loss of 8 lives. My department immediately deployed the services of 4 helicopters, for search and rescue purposes. 17 people were rescued.

  Following an on-the-spot assessment, my department gave immediate approval for vital emergency work such as setting up communications equipment and maintaining fuel and food supplies and sanitation. With the airport out of commission, a daily ferry service was set up operating from the Little Bay Jetty (recently constructed with DFID funds) to Antigua for the use of foot passengers and for the transportation of goods to ensure safe and sustainable conditions in the north of the island. HMS Liverpool was also sent to the scene and is assisting in the rescue effort. Further temporary shelter has been identified as the highest priority for immediate action and we are looking urgently at the best way of providing it.
  314
  HMG is fully committed to providing the people of Montserrat with a secure future, and we are planning a rapid consultation with them on the options.

  Uganda
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to secure the early implementation of Uganda's debt relief under the highly indebted poor countries initiative. [6816]

  Clare Short
  The World Bank, IMF and Paris Club of government creditors have agreed that, on the basis of the government's continued implementation of its economic reform programme, Uganda will receive debt relief in April 1998. My Department is ready to help the African Development Bank meet some of its costs in giving debt relief in Uganda.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Investment (Sustainable Development)
  Mr. Tony Colman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action she is taking to ensure that the OECD Multilateral Agreement on Investment takes account of the principles of Agenda 21. [6391]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government will work to ensure that its commitments to sustainable development and environmental protection are fully taken account of in the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. We are fully aware of the concerns raised by NGOs in this respect and support consultations with them as the negations continue.

  Supervisory Bodies
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what guidelines govern the ethical conduct of the recognised supervisory bodies; and who ensures their compliance with such guidelines.[6468]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  There are no specific guidelines on the ethical conduct of the Recognised Supervisory Bodies (RSBs). Complaints about their general conduct are a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  The standards which must be applied by the RSBs in their regulation of those auditors for whom they are responsible are set out in Schedule 11 to the Companies Act 1989. These include standards covering professional integrity and independence, procedures for the investigation of complaints and procedures for discipline. Section 37 of that Act gives my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade the power to require information from RSBs for the exercise of her functions under Part II of the Act. Reports which are received under this section are laid in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  Money Laundering
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions accountants and auditors have notified the banking, building societies and financial services regulators of suspicious transactions,(a) with and (b) without the knowledge of their audit clients. [6477]
  315
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The National Criminal Intelligence Service (NICS) is the authority which, under the guidance supporting the money-laundering legislation, must be notified of suspicious transaction involving money-laundering. The number of such reports received in the past five years was as follows:

  Year

  1996: 75

  1995: 44

  1994: 6

  1993: 2

  1992: 1.

  It is a criminal offence for the client to be informed that such a notification has been made.

  Figures for the sources of other notifications of suspicious transactions to the regulatory authorities are not held by the authorities concerned.

  Post Office (Quadrant Catering)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultation was undertaken with trade unions prior to her Department's announcement of a proposed private finance participation in the Quadrant Catering operation in the Post Office; and if she will make a statement. [6602]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Consultations with trade unions on matters relating to the Post Office are the responsibility of Post Office management. The Department's approval of the proposed joint venture arrangement between Quadrant and a private sector partner is part of the process of granting greater commercial freedom to the Post Office in line with our Election manifesto commitment. A joint venture arrangement will open up wider job and career opportunities within the larger organisation to all Quadrant staff.

PRIME MINISTER

  Regional Aid
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Prime Minister which Department has primary responsibility for regional selective assistance and other forms of regional aid. [6297]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 1 July 1997]: My right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, has primary responsibility for the Industrial Development Act 1982 which provides the powers for granting financial assistance to industry assisted areas.

  WPC Yvonne Fletcher
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 24 June,Official Report, column 677, what factors underlie the length of time to be taken over the police investigation into the contents of the Channel 4 programmes relating to the death of WPC Yvonne Fletcher. [6174]

  The Prime Minister
  The Metropolitan police's review of the contents of the programme involves a good deal of detailed analysis of the extensive documentation already generated by their investigation.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the letter written on his behalf by Mr. Philip Barton, Private Secretary at 10 Downing Street, to Mrs. Pamela Dix, Secretary of UK Families Flight 103, what is the result of the careful consideration he undertook to give to representations received about Lockerbie; and what is the result of the continuing discussion of the issues involved with the United States administration. [6143]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers that I gave him on 18 June,Official Report, column 309. The Lockerbie evidence is kept under continual review. The United Kingdom, along with the United States, will argue for the UN sanctions against Libya to be maintained until Libya complies with the UN Security Council resolutions.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what response he has sent to the letter of 22 June to him from ex-police surgeon Dr. David Fieldhouse of Bradford, about the circumstances of the body count after the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie. [6652]

  The Prime Minister
  Dr. Fieldhouse's letter is being studied carefully. A reply will be sent shortly.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what response he has sent to the letter of 23 June to him from Peter Anderson of Simpson Marwick WS about the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie and the legal implications. [6653]

  The Prime Minister
  Mr. Anderson's letter raises a number of points about the Lockerbie investigation. Those responsible for that investigation are currently studying the letter carefully. A reply will be sent shortly.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the proposal made to the UN Security Council by the Secretary General of the Arab League and the Secretary General of the Organisation of African Unity that the Libyans accused of the Lockerbie Pan Am bombing be tried by Scottish judges under Scottish law in a neutral country. [6654]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies that I gave to him and the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor), on 18 June,Official Report, columns 309–10.

  Tibet
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions took place between British and Chinese representatives during his recent visit to Hong Kong on the subject of Tibet; and if he will make a statement. [6900]

  The Prime Minister
  At the Hong Kong handover, my right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secretary, and I met Chinese leaders for the first time since taking office. This was an historic occasion and provided a unique opportunity for general discussion of our future relations, including human rights. It also laid the foundations for more substantive discussions, including on Tibet.

  Millennium
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister how many representations he has received(a) in favour and (b) against the proposals to construct the Millennium Dome. [6897]

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of representations expressing a wide range of opinion about the Millennium Dome.

  Budget Leaks
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Prime Minister if Ministers disclosed to journalists any information regarding the Budget proposals for ACT prior to the Budget statement; and if he will make a statement. [7068]

  Mr. Bernard Jenkin
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will make a statement on contact between his Ministers and journalists on the Financial Times prior to the Budget statement; [7075]

  (2) what breaches of Budget secrecy took place prior to the Budget statement; and if Ministers were responsible. [7073]

  (3) what inquiries have been initiated concerning possible premature disclosure of information in the Chancellor's Budget Statement; [7123]

  (4) if (a) Ministers and (b) their (i) officials and (ii) advisers disclosed details of the Budget proposals for (1) ACT, (2) the live-year deficit reduction programme and (3) market reaction to the Budget prior to the Budget statement. [7074]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to the replies that I gave to the right hon. Member, the Leader of the Opposition, on 2 July,Official Report, columns 288–89.

TREASURY

  Overseas Accounts
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the use by the Treasury of bank accounts overseas, indicating(a) what funds are held overseas, (b) in which countries these funds are held and (c) how much interest has been raised in each of the past five years for which figures are available. [5019]

  Mrs. Helen Liddell
  The Government's gold and foreign currency reserves are managed by the Bank of England in the Exchange Equalisation Account. Some of the assets of the Account are held with overseas banks. For reasons of security and confidentiality, no further details are published. Under section 4 of the Exchange Equalisation Account Act 1979, the Comptroller and Auditor General is required to certify to the House of Commons that operations on, and transactions in connection with, the Account have been in accordance with the provisions of the legislation.

  Housing Conditions
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what studies he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated
  318
  regarding the relationship between the level of capital investment in social housing and the level of the housing benefit budget. [5295]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Under-Secretary with responsibility for London and construction, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), on 26 June 1997, column 593.

  Beer (Illegal Imports)
  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he proposes to take to reduce the volume of illegally imported beer. [6235]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A review aimed at reducing alcohol and tobacco smuggling and fraud was announced on Budget day. This will look at finding new ways to protect the revenue and reduce illegal activity and consider health issues. In the meantime Customs continues to take action to counter fraud and smuggling.

  Landowners (Tax Exemptions)
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the cost to the Exchequer of landowners' tax exemption for allowing some public access to their land in each of the last three years. [5970]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Estimated cost (£ million)

  1994–95

  negligible

  1995–96

  5

  1996–97

  5

  (These estimate are particularly tentative).

  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what regulations there are governing the advertisement of access to land owned by landowners who have negotiated conditional exemption from tax payment. [5969]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 6 June, column 278.

  Building Society Conversions
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the amount of money released in the current calendar year from building society conversions; and what assessment he has made of its effect on(a) consumer demand, (b) interest rates and (c) the balance of payments. [6240]

  Mrs. Liddell
  A full account of recent economic developments and prospects, including the effect of money released from building society conversions and takeovers, was published with the Budget on 2 July.

  Sanitary Protection (VAT)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning the reduction or removal of VAT from sanitary protection; and if he will make a statement. [5821]
  319
  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 1 July 1997]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) on 18 June, column 230.

  Erb's Palsy
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what statistics his Department collates on the incidence of Erb's palsy; and what are the figures for its incidence in each of the last 10 years. [6364]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Dr. Peter Brand, dated 7 July 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply, as Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), to your recent parliamentary question on Erb's palsy.
  The ONS collects information through the National Congenital Anomaly System. This system, which is voluntary at all stages, has been monitoring congenital anomalies in England and Wales since 1964. The primary purpose of this system is to detect changes in the frequency of reporting any particular anomaly or group of anomalies rather than trying to estimate the prevalence at birth.
  The following table shows babies notified with Erb's Palsy1, numbers and rates per 10,000 live and stillbirths, England and Wales 1986–1995.

  Number

  Rate

  1986

  25

  0.4

  1987

  37

  0.5

  1988

  34

  0.5

  1989

  37

  0.5

  1990

  24

  0.3

  1991

  30

  0.4

  1992

  21

  0.3

  1993

  36

  0.5

  1994

  24

  0.4

  1995

  34

  0.5

  1 International Classification of Diseases 9th revision 767.6 1986–1994.

  International Classification of Diseases 10th revision P14.0 1995. 'Data as at 1 July 1997'.

  Source:

  National Congenital Anomaly System.

  Unemployment (Chipping Barnet)
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the registered number of unemployed in(a) the former Chipping Barnet constituency area and (b) the new enlarged area for (i) April and (ii) May; and if he will make a statement. [6425]

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

  Letter from Mr. Tim Holt to Sir Sydney Chapman, dated 7 July 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on the numbers registered unemployed in the former Chipping Burnet constituency area and the new enlarged area.
  320
  The data you have requested can only be derived from the monthly count of people claiming unemployment-related benefits (i.e. Jobseekers Allowance or National Insurance credits). Essentially, all people who attend an Employment Service office to sign on the designated day are counted.
  The data you have requested is shown in the attached table.
  The 1991 Chipping Barnet constituency contains the following wards:

  Arkley

  Brunswick Park

  East Barnet

  Hadley

  Totteridge

  In addition to the wards listed above, the 1995 constituency also contains Friern Barnet.

  Number of persons claiming unemployment-related benefits, April and May 1997

  Former Chipping Barnet constituency area (1991 boundaries)

  New Chipping Barnet constituency area (1995 boundaries)

  April 1997

  1,597

  1,955

  May 1997

  1,541

  1,881

  Economic Stability
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of whether economic stability is a precondition for high and stable levels of growth and employment; and if he will assess the correlation between those factors in the period 1977 to 1997. [6845]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Financial Statement and Budget Report laid before the House on 2 July, and in particular chapters 1 and 3.

  Internet
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to amend the rules relating to VAT on commercial activities conducted on the Internet; and if he will make a statement. [6273]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 3 July 1997]: Customs are closely involved in initiatives with both the European Union and the OECD which are seeking to identify solutions to the perceived problems with trading over the Internet. It is important that any changes made are done so in concert with other countries so that the risk of double or non-taxation of these supplies is avoided.

  Mr. Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money he estimates is lost to the Treasury by people failing to pay duties on commercial transactions conducted over the Internet; and if he will make a statement. [6274]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 3 July 1997]: There is no reliable estimate of revenue lost in this way.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy in respect of reducing VAT on equipment specially(a) designed and (b) adapted for disabled use. [6430]
  321
  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 3 July 1997]: There is already VAT relief on equipment designed solely for use by disabled people and the service of adapting goods for use by them. Such supplies are zero-rated for VAT purposes.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  County Court Closures
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many county courts have been closed in each of the last five years. [6237]

  Mr. Hoon
  The question concerns a matter which has been assigned to the Court Service under the terms of its framework document. I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Huebner to Mr. Keith Hill, dated 7 July 1997:
  The Parliamentary Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about how many county courts have closed in each of the last five years.
  The figures are as follows:

  1993: 5 court closures

  1994: 16 court closures

  1995: 8 court closures

  1996: 13 court closures

  1997: 2 court closures (to date).

  Although 44 courts have been closed in total, 15 of those still provide a service for office callers but have no hearing facilities. Additionally, 19 of the courts closed have undertaken to continue local District Judges sittings in suitable accommodation subject to demand.

  Small Claims
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on how many occasions a party to a case which is subject to automatic reference to small claims arbitration has(a) applied for and (b) been granted an application for recission of the reference in the last 12 months. [6229]

  Mr. Hoon
  The question concerns a matter which has been assigned to the Court Service under the terms of its framework document. I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Huebner to Mr. Keith Hill, dated 7 July 1997:
  The Parliamentary Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of occasions a party whose case has been referred to automatic small claims arbitration have applied for, and been granted, recission.
  The number of occasions in the 12 months from April 1996 up to March 1997 when a party has applied for recission to automatic arbitration is 738. The actual number who were granted recission is 622.

  Litigants
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will estimate the total number of litigants entitled to a refund of court fees paid between 15 January and 13 March and the total cost to the Court Service of repaying fees. [6231]
  322
  Mr. Hoon
  The question concerns a matter which has been assigned to the Court Service under the terms of its framework document. I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to write to the Hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Huebner to Mr. Keith Hill, dated 7 July 1997:
  The Parliamentary Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about the numbers of litigants entitled to a refund of court fees paid and the total cost of this to the Court Service.
  The information requested is unknown and could only he provided at a disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many litigants have(a) applied for and (b) were granted a refund of court fees paid between 15 January and 13 March in (i) county court proceedings. (ii) high court proceedings and (iii) family proceedings. [6234]

  Mr. Hoon
  The question concerns a matter which has been assigned to the Court Service under the terms of its framework document. I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Huebner to Mr. Keith Hill, dated 7 July 1997:
  The Parliamentary Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of litigants who have applied for and been granted refunds of court fees.
  Detailed figures of refunds of court fees to litigants in person are not held centrally, and could only be provided at a disproportionate cost. However, information is collected on the total number of refunds and is broken down into months and fees by type of fees order (County, Supreme, Family). This information is as follows but is only available for the months of March, April and May.

  County

  Supreme

  Family

  Total

  March

  327

  1

  2,349

  2,677

  April

  367

  31

  3,254

  3,652

  May

  237

  9

  1,246

  1,492

  931

  41

  6,849

  7,821

  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many litigants in person have issued proceedings in(a) the county court, (b) the county court under the small claims procedure, (c) the High Court and (d) the Court of Appeal in each of the last five years. [6230]

  Mr. Hoon
  The question concerns a matter which has been assigned to the Court Service under the terms of its framework document. I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Huebner to Mr. Keith Hill, dated 7 July 1997:
  The parliamentary Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about proceedings issued by litigants in person over the last five years.
  Detailed statistics for actions instigated by litigants in person are not held centrally, and could only be provided at a disproportionate cost.

  Court Fees
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many litigants who have(a) applied for and (b) been granted a refund of court fees paid between 15 January and 13 March were in receipt of (i) income support, (ii) income-related jobseeker's allowance. (iii) family credit, (iv) disability working allowance and (v) housing benefit. [6232]

  Mr. Hoon
  The question concerns a matter which has been assigned to the Court Service under the terms of its framework document. I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter front Michael Huebner to Mr. Keith Hill, dated 7 July 1997:
  The Parliamentary Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of litigants who have applied for and been granted refunds in respect of court fees.
  Details of refunds of court fees to litigants in person are not held centrally in the terms requested, and could only be provided at a disproportionate cost. However, information is collected on the total number of refunds and the total money refunded and is available for March, April and May. During these months 7,821 refunds were granted. The total sum refunded was £242,816.90.

  Office Refurbishment
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the cost of the current refurbishment of offices used by his Department within the Palace of Westminster. [6567]

  Mr. Hoon
  There is currently no refurbishment work being carried out in the offices used by the Lord Chancellor's Department within the Palace of Westminster. There is however, a proposal to refurbish, in a way consistent with the conservation and preservation of a building of such outstanding national importance, the Lord Chancellor's Official Residence together with the office he uses in the Palace of Westminster. This is shortly to be considered by the House of Lords Administration and Works Sub Committee who will decide how to proceed on the basis of a memorandum submitted by Black Rod, who is independent of the Lord Chancellor and responsible for the care and upkeep of the House of Lords accommodation within the Palace of Westminster. They still have to take a number of decisions which will affect the costs of the proposal, but it is estimated that the total cost of both projects will be in the region of £650,000.

  Mental Incapacity
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to act on the Law Commission report (Law Com 231) to clarify the law on mental incapacity. [5524]
  324
  Mr. Hoon
  The Government recognises the importance of clarifying the law in this area to provide a clear framework for those involved in making decisions on behalf of incapacitated adults and to ensure that the welfare and interests of the incapacitated person are adequately protected. It is hoped that progress will be made on the subject at an early opportunity.

CABINET OFFICE

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio under what circumstances he will speak in the House in respect of his ministerial responsibilities; and if he will make a statement. [6888]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) on 3 June,Official Report, column 134; and to my subsequent reply to the hon. Member himself today.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will make himself available on a regular basis to answer oral questions to take account of his responsibilities for(a) the Royal Yacht and (b) the Millennium Dome. [6887]

  Mr. Mandelson
  On(a), I have no responsibilities in this respect. On (b), yes.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Open Government
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many complaints have been referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration since 1 May under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. [6893]

  Dr. David Clark
  Three.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many requests for information have been received since 1 May under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information; and if he will make a statement. [6892]

  Dr. Clark
  This information is not held centrally in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The contribution of the code of practice on open government is, however, an important issue and I shall continue the existing practice of publishing an annual report on the workings of the Code which will contain an analysis of code requests received on a calender year basis.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to narrow the terms of the classes of exempt information listed in the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. [6894]

  Dr. Clark
  I would like to see the proposed Freedom of Information Act have fewer exemptions than the present Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. In the period before the Act comes into force
  325
  the Government will make full use of the discretion available under the Code of Practice to disclose as much information as possible. Should it become clear that the wording of the Code is proving over-restrictive, even under this more liberal interpretation, I will consider amendments.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much has been spent since 1 May to publicise the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information; how many copies of the code have been(a) published and (b) issued since 1 May; and if he will make a statement. [6891]

  Dr. Clark
  No new advertising campaigns have been launched since 1 May but I plan to use the launch of the forthcoming White Paper on Freedom of Information to publicise the continuing role of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information in the period before the Act comes into force.

  Information on the total number of copies of the Code issued by Departments in the period since 1 May is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. I can say however that the central Citizen's Charter Publications Line has issued some 250 copies of the Code in response to requests in that period and my own Department has responded to 30 requests.

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will place in the Library(a) departmental and (b) other responses to the White Paper and draft bill on Freedom of Information before legislation is introduced. [6890]

  Dr. David Clark
  I shall place in the Library the results of both consultation exercises before the legislation is introduced. These will include copies of the responses received from outside government except where confidentiality has been specially requested. I shall also be considering how exchanges between Government Departments on Freedom of Information can best be treated in a way which contributes to the public debate while at the same time preserving the necessary collective responsibility needed in the drafting of major legislation.

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, given that virtually the only citizens who have to go to school are children, will the hon. Gentleman consider extending the citizens charter to make it clear that schools are expected to deliver children's ability to read, write and figure?

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  [pursuant to his reply 2 July 1997, Official Report, column 287]: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that one of the forums that I shall soon be meeting will consist of young children, the future citizens of this country. Moreover, we have worked in
  326
  partnership with the Centre for Citizenship Studies in Education at Leicester University and in consultation with the National Consumer Council to ensure that more than 1,700 secondary schools in England that wished to do so received a pack relating directly to their interests.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Culture Council
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the outcome of the Culture Council on 30 June. [7400]

  Mr. Fisher
  EU Ministers of Culture met on 30 June in Luxembourg. Ministers held a public debate on the future direction of EU cultural action, and agreed a decision to ask the Commission to study the options for future cultural action and to bring forward proposals by 1 May 1998. Ministers also agreed a decision to ask the Commission to study whether article 128(4) is relevant to the Community's approach to cross-border fixed book pricing.

  The Council resolved to continue to seek agreement, in conciliation, for the Raphael programme. It discussed the future of the European Cities of Culture initiative.

  Ministers then held an exchange of views on audiovisual issues, discussing proposals for a Community Guarantee Fund for film production and the Commission's Green Paper on the protection of minors and human dignity in audiovisual and information services.

  Lottery Bids (Stoke-on-Trent, North)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) if he will list the successful national lottery bids in Stoke-on-Trent, North, by category of national lottery funding, indicating the percentage they comprise of the total sums awarded nationwide in each category; [6281]

  (2) how many applications for each category of national lottery funding have been received from Stoke-on-Trent, North; and how many of these have been (a) successful and (b) unsuccessful, indicating for each successful scheme the value of the award, in each year since the inception of the national lottery. [6248]

  Mr. Banks
  [Pursuant to his written reply 4 July, Official Report, column 290]: The tables of awards and applications were omitted from the answer. The full information is as follows.

  To date over £3.7 billion has been awarded to 23,570 projects throughout the UK. Twelve of these awards are to projects in Stoke-on-Trent, North, worth £2,938,508. The first table lists these together with the percentage they represent of the total sums awarded across England and the UK. The second table shows the number of applications received from Stoke-on-Trent, North.
  327

  Table 1: Awards in Stoke on Trent, North

  Category

  Distributing body

  Award date

  Recipient

  Award amount £

  Percentage of total amount of England awards

  Percentage of total amount of all awards1

  Arts

  Arts Council of England

  21 February 1996

  Stoke on Trent Repertory Ltd.

  764,608

  Sub total

  764,608

  0.097

  0.085

  Millennium

  MC

  12 March 1997

  Burslem Community Development

  1,599,000

  Subtotal

  1,599,000

  0.27

  0.16

  Charities

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Physically Handicapped and Able-bodied Freewheelers

  7,630

  11 August 1996

  Stoke on Trent and District Gingerbread Centre

  83,130

  11 August 1996

  Cobridge Community Centre Association

  180,000

  17 December 1996

  PHAB Freewheelers

  36,540

  17 December 1996

  Beatrice North Staffordshire Handicapped Childrens Boat

  13,950

  11 August 1996

  National Association for Gifted Children

  158,100

  Sub total

  479,350

  0.131

  0.095

  Sports

  English Sports Council

  20 November 1996

  North Staffordshire Gymnastics Club

  15,576

  3 December 1996

  Staffordshire County Council (Stanley Head Outdoor Education)

  17,773

  5 June 1997

  Stoke on Trent College Sub Aqua Club

  30,701

  Subtotal

  64,050

  0.012

  0.010

  Heritage

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  20 December 1995

  Staffordshire Historic Building Trust

  31,500

  Sub total

  31,500

  0.006

  0.005

  Grand total

  2,938,508

  0.102

  0.079

  1 Includes awards made by the other home counties Arts and Sports Councils.

  Table 2: Applications from Stoke on Trent, North

  Unsuccessful

  Successful

  Total

  Arts Council of England

  3

  1

  4

  MC

  1n/a

  1

  1

  NLCB

  29

  6

  35

  English Sports Council

  2

  3

  5

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  0

  1

  1

  1 The Millennium Commission does not record unsuccessful projects by constituency.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Kenya
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations between and Kenya. [4875]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We recognise the positive role which Kenya has played over the years as a force for regional stability. During my recent visit there between 25 and 28 June, I met President Moi and had talks with some of his Ministers, members of the Opposition, Church leaders and other representatives of Kenyan society. I made clear to all parties our hopes and expectation that the forthcoming elections will be free and fair and that they will be conducted in a peaceful environment. In this context, I stressed the importance of dialogue between the parties concerned.
  328
  I also made clear our concern that certain democratic principles should be implemented in the approach to the elections, to make sure that they are free and fair. In particular, I called for elections where all those who want to vote can exercise their choice freely; where all those who want to stand have the opportunity to do so; where the electorate have access through the media to all the information needed to make a free choice; and where people can come together freely in support of their preferred candidates.

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish his Department's submissions relating to freedom of information legislation. [6025]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding reply 2 July 1997]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minster on 4 July, Official Report, column 293–94.

  Visitors' Visas
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will meet the hon. Member for Leicester, East to discuss visitors visas. [6586]
  329
  Mr. Fatchett
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs was not aware of the hon. Member's wish for a meeting to discuss visitors' visas. She will contact my hon. Friend to arrange a mutually convenient time for such a discussion.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many meetings the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has had with hon. Members to discuss refusals of visitors' visas. [6585]

  Mr. Fatchett
  There has been one such meeting.

  Mrs. S. U. Patel
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the case of Mrs. S. U. Patel (R/92/3687). [6583]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have asked our Deputy High Commission in Bombay to provide a detailed account of the position. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will write to my hon. Friend within a week of receiving that account.

  Kailashchandra Sukdev Roy
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if a Minister from his Department will meet the hon. Member for Leicester, East to discuss the case of Kailashchandra Sukdev Roy (ref. R/97/962-Bombay); [6587]

  (2) if he will make a statement in the case of Sukdev Roy (ref. R/97/962-Bombay). [6624]

  Mr. Fatchett
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will write to my hon. Friend about Mr. Roy's application within a week.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the Department of Education and Employment concerning the case of Kailashchandra Sukdev Roy (ref. R/97/962-Bombay). [6588]

  Mr. Fatchett
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will write to my hon. Friend about Mr. Roy's situation within a week.

  Jaswinder Kaurr
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the visa will be granted in the case of Jaswinder Kaurr (ref. ECR/474/95s-New Delhi). [6584]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have asked our high commission in New Delhi to provide a detailed account of the position. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will write to my hon. Friend within a week of receiving that account.

  Bhag Singh and Rattan Kaur
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will review the decision of the entrance clearance offer in New Delhi concerning the case of Bhag Singh and Rattan Kaur (ref. IMM/ECR/2983/97/NS).
  [6590]
  330
  Mr. Fatchett
  We have asked our high commission in New Delhi to provide a detailed account of the position. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will write to my hon. Friend within a week of receiving that account.

  Amsterdam Treaty
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the presidency of the inter-governmental conference of the European Union concerning the provisional pre-signature text of the draft Amsterdam treaty; by what procedures each item in the presidency draft was considered; if written copies of amendments were circulated prior to decisions on the amendments; and what period of notice for(a) verbal and (b) oral amendments was required by the conference. [6628]

  Mr. Henderson
  Discussions on the draft Amsterdam treaty text are continuing in Brussels, both among the 15 member states, and bilaterally with the Presidency and former Presidency.

  The terms of the Presidency text were discussed at the European Council at Amsterdam. In many cases written amendments were circulated. In others amendments were discussed orally by Heads of Government. There was no period of notice required by the conference.

  Indonesia (Defence Sales)
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Indonesian Foreign Minister in Hong Kong about defence sales. [6649]

  Mr. Fatchett
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary held a wide-ranging meeting with Mr. Alatas during which he was able to explain the background to the review of criteria used in considering licence applications to export conventional arms that he announced to the House on 22 May. He pointed out that the review does not focus on particular countries.

  Euro
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much the EU Commission is spending to promote the euro and emu(a) in Europe and (b) in the United Kingdom. [6851]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  In the 1997 EC Budget a total of 45 million ecu is provided in budget lines B3–306 and B0–40 for information activities in connection with specific policies, including the single currency. The Commission has provisionally allocated 23 million ecu of this money to a campaign to publicise the euro. None of this money will be present in the UK as the euro information campaign is not being prsued here.

  Defence Sales Review
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will announce the timetable for the defence sales policy review. [6647]
  331
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The review of criteria used in considering licence applications for the export of conventional arms is being taken forward as a matter of urgency. The new criteria will be made available to the House when the review is complete.

  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the criteria for arms sales and the countries affected by the defence sales policy review. [6646]

  Mr. Lloyd
  As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced on 22 May,Official Report, column 294, we have initiated an urgent review of the detailed criteria used in considering licence applications for the export of conventional arms. The new criteria will be made available to the House when the review is complete. As we have made clear repeatedly, the review is looking at criteria to be used for all destinations and does not focus on particular countries.

  Gibraltar
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 30 June,Official Report, column 18, if the Gibraltar Government were consulted before Her Majesty's Government made its decisions at the Amsterdam summit regarding the Schengen arrangements. [7058]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Chief Minister was briefed in London before the summit.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the obstacles to enfranchisement of Gibraltarians in elections to the European Parliament. [6991]

  Mr. Henderson
  The 1976 EC Act on Direct Elections confines the franchise for European Parliament elections to the United Kingdom alone. The Act has treaty' status. Any amendment would require the agreement of all Member States.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals for developing Gibraltar airport have been evaluated by his Department. [6992]

  Mr. Henderson
  We have not received any approaches on the development of the airport since 1995.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has received from the Government of Indonesia since his mission statement of 12 May. [7070]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We continue to have a full range of contacts with the Indonesian Government. Most recently my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I met the Indonesian Foreign Minister in Hong Kong on 29 June.

  Baghdad
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his letter to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) of 20 June, what assessment he has made of the policy of Germany 332
  and France in upgrading their diplomatic representation in Baghdad; and if he will make it his policy to upgrade United Kingdom representation. [6953]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Neither France nor Germany have recently upgraded their representation in Baghdad.

  Our policy remains that Iraq must comply with all relevant Security Council resolutions. We do not envisage any change in our position until it does so.

  Saudi Arabia
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has received from the Government of Saudi Arabia since his Mission Statement of 12 May. [7071]

  Mr. Fatchett
  There have been no such representations.

  We remain in close touch with the Saudi Government on a wide range of issues. I met the Saudi Ambassador on 21 May and briefly discussed the Mission Statement, amongst other topics.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Water Regulations
  Mr. Roy Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what new arrangements he has introduced to enforce and administer water regulations. [6233]

  Angela Eagle
  Following consultation on enforcement and administration of water regulations and further discussions with relevant organisations, it is intended that regulations will he made under the powers in section 74 of the Water Industry Act 1991. These Regulations will be enforced by the water companies. Powers to relax or dispense with the requirements of the Regulations will not be delegated. An appeals system will be implemented to deal with disputes about the application of the Regulations.

  The Water Regulations Advisory Committee is currently consulting on its proposals for the technical requirements to be included in the Regulations before making recommendations to my right hon. Friend.

  Consultation on the draft Regulations will take place early in 1998.

  Radioactive Discharges
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has made to the French Government about the levels of radioactive discharges into the English Channel from the French nuclear reprocessing plant at Cap de la Hague. [6396]

  Angela Eagle
  No recent representation has been made to the French authorities in respect of radioactive discharges into the English Channel. Monitoring carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
  333
  shows that the levels of radioactivity in seafood and other marine organisms from the English Channel are of negligible radiological significance.

  White Asbestos
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to ban white asbestos. [6352]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government is determined to deal effectively with the problems of asbestos. In the Adjournment debate on 18 June columns 280–84, I reported to this House that the Minister for the Environment and I had asked the Health and Safety Commission to advise us urgently on a mechanism for introducing a domestic ban on the import, supply and use of asbestos. We have asked the HSC to advise us on how that could be achieved and to what timetable. We are awaiting their response.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are(a) the objectives and (b) the terms of reference of the study into the disposal of high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel being undertaken on behalf of his Department by QuantiSci Ltd. [6413]

  Angela Eagle
  A copy of the Work Requirement Statement issued for the study awarded to QuantiSci Ltd. has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which consultants have been commissioned to review United Kingdom high-level nuclear waste management; and if they have previously been employed by UK Nirex Ltd. [6399]

  Angela Eagle
  The only current study into high level waste that has been commissioned by the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions is that of research strategies for the disposal of high level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. This was awarded to QuantiSci Ltd., who have worked previously for Nirex.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions that quantity of fissile material UK Nirex proposes to bury underground in the United Kingdom. [6400]

  Angela Eagle
  A large number of low and intermediate level radioactive waste streams are contaminated with fissile material. The two predominant fissile isotopes are plutonium-239 and uranium-235. Latest estimates of the quantities to be disposed of are 11.7 petabecquerels and 1.33 terabecquerels respectively in terms of activity and 5 and 17 tonnes respectively in terms of mass. These isotopes account for less than 0.01 per cent. of the total mass of the waste.

  Derelict Houses
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the numbers of publicly owned derelict house in each local authority area; and if he will make a statement. [5719]
  334
  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 2 July 1997]: The information requested is not available in the form requested. The only indication we have of the number of derelict local authority dwellings is at the national level from the 1991 English House Condition Survey. This estimated 20,000 local authority dwellings to be derelict which represents 18 per cent. of the local authority vacant stock.

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish his Department's submissions relating to freedom of information legislation. [6026]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 2 July 1997]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister on Friday 4 July, Official Report, column 294.

  Business Rates
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement regarding the timetable for the transfer of responsibility for setting business rates to local authorities. [6443]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The localisation of business rates would require primary legislation. I am not yet able to announce a timetable. At present we are considering the options for reforming the rating system. No changes will be made until we have consulted fully with business, local authorities and other interested parties.

  Carbon Emissions
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the total carbon emissions in the United Kingdom for each of the past 10 years and his estimates of emissions for each year to 2010. [6603]

  Angela Eagle
  The following total carbon emissions data for the UK for 1990 and subsequent years will be published on 11 July in the 19th Digest of Environmental Statistics:

  Million tones

  1990

  168

  1991

  169

  1992

  164

  1993

  160

  1994

  159

  1995

  156

  These totals are consistent with the methodology for calculating emissions developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This is the basis required for reporting emissions of carbon dioxide to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Totals calculated on this basis are not available for years before 1990.
  335
  Projected emissions were published in the UK's Second Report under the Climate Change Convention on the basis of the previous Administration's Climate Change programme. These were:

  Million tonnes

  2000

  158

  2005

  169

  2010

  169

  The Government is now developing policies and measures to meet our target of reducing carbon dioxide emissions to 20 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010 and a revised Climate Change programme will be prepared after the Kyoto Climate Change Conference in December.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what representations he has received concerning the direct discharge of untreated liquid wastes from biotech companies into the environment; and if he will make a statement; [6859]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the health risks posed by transgenic waste disposal from commercial scale contained users; and if he will make a statement; [6861]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the discharge of liquid wastes containing live genetically modified micro-organisms into sewers and the drainage system. [6860]

  Angela Eagle
  Discharge of waste containing live genetically modified micro-organisms (GMMs) is covered by the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 1992, as amended in 1996. Under the Regulations, an assessment of the risks to human health and the environment must be undertaken before commencing any activity involving genetic modification. The risk assessment enables the appropriate control measures to be selected. The Regulations require that waste containing live GMMs which would pose a risk to human health and/or the environment must be inactivated prior to disposal. This requirement applies at all scales of work with 'transgenic' (GMM) waste.

  As I indicated in the answer I gave my Hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) on 27 June, column 667, the Advisory Committee on Genetic Modification (ACGM) is currently considering, in consultation with interested bodies, the matter of direct discharge of those untreated liquid wastes which are judged, on the basis of thorough risk assessment, not to pose a risk of harm to human health and the environment. It is proposed to achieve this by way of a certificate of exemption from the requirements of the Regulations. Previous consultation on this matter by the Health and Safety Commission indicated that there was strong support for permitting such discharge.

  The proposed exemption certificate, together with accompanying detailed guidance, is currently undergoing consultation with the biotechnology community and environmental groups. To date a number of responses have been received from organisations including universities and research institutes. HSE will consider
  336
  ACGM's advice, as regards the outcome of the consultation, before agreeing with relevant departments (so far as matters relate to the environment) the best way to proceed.

  Deprivation Index
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list his Department's index for deprivation for(a) Newham, (b) Tower Hamlets, (c) Hackney, (d) Redbridge, (e) Waltham Forest and (j) Barking and Dagenham. [6858]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Table 1 below shows the ranked position of the local authorities listed above on the three different measures which make up the Department's Index of Local Conditions (ILC). The attached background note gives further information on the ILC and on the difference between the three measures.

  Table 1

  Rank on DETR's Index of Local Conditions

  Degree

  Intensity

  Extent

  Newham

  1

  9

  5

  Tower Hamlets

  7

  1

  2

  Hackney

  3

  4

  1

  Redbridge

  120

  67

  93

  Waltham Forest

  21

  6

  16

  Barking and Dagenham

  18

  36

  30

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the current level of set-aside capital receipts derived from the sale of council houses in the boroughs of(a) Newham, (b) Tower Hamlets, (c) Hackney, (d) Redbridge, (e) Waltham Forest and (f) Barking and Dagenham, expressed (i) in absolute terms and (ii) per head of population; and what are the corresponding national absolute and per head figures. [6828]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The amounts of housing capital receipts which were set aside by each of the local authorities referred to in the question between 1990–91 and 1995–96 are set out both in absolute terms and per head of population in the table below, as are the corresponding figures for England. However, individual authorities may have used these set-aside receipts to repay debt or in lieu of further borrowing, and so may no longer retain them in the form of cash and investments.

  Receipts set aside from sales of Housing Revenue

  Account Assets 1990–91 to 1995–96

  Total £000s

  Per head of mid-1995 population £s

  Barking and Dagenham

  25,418

  164

  Hackney

  41,651

  214

  Newham

  30,618

  134

  Redbridge

  23,931

  105

  Tower Hamlets

  42,643

  247

  Waltham Forest

  18,449

  83

  England

  5,283,436

  108

  Source of data: HRA subsidy claim forms.
  337
  We are in the process of consulting the Local Government Association and local authorities on the Government's Capital Receipts Initiative. The final decision about the basis on which resources are to be distributed to individual authorities will be made when that consultation process is complete.

  Occupational Injury and Ill Health
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the costs to the United Kingdom economy of occupational injury and ill health over each of the last five years. [7120]

  Angela Eagle
  The Health and Safety Executive estimate that the total cost to the British economy of work accidents (including preventable damage-only accidents) and work-related ill health was between £6 billion and £12 billion in 1990.

  Estimates of the cost since 1990 have not been made because of the absence of more recent comprehensive data on work-related ill health. New data will start to become available later this year, covering 1995. Using this data, the health and Safety Executive will prepare updated costs in 1998.

  The estimate in the draft reply of £6 billion-12 billion (1990 prices) is about 1–2 per cent. of national output. This includes the costs of damage and disruption to production, health care costs, and other administrative costs. An estimate of the total cost to society, which includes an allowance for the human costs of pain, grief and suffering, is £11 billion-16 billion.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment. Transport and the Regions what sums his Department has spent on preventing occupational illness and injury in each of the last five years. [7122]

  Angela Eagle
  The Health and Safety Commission and Executive's aim is to ensure that risks to people's health and safety activities are properly controlled. This extends beyond occupational illness and injury to work activities that might put members of the public at risk but it is not possible to identify separately the work involved in achieving both aspects of the aim. However, it is estimated that the additional cost of protecting the public would represent only a small proportion of the total cost.

  The Health and Safety Executive spent the following sums in each of the last five years:

  Year

  £ Million

  1992–93

  173.00

  1993–94

  181.00

  1994–95

  180.00

  1995–96

  181.00

  1996–97

  178.00

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the number of those(a) injured, (b) killed and (c) made ill by their work for each of the last live years. [7121]
  338
  Angela Eagle
  The table shows the total number of fatal and other injuries to employees, trainees and self-employed people reported to enforcing authorities under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, 1985 and 1995 (RIDDOR) between 1992–93 and 1996–97 (years commencing 1 April).

  Year

  Fatal injuries

  1Total injuries

  1992–93

  339

  161,675

  1993–94

  296

  155,734

  1994–95

  272

  160,844

  1995–96

  258

  150,968

  1996–972

  287

  155,582

  1 Including fatal, major and those leading to more than three days incapacity for work.

  2 Provisional. Finalised figures will be available in early 1998.

  HSE gets to know of virtually all workplace deaths, but non-fatal injuries are subject to under-reporting. To estimate the reporting levels HSE included a set of questions in the Labour Force Surveys in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96. The results of these surveys combined estimate that around 424,000 reportable non-fatal injuries to workers occur annually, giving a reporting level for RIDDOR of about 40 per cent.

  From responses to a special set of questions in the 1990 Labour Force Survey, which is based on self reporting, it has been estimated that in the 12 months prior to the survey, 2.2 million people in England and Wales suffered from an illness which they believed had been caused or made worse by their work.

  In terms of detailed reporting of occupational illness, there is no one single fully reliable source. The Health and Safety Executive makes use of a range of sources to produce figures for ill-health for the Health and Safety Commission's annual publication "Health and Safety Statistics". I will send the hon. Member a copy of the most recent report.

  Drinking Water Inspectorate
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Seventh Annual report of the Drinking Water Inspectorate will be published. [7401]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Drinking Water Inspectorate will publish its seventh Annual Report on Tuesday 8 July.

  The Inspectorate will also publish two leaflets for consumers. "How Good is Your Drinking Water?", will summarise the main points of the Report. "About Your Water Company" will give brief details of the quality of drinking water supplied by individual water companies.

  Copies of the Report and leaflets will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund
  Mr. Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to publish the guidance for Round Four of the Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund. [7160]
  339
  Mr. Caborn
  The Government is issuing today supplementary guidance for Round 4 of the Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund. The guidance describes the Government's policies and priorities for the Challenge Fund, which are:a requirement that proposals for funding contribute to the Government's Manifesto commitment to carry out a concerted attack against the multiple causes of social and economic decline, and fit with its new policies, including those relating to employment, including child care provision, education, crime, housing, public health and sustainable development;
  a greater emphasis on tackling the needs of communities in the most deprived areas;
  a requirement that proposals should take account of existing strategies for promoting economic development and tackling deprivation; and
  a requirement for a more collaborative approach between those preparing proposals, their partners and Government Offices for the Regions in order to arrive at a shared undertanding of regeneration needs and priorities, and to stimulate fresh thinking.

  In addition to the supplementary guidance, each Government Office for the Region has issued its own regional guidance for the purposes of Round 4 of the Challenge Fund. This is intended to give extra help to bidders in putting together their proposals. Government Offices for the Regions will also be setting up small Advisory Panels to help them in considering Round 4 bids. These panels will have, amongst others, representatives from the business sector, local authorities and the voluntary sector.

  Copies of the supplementary guidance have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Capital expenditure in each London borough on roads for 1992–93 to 1998–99

  (Includes major and minor highway works, but excludes structural maintenance)

  London boroughs

  Capital expenditure from 1992–93 to 1998–99 in £000

  Out-turn 1992–93

  Out-turn 1993–94

  Out-turn 1994–95

  Out-turn 1995–96

  Budget 1996–97

  Bid 1997–98

  Estimated 1998–99

  Barking and Dagenham

  1,558

  522

  173

  175

  174

  565

  0

  Barnet

  0

  0

  1,110

  545

  1,997

  1,154

  1,750

  Bexley

  2,850

  3,642

  5,979

  11,440

  8,924

  7,388

  4,813

  Brent

  1,584

  414

  925

  2,107

  2,261

  6,855

  6,797

  Bromley

  4,900

  1,441

  2,138

  11,064

  13,845

  15,159

  1,472

  Camden

  0

  0

  494

  2,247

  3,406

  2,739

  2,168

  Croydon

  250

  1,422

  5,090

  2,906

  1,636

  3,323

  1,847

  City of London

  0

  0

  1,365

  2,237

  4,181

  975

  2,141

  Ealing

  1,139

  337

  1,236

  1,581

  1,339

  2,830

  2,154

  Enfield

  6,952

  3,964

  1,373

  876

  1,930

  1,503

  3,917

  Greenwich

  21

  94

  1,805

  4,713>

  6,342

  9,751

  3,559

  Hackney

  912

  1,334

  3117

  305

  277

  605

  350

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0

  0

  2,577

  1,543

  1,438

  1,400

  1,300

  Haringey

  1,047

  517

  2,416

  1,976

  2,138

  3,786

  4,126

  Harrow

  6,310

  5,370

  4,103

  5,580

  4,844

  6,099

  799

  Havering

  12

  120

  1,717

  654

  1,961

  2,138

  l,080

  Hillingdon

  7,868

  4,546

  2,558

  5,340

  3,911

  1,647

  1,636

  Hounslow

  458

  2,947

  4,759

  2,794

  2,468

  3,300

  2,395

  Islington

  0

  0

  2,066

  1,603

  1,228

  5,578

  5,489

  Kensington and Chelsea

  605

  527

  871

  584

  1,296

  1,354

  857

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,350

  409

  1,966

  5,532

  5,905

  13,147

  10,283

  Lambeth

  0

  0

  470

  1,654

  1,047

  4,125

  1,700

  Lewisham

  8,474

  8,304

  8,528

  6,395

  4,034

  3,098

  1,398

  Merton

  1,191

  2,790

  2,611

  2,161

  1,006

  2,652

  1,720

  Newham

  4,470

  2,973

  3,611

  3,022

  3,456

  3,984

  1,297

  Redbridge

  14

  0

  1,618

  5,280

  6,615

  1,882

  1,972

  Richmond upon Thames

  0

  0

  766

  598

  531

  907

  653

  Southwark

  3,079

  1,638

  1,965

  2,009

  1,839

  2,028

  1,468

  Sutton

  179

  585

  1,782

  1,861

  1,250

  3,119

  4,910

  Bletchley to Bicester Railway Line
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to evaluate proposals relating to the future of passenger and freight services on the Bletchley to Bicester line. [6604]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 20 May,Official Report, column 49.

  Barking to Gospel Oak Rail Services
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to receive proposals for the introduction of new rolling stock on the Barking to Gospel Oak line. [6605]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  As part of its Franchise Agreement with the Franchising Director, National Express Group PLC has committed to replacing all of North London Railways' Mark 1 trains currently in use on the Gospel Oak-Barking line with new or refurbished rolling stock by the 1999 summer timetable.

  Roads Expenditure
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the capital expenditure in each borough on roads in each of the last five years; and what expenditure is planned for(a) the current year and (b) 1998–99. [6610]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The following table shows the latest information which has been provided to my Department on capital expenditure on roads by London borough councils. The figures for 19976–98 show local authorities' bids for funding, which remain the best available estimates of planned expenditure in that year.
  341

  Capital expenditure in each London borough on roads for 1992–93 to 1998–99

  (Includes major and minor highway works, but excludes structural maintenance)

  London boroughs

  Capital expenditure from 1992–93 In 1998–99 in £000

  Out-turn 1992–93

  Out-turn 1993–94

  Out-turn 1994–95

  Out-turn 1995–96

  Budget 1996–97

  Bid 1997–98

  Estimated 1998–99

  Tower Hamlets

  76

  524

  1,226

  2,225

  1,521

  3,518

  3,442

  Waltham Forest

  486

  224

  1,342

  866

  734

  2,217

  4,027

  Wandsworth

  804

  387

  4,814

  2,632

  3,775

  3,844

  2,065

  Westminster

  961

  2,389

  5,443

  3232

  6,480

  5,901

  8,245

  A27 Polegate Bypass
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those bodies and individuals his Department intends to consult before reaching a decision on the future of the A27 Polegate bypass. [6783]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Full public consultation was carried out on this scheme during its preparatory stages. No further consultation is planned for this and other schemes in the accelerated review. The decision will be announced shortly.

  London Transport Buses
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will follow principles of freedom of information and public accountability in respect of his dealings with London Transport Buses. [6993]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Yes. It is for London Transport Buses to decide however, what information it would be appropriate for them to release abut their own activities.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy in respect of standards of service on London Transport Buses. [6994]

  Ms Jackson
  I have recently set tough new quality of service targets to improve the performance of London Transport bus services. These are as follows:

  Measure

  1997–98 New targets

  Mileage operated (excluding miles lost due to traffic congestion)1

  99.0

  High frequency services—excess waiting time2

  1.5 minutes

  Low frequency services—percentage of services

  Departing on time

  74.0 per cent.

  Departing early

  4.0 per cent.

  Percentage of Night Bus services departing on time

  65.0 per cent.

  Customer satisfaction (score out of 100)

  Condition of bus stops/shelters

  57

  Internal cleanliness of buses

  63

  External cleanliness of buses

  55

  Staff helpfulness

  66

  Bus station environment

  71

  Bus station information

  68

  Notes:

  1 This measure reflects the extent to which bus services are cancelled or cut short.

  2 A measure of how much longer passengers have to wait, on average, than if all the buses ran on time.

  London Underground
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if it is his policy not to transfer majority control of the London underground to the private sector. [6896]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have ruled out the wholesale privatisation of London Underground proposed by the previous Government. We are now examining a number of public-private partnership options, in accordance with our Manifesto, to see how we can best secure an affordable, reliable, clear and modern network.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  TECs
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 24 June,Official Report, column 443, if he will list the elected members of local authorities who have places on the boards of TECs. [6301]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 1 July 1997]: The following list contains the names of 41 directors notified to the Department by the English TECs as being members of their local authority. A further 119 directors are officials of local authorities; most being chief executives or directors of education. The Department is aware that a number of other directors appointed from the business community may also be elected members of local authorities but such information is not held centrally.

  List of elected members of local authorities

  Name

  Local authority

  Position

  AZTEC

  John Tilley

  Royal Borough of Kingston

  Leader of the Council

  Barnsley and Doncaster

  Stephen Houghton

  Barnsley MBC

  Leader

  Birmingham

  Andrew Howell

  Birmingham City Council

  Councillor

  Bradford and District

  Ruth Redfern

  Community and Environmental Services

  Committee Chair

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  Pam Warhurst

  Metropolitan Borough of Calderdale

  Leader

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  John Harman

  Kirklees MBC

  Leader

  CEWTEC

  Phil Davies

  Wirral Borough Council

  Councillor

  Devon and Cornwall

  Margaret Garton

  West Devon Borough Council

  Councillor

  ELTEC

  Kath Readc

  Burnley Borough Council

  Leader

  ELTEC

  Howel Jones

  Ribble Valley Borough Council

  Leader

  343

  List of elected members of local authorities

  Name

  Local authority

  Position

  ELTEC

  Malcolm Doherty

  Blackburn Council

  Leader

  Greater Nottingham

  Martin Gawith

  Nottinghamshire County Council

  Leader

  Hereford and Worcester

  Dan Wicksteed

  Hereford and Worcester City Council

  Chairman

  Leeds

  Brian Walker

  Leeds City Council

  Leader

  North Derbyshire

  Geoff Carlile

  Derbyshire County Council

  Chairman

  North Nottinghamshire

  Valerie Dickinson

  Bassetlaw Hospital and Community Services

  Chair

  North Nottinghamshire

  Richard Dix

  Newark and Sherwood District Council

  Councillor

  North Nottinghamshire

  Fred Riddell

  Nottinghamshire County Council

  Chair of Education

  Oldham

  Brian Mather

  Oldham MBC

  Elected Member

  Oldham

  John Johnson

  Oldham MBC

  Dep. Leader

  Oldham

  James Greenwood

  Oldham MBC

  Chairman

  Sandwell

  Tarsem King

  Sandwell MBC

  Chairman

  Sheffield

  Bill Jordan

  Sheffield City Council

  Chairman

  Sheffield

  Jan Wilson

  Sheffield City Council

  Chair of Education

  SOLOTEC

  Jim Mallory

  London Borough of Lewisham

  Leader

  South and East Cheshire

  Edward Cutler

  Macclesfield Borough Council

  Councillor

  Southern Derbyshire

  Robert Jones

  Derbyshire County Council

  Deputy Leader

  Southern Derbyshire

  Simon Tollervey

  Amber Valley Borough Council

  Leader

  St. Helens

  Michael Doyle

  St. Helens MBC

  Deputy Leader

  Stockport and High Peak

  John Bull

  Derbyshire County Council

  Councillor

  Teesside

  Bryan Hanson

  Hartlepool Borough Council

  Leader

  Tyneside

  Leslie Elton

  Gateshead MBC

  Councillor

  Tyneside

  Peter Haigh

  South Tyneside MBC

  Councillor

  Wakefield

  Colin Croxall

  Wakefield Metropolitan Borough Council

  Leader

  West London

  Alan Parker

  London Borough of Ealing

  Chair of Education

  Wigan

  Fred Walker

  Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council

  Chairman

  Wigan

  Peter Smith

  Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council

  Leader

  Wight

  Morris Barton

  Isle of Wight County Council

  Leader

  Wolverhampton

  Mulkinder Jaspal

  Wolverhampton MBC

  Chairman

  Wolverhampton

  Roger Lawrence

  Wolverhampton MBC

  Deputy Leader

  Wolverhampton

  John Evans

  South Staffordshire Council

  Chairman

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish his Departments's submissions relating to freedom of information legislation. [6039]
  344
  Dr. Howells
  [holding reply 2 July 1997]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 4 July, Official Report, column 293–94.

  School Furniture
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research his Department has(a) conducted and (b) commissioned on the appropriate furniture to be used in schools to reduce back problems in children. [6820]

  Mr. Byers
  The Department has a long history of commissioning research into appropriate furniture for schools, to reduce the problems associated with muscular strain and had posture. Research commissioned by the Department's Architects and Building Branch in the 1970s and 1980s was written up and published as Building Bulletins on pupils' sizes and the heights and working dimensions of furniture.

  More recently, the Department commissioned research on the suitability of information technology furniture for children in primary schools, which prompted a practical design project and an information video for LEAs, schools and designers. We are currently considering the possibility of commissioning new research in a number of areas related to the design of schools' furniture.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance his Department has issued to (i) local education authorities and (ii) schools on the type of chairs to be used in schools to reduce the risk of back problems among children. [6819]

  Mr. Byers
  To minimise the risk of discomfort or injury to school pupils, it is important that all school furniture—not only chairs—is designed carefully to meet the needs of those who will use it. The Department has published general guidance in Building Bulletin 62, which gives data on the size, weight and body dimensions of school pupils, and Building Bulletins 38,50, and 52, which cover the heights and working dimensions of school furniture, including chairs. Last year the Department's Architects and Building Branch produced, as examples of good practice, a new design for a computer table to meet the particular needs of younger children, and a video on information technology furniture in both primary and secondary schools. Two recent publications include detailed dimensions and specifications for furniture used in specific subjects at secondary level: Building Bulletin 80 (Science) and Building Bulletin 81 (Design and Technology). Guidance on other subject areas will follow soon.

  Undergraduate Courses
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list(a) in total and (b) for each institution funded through the HEFC for England, the average costs to public funds, excluding maintenance costs, of teaching undergraduate courses (i) by fee band and (ii) overall. [6499]
  345
  Dr. Howells
  The information is not available in the form requested. The table gives a total figure for fee income, by fee band, total number of full-time

  1996–97 Teaching grant and fee income for full-time student

  Fee income 1994–97

  Teaching grant 1996–97

  Institution

  Band 1

  Band 2

  Band 3

  Total number of FTUG students

  Undergraduate

  Postgraduate

  Non-formula funding 1996–97

  England total

  205,978,710

  582,527,637

  30,284,800

  649,534

  1,662,413,025

  150,861,459

  110,039,472

  Anglia Polytechnic University

  3,009,750

  5,827,200

  0

  7,655

  15,501,339

  212,249

  878,600

  Ashton University

  1,399,500

  2,428,800

  0

  3,384

  10,158,348

  760,747

  408,652

  University of Bath

  1,168,500

  3,721,600

  0

  3,884

  11,247,034

  763,461

  469,850

  Bath College of HE

  498,000

  1,436,800

  0

  1,562

  3,393,943

  85,616

  214,228

  University of Birmingham

  3,717,810

  9,070,272

  1,842,400

  11,284

  30,959,266

  4,595,948

  1,036,009

  Birkbeck College

  12,000

  8,000

  0

  21

  79,662

  689,543

  l,563,000

  Bishop Grosseteste College

  49,500

  80,000

  0

  116

  211,763

  0

  0

  Bolton Institute of HE

  1,110,323

  3,044,384

  0

  3,383

  8,113,968

  1,001,592

  165,383

  Bournemouth University

  1,671,750

  6,099,200

  0

  6,041

  12,834,872

  424,223

  182,154

  University of Bradford

  l,523,250

  5,182,400

  0

  5,270

  14,200,850

  870,133

  377,265

  Bretton Hall

  65,250

  2,115,200

  0

  1,409

  2,667,632

  37,628

  84,307

  University of Brighton

  1,559,250

  5,923,200

  0

  5,781

  16,241,462

  403,452

  398,666

  University of Bristol

  2,427,000

  6,344,000

  1,954,400

  7,899

  27,463,688

  2,523,817

  342,411

  Brunei University

  1,882,493

  6,397,040

  0

  6,508

  15,005,200

  1,454,600

  2,481,354

  Buckinghamshire College of HE

  1,659,000

  3,769,600

  0

  4,568

  9,763,728

  196,874

  83,500

  University of Cambridge

  3,542,250

  7,112,000

  1,338,400

  9,646

  30,564,724

  5,101,770

  -8,124,899

  University of Central England

  1,875,000

  6,968,000

  0

  6,855

  15,150,627

  1,661,700

  300,000

  University of Central Lancashire

  3,214,500

  8,401,600

  0

  9,537

  23,855,110

  720,944

  170,000

  Central School of Speech and Drama

  0

  689,600

  0

  431

  1,311,322

  97,900

  330,611

  Canterbury Christ Church College

  641,250

  2,128,000

  0

  2,185

  3,902,575

  130,194

  100,000

  Cheltenham and Gloucester CHE

  1,458,000

  3,564,800

  0

  4,172

  9,490,091

  278,048

  162,712

  Chester College of HE

  151,500

  2,112,000

  0

  1,522

  3,033,468

  0

  111,667

  Chichester Institute of HE

  569,250

  1,387,200

  0

  1,626

  3,759,749

  23,703

  10,000

  City University

  779,250

  2,606,400

  0

  2,668

  6,827,436

  1,240,999

  3,579,067

  Coventry University

  1,989,375

  8,660,000

  0

  8,065

  22,529,184

  991,278

  134,186

  Cranfield University

  31,500

  460,800

  0

  330

  1,185,500

  7,840,900

  663,670

  Cumbria College of Art and Design

  60,750

  865,600

  0

  622

  956,390

  0

  0

  Dartington College of Arts

  0

  704,000

  0

  440

  1,292,865

  17,833

  0

  De Montfort University

  3,269,250

  13,521,600

  0

  12,810

  30,941,103

  1,935,675

  279,400

  University of Derby

  2,508,750

  5,956,800

  0

  7,068

  11,262,606

  169,309

  121,440

  University of Durham

  2,672,588

  5,689,440

  0

  7,119

  16,674,281

  1,376,429

  918,312

  University of East Anglia

  2,448,000

  2,470,400

  0

  4,808

  11,319,988

  1,119,381

  512,677

  University of East London

  2,675,250

  4,761,600

  0

  6,543

  16,838,268

  1,098,124

  2,240,200

  Edge Hill College of HE

  642,000

  1,883,200

  0

  2,033

  4,158,684

  27,490

  181,132

  Institute of Education

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  386,233

  967,000

  University of Essex

  1,777,500

  1,686,400

  0

  3,424

  8,515,649

  1,245,550

  247,009

  University of Exeter

  2,203,500

  4,171,200

  0

  5,545

  14,704,934

  908,504

  396,984

  Falmouth College of Arts

  85,500

  1,262,400

  0

  903

  1,731,213

  70,000

  0

  Goldsmiths College

  822,000

  2,200,000

  0

  2,471

  6,294,314

  1,028,566

  1,792,000

  University of Greenwich

  2,071,380

  6,558,080

  0

  6,861

  18,324,853

  1,700,029

  3,288,100

  The College of Guidance Studies

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  144,954

  26,667

  Harper Adams Agricultural College

  61,500

  2,126,400

  0

  1,411

  4,088,441

  56,436

  206,133

  University of Hertfordshire

  2,144,250

  8,608,000

  0

  8,239

  21,894,361

  1,085,527

  1,262,979

  Homerton College, Cambridge

  5,250

  11,200

  0

  14

  64,467

  0

  0

  University of Huddersfield

  2,011,500

  6,334,400

  0

  6,641

  17,089,262

  1,157,618

  39,300

  University of Hull

  2,664,000

  3,358,400

  0

  5,651

  13,779,175

  1,341,154

  462,900

  Imperial College

  455,625

  4,493,600

  901,600

  3,738

  16,143,207

  4,594,082

  7,148,342

  Keele University

  2,267,250

  852,800

  0

  3,556

  6,913,874

  622,196

  150,000

  University of Kent at Canterbury

  2,621,250

  2,449,600

  0

  5,026

  11,676,374

  1,305,556

  235,333

  Kent Institute of Art and Design

  0

  2,174,400

  0

  1,359

  3,393,435

  65,000

  0

  King Alfred's College, Winchester

  806,400

  1,177,280

  0

  1,811

  2,665,238

  25,542

  100,000

  King's College London

  1,712,250

  5,017,600

  1,215,200

  5,853

  17,724,246

  2,070,117

  5,336,866

  Kingston University

  2,299,875

  7,230,400

  0

  7,586

  20,119,769

  706,302

  2,310,100

  Lancaster University

  2,547,375

  3,741,440

  0

  5,735

  12,668,029

  1,755,857

  257,960

  La Sainte Union College of HE

  490,500

  699,200

  0

  1,091

  2,131,190

  0

  100,000

  University of Leeds

  4,676,250

  10,713,6011

  1,587,600

  13,498

  36,812,645

  3,226,388

  1,054,288

  Leeds Metropolitan University

  1,758,000

  8,230,400

  0

  7,488

  22,944,041

  1,169,265

  119,266

  University of Leicester

  2,470,500

  3,467,200

  1,038,800

  5,832

  16,206,515

  1,907,803

  383,244

  University of Lincolnshire and Humberside

  2,796,750

  6,523,200

  0

  7,806

  15,970,000

  476,500

  100,000

  University of Liverpool

  2,796,750

  7,308,800

  2,248,400

  9,100

  29,608,112

  3,728,890

  443,579

  Liverpool Hope College

  542,250

  2,518,400

  0

  2,297

  4,730,996

  0

  0

  Liverpool John Moores University

  2,485,500

  9,726,400

  0

  9,393

  23,408,985

  1,431,513

  172,517

  University of London—Senate

  317,150

  0

  0

  423

  1,146,680

  755,789

  9,976,587

  Institute of Cancer Research

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4,132,078

  Charing Cross and Westminster MS

  0

  459,200

  1,122,800

  688

  5,698,755

  118,744

  1,053,602

  Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine

  0

  272,000

  879,200

  484

  3,333,995

  132,784

  762,581

  346
  undergraduates, total teaching grant and non-formula funding for 1996–97 for institutions in England overall, and the same information for individual institutions.
  347

  1996–97 Teaching grant and fee income for full-time students

  Fee income 1996–97

  Teaching grant 1996–97

  Institution

  Band 1

  Band 2

  Band 3

  Total number of FTUG students

  Undergraduate

  Postgraduate

  Non-formula funding 1996–97

  United Medical and Dental Schools

  0

  816,000

  2,100,000

  1,260

  9,310,597

  475,493

  2,023,581

  London Business School

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  324,728

  638,000

  London School of Economics and Political Science

  1,261,500

  84,800

  0

  1,735

  3,566,567

  2,005,786

  2,394,270

  London Guildhall University

  2,831,250

  3,378,400

  0

  5,887

  13,370,770

  660,146

  2,283,200

  London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1,720,474

  733,782

  The London Institute

  56,250

  8,416,000

  0

  5,335

  13,114,939

  793,026

  1,708,800

  Loughborough University

  1,500,750

  6,920,000

  0

  6,326

  17,235,304

  1,429,516

  211,667

  Loughborough College of Art and Design

  0

  1,108,800

  0

  693

  1,845,595

  0

  61,685

  University of Luton

  2,376,000

  6,505,600

  14,000

  7,239

  12,672,586

  401,790

  333,333

  University of Manchester

  4,641,000

  8,915,200

  2,534,000

  12,665

  37,757,260

  3,319,606

  2,459,326

  UMIST

  650,250

  4,219,200

  0

  3,504

  11,494,832

  1,808,822

  256,870

  Manchester Metropolitan University

  4,312,500

  13,198,400

  0

  13,999

  36,609,642

  1,566,340

  396,867

  Middlesex University

  4,460,250

  8,292,800

  0

  11,130

  22,240,317

  1,464,730

  2,139,084

  Nene College

  1,992,000

  5,198,400

  0

  5,905

  10,886,484

  417,445

  145,000

  University of Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,675,250

  7,209,600

  1,612,800

  8,649

  27,645,610

  2,814,453

  485,497

  Newman College

  85,125

  277,600

  0

  287

  507,950

  4,627

  50,059

  University of North London

  2,791,500

  5,326,400

  0

  7,051

  16,338,111

  648,171

  3,018,445

  North Riding College

  366,525

  918,400

  0

  1,063

  1,741,001

  0

  80,000

  Northern School of Contemporary Dance

  0

  254,400

  0

  159

  491,882

  0

  0

  University of Northumbria at Newcastle

  2,660,250

  8,705,600

  0

  8,988

  23,302,478

  1,147,641

  289,754

  Norwich School of Art and Design

  0

  998,400

  0

  624

  1,171,024

  16,398

  0

  University of Nottingham

  2,562,000

  7,476,800

  1,069,600

  8,471

  24,031,494

  2,925,631

  511,617

  Nottingham Trent University

  3,927,000

  13,280,000

  0

  13,536

  33,297,708

  678,097

  286,509

  Open University

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  869,447

  485,408

  School of Oriental and African Studies

  825,000

  8,000

  0

  1,105

  2,235,241

  537,380

  3,795,751

  University of Oxford

  4,645,500

  5,419,200

  823,200

  9,875

  29,621,831

  5,546,726

  -8,272,967

  Oxford Brookes University

  1,164,000

  5,427,200

  0

  4,944

  13,967,647

  1,617,086

  100,000

  School of Pharmacy

  0

  449,600

  0

  281

  1,063,768

  226,124

  488,134

  University of Plymouth

  2,743,500

  12,627,200

  0

  11,550

  26,725,301

  1,061,934

  481,055

  University of Portsmouth

  2,362,500

  9,630,400

  0

  9,169

  21,803,607

  748,187

  0

  Queen Mary and Westfield College

  1,563,000

  3,728,000

  1,954,400

  5,112

  21,295,677

  1,811,184

  5,100,496

  Ravensbourne College

  0

  851,200

  0

  532

  1,703,321

  0

  118,600

  RCN Institute

  0

  105,600

  0

  66

  238,978

  0

  338,300

  University of Reading

  2,010,750

  5,206,400

  0

  5,935

  13,842,948

  2,232,850

  419,547

  College of Ripon and York St. John

  739,500

  1,734,400

  0

  2,070

  4,100,900

  0

  0

  Rochampton Institute

  1,189,125

  2,994,400

  0

  3,457

  8,027,805

  192,071

  1,226,100

  Rose Bruford College

  0

  692,800

  0

  433

  1,142,468

  0

  81,700

  Royal Academy of Music

  0

  441,600

  0

  276

  2,000,628

  780,771

  0

  Royal College of Art

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5,345,909

  463,000

  Royal College of Music

  0

  524,800

  0

  328

  1,832,040

  608,818

  73,038

  Royal Holloway, University of London

  1,590,000

  2,780,800

  0

  3,858

  9,737,840

  1,011,487

  1,674,000

  Royal Northern College of Music

  0

  641,600

  0

  401

  2,970,368

  0

  13,500

  Royal Postgraduate Medical School

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  939,521

  3,212,497

  Royal Veterinary College

  0

  302,400

  638,400

  417

  3,300,000

  586,822

  763,000

  St. George's Hospital Medical School

  0

  473,600

  1,302,000

  761

  5,552,303

  100,065

  1,063,271

  College of St. Mark and St. John

  350,303

  916,688

  0

  1,040

  2,032,510

  62,267

  100,000

  St. Martin's College

  465,750

  1,241,600

  0

  1,397

  2,584,530

  58,279

  0

  St. Mary's College

  454,875

  1,220,000

  0

  1,369

  2,944,255

  0

  307,600

  University of Salford

  1,824,000

  10,756,800

  0

  9,155

  23,566,311

  394,385

  428,500

  University of Sheffield

  3,204,720

  9,010,965

  1,489,600

  10,437

  29,561,577

  2,950,693

  310,350

  Sheffield Hallam University

  2,946,000

  10,537,600

  0

  10,514

  31,157,301

  1,508,622

  488,679

  University of Southampton

  2,388,938

  7,324,160

  1,072,400

  8,146

  23,273,428

  2,916,234

  508,222

  Southampton Institute

  2,680,500

  8,344,000

  0

  8,789

  16,017,516

  189,283

  100,000

  South Bank University

  1,688,250

  6,844,800

  0

  6,529

  19,369,438

  1,494,067

  4,203,200

  Staffordshire University

  2,836,950

  9,093,040

  0

  9,466

  22,232,708

  708,612

  350,000

  University of Sunderland

  2,133,000

  8,411,200

  0

  8,101

  18,389,743

  630,923

  239,207

  Surrey Institute of Art and Design

  76,500

  3,323,200

  0

  2,179

  4,173,154

  35,000

  202,867

  University of Surrey

  272,250

  4,960,000

  0

  3,463

  9,884,387

  1,897,567

  225,500

  University of Sussex

  2,231,250

  4,176,000

  0

  5,585

  13,598,504

  1,707,025

  179,780

  University of Teesside

  2,342,250

  4,846,800

  0

  6,146

  15,135,375

  772,109

  87,623

  Thames Valley University

  2,991,000

  2,836,800

  0

  5,761

  12,932,759

  658,801

  1,776,400

  Trinity and All Saints

  370,500

  1,148,800

  0

  1,212

  2,503,928

  64,230

  80,667

  Trinity College of Music

  0

  499,200

  0

  312

  1,389,810

  249,903

  0

  University College London

  2,062300

  6,030,400

  1,545,600

  7,071

  23,522,324

  5,404,634

  8,533,134

  348 349

  1996–97 Teaching grant and fee income for full-time students

  Fee income 1996–97

  Teaching grant 1996–97

  Institution

  Band 1

  Band 2

  Band 3

  Total number of FTUG students

  Undergraduate

  Postgraduate

  Non-formula funding 1996–97

  UCL—Eastman Denial Institute

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  533,695

  278,322

  UCL—Institute of Neurology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  140,068

  297,283

  University of Warwick

  3,142,013

  3,224,000

  0

  6,204

  13,863,168

  2,114,325

  346,560

  Westhill College

  246,750

  273,600

  0

  500

  914,165

  34,945

  0

  University of Westminster

  2,145,750

  6,420,800

  0

  6,874

  19,076,207

  1,664,951

  4,231,900

  Westminster College, Oxford

  192,750

  0

  0

  257

  519,390

  0

  241,886

  University of West of England, Bristol

  2,96l,750

  10,222,400

  0

  10,338

  24,663,059

  1,317,406

  380,012

  Wimbledon School of Art

  0

  550,400

  0

  344

  1,080,002

  0

  105,200

  University of Wolverhampton

  3,196,500

  8,668,800

  0

  9,680

  24,072,708

  879,273

  311,200

  Worcester College of HE

  777,750

  1,574,400

  0

  2,021

  3,332,568

  39,500

  0

  Writtle College

  0

  1,209,600

  0

  756

  2,028,954

  0

  101,467

  Wye College, University of London

  53,250

  612,800

  0

  454

  1,238,200

  312,034

  50,000

  University of York

  1,713,210

  3,174,928

  0

  4,269

  11,221,997

  1,409,525

  224,968

  Askham Bryan College

  40,500

  193,600

  0

  175

  567,023

  0

  0

  Berkshire College of Art and Design

  0

  393,600

  0

  246

  520,208

  0

  4,300

  Bedford College

  0

  56,000

  0

  35

  113,715

  0

  0

  Birmingham College

  420,750

  2,139,200

  0

  1,898

  2,378,171

  26,696

  0

  Blackburn College

  343,500

  246,400

  0

  612

  744,458

  0

  0

  Blackpool and Fylde College

  95,250

  1,534,400

  0

  1,086

  1,757,432

  0

  0

  Bournemouth and Poole College of AD

  0

  905,600

  0

  566

  1,127,933

  0

  0

  Bracknell and Wokingham College

  0

  3,200

  0

  2

  65,197

  0

  1,500

  Bradford and Ilkley Community College

  806,250

  1,659,200

  0

  2,112

  3,476,208

  1,954

  0

  Brooklands Technical College

  40,500

  60,800

  0

  92

  81,663

  0

  7,000

  Carlisle College

  74,250

  0

  0

  99

  121,324

  0

  0

  Chesterfield College of Technology

  57,000

  20,800

  0

  89

  57,895

  0

  0

  Chiehcster College of Arts, Science and Techology

  0

  43,200

  0

  27

  73,536

  0

  300

  City of Liverpool Community College

  36,750

  294,400

  0

  233

  771,746

  0

  0

  City College, Manchester

  53,250

  518,400

  0

  395

  540,294

  0

  0

  Cleveland College of Art and Design

  0

  569,600

  0

  356

  556,974

  0

  0

  Coalville Technical College

  5,250

  0

  0

  7

  6,480

  0

  0

  Cordwainers College

  0

  195,200

  0

  122

  141,234

  0

  0

  Coventry Technical College

  0

  148,800

  0

  93

  423,122

  0

  0

  Crawley College of Technology

  27,750

  33,600

  0

  58

  201,886

  0

  400

  Croydon College

  273,000

  507,200

  0

  681

  1,258,407

  0

  97,600

  Dewsbury College

  37,500

  364,800

  0

  278

  538,912

  0

  0

  Doncaster College

  307,500

  424,000

  0

  675

  1,607,032

  0

  0

  Farnborough College of Technology

  356,250

  1,233,600

  0

  1,246

  2,133,765

  0

  0

  Gloucester College of Art and Technology

  0

  174,400

  0

  109

  268,802

  0

  0

  Guildford College of FHE

  99,000

  180,800

  0

  245

  607,288

  0

  6,200

  Halton College of FE

  34,500

  240,000

  0

  196

  375,153

  0

  0

  Hammersmith and West London College

  108,750

  35,200

  0

  167

  528,960

  0

  47,500

  Harlow College

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1,000

  Havering College of FHE

  0

  211,200

  0

  132

  418,377

  0

  45,200

  Henley College

  33,000

  0

  0

  44

  87,413

  0

  0

  Herefordshire College of Art and Design

  0

  244,800

  0

  153

  245,712

  0

  0

  Herefordshire College of Technology

  114,750

  0

  0

  153

  232,050

  0

  0

  Highbury College, Portsmouth

  108,750

  0

  0

  145

  360,910

  0

  0

  Lackham College

  0

  40,000

  0

  25

  76,528

  0

  0

  Leeds College of Art and Design

  0

  409,600

  0

  256

  399,520

  0

  0

  Loughborough College

  120,000

  67,200

  0

  202

  451,878

  0

  0

  Mid-Kent College of HFE

  160,500

  494,400

  0

  523

  1,358,100

  0

  0

  North-east Worcestershire College

  30,000

  387,200

  0

  282

  446,403

  0

  0

  New College Durham

  317,250

  361,600

  0

  649

  1,774,254

  0

  0

  Newcastle College

  171,750

  1,910,400

  0

  1,423

  1,994,598

  0

  0

  Newham College of Further Education

  0

  182,400

  0

  114

  287,519

  0

  17,100

  North-east Surrey College of Technology

  122,250

  800,000

  0

  663

  1,158,723

  22,000

  0

  North Lincolnshire College

  0

  19,200

  0

  12

  56,516

  0

  0

  Northbrook College, Sussex

  64,500

  648,000

  0

  491

  0

  740,751

  0

  Northumberland College

  0

  64,000

  0

  40

  162,729

  0

  0

  The College of North West London

  12,750

  27,200

  0

  34

  274,867

  0

  28,700

  Oldham College of Technology

  84,000

  0

  0

  112

  309,307

  0

  0

  350 351

  1996–97 Teaching grant and fee income for full-time students

  Fee income 1996–97

  Teaching grant 1996–97

  Institution

  Band 1

  Band 2

  Band 3

  Total number of FTUG students

  Undergraduate

  Postgraduate

  Non-formula funding 1996–97

  Peterborough Regional College

  43,500

  65,600

  0

  99

  132,756

  0

  0

  Rycotewood College

  0

  163,200

  0

  102

  282,730

  0

  0

  Salisbury College

  0

  252,800

  0

  158

  333,409

  0

  0

  Sandwell College of FHE

  36,750

  200,000

  0

  174

  404,048

  0

  0

  The Sheffield College

  20,250

  185,600

  0

  143

  416,743

  0

  0

  Solihull College

  32,250

  380,800

  0

  281

  341,172

  0

  0

  South Tyneside College of FE

  0

  24,000

  0

  15

  770,113

  0

  0

  Southport College

  0

  62,400

  0

  39

  124,338

  0

  0

  Sparsholt College, Hampshire

  0

  339,200

  0

  212

  486,542

  0

  0

  St. Helens College

  167,250

  376,000

  0

  458

  554,498

  0

  0

  Stockport College of FHE

  286,500

  649,600

  0

  788

  1,294,603

  0

  0

  Suffolk College of FHE

  747,810

  1,463,520

  0

  1,912

  1,908,499

  0

  0

  Swindon College

  58,500

  376,000

  0

  313

  489,384

  0

  0

  Thurrock College

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1,000

  Trowbridge College

  0

  27,200

  0

  17

  200,071

  0

  0

  Wakefield College

  49,500

  52,800

  0

  99

  176,637

  0

  0

  Walsall College of Technology

  0

  38,400

  0

  24

  64,023

  0

  0

  Warrington Collegiate Institute

  262,125

  876,000

  0

  897

  1,696,835

  0

  0

  West Thames College

  84,000

  0

  0

  112

  262,448

  0

  14,500

  Westminster College, London

  156,000

  0

  0

  208

  595,300

  0

  43,900

  Wigan and Leigh College

  220,500

  564,500

  0

  647

  877,136

  13,942

  0

  Wirral Metropolitan College

  195,000

  267,200

  0

  427

  503,641

  0

  0

  Worcester College of Technology

  94,500

  185,600

  0

  242

  339,815

  0

  0

  York College of FHE

  63,750

  187,200

  0

  202

  263,773

  0

  0

  Source:

  data96.fee—srvy, data96.redof, data95.nff.

  Notes:

  Only HEFCE grant and LEA funded fees are included.

  The data excludes:

  ITT and INSET; part-time, and sandwich year out students; Oxbridge college fees; recurrent funds for research; funding from other public sources, e.g. Health Authorities.

  The fee rates used to obtain the fee income were:

  Band 1 = £750

  Band 2 = £1,600

  Band 3 = £2,800

  Undergraduates only were included in the fee income.

  Geoffrey Chaucer School, London
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list each of the(a) educational, (b) physical and (c) other improvements which must be made before Geoffrey Chaucer School, London SE1, ceases to be designated as a school needing special measures; and what is the earliest date by which he may end the designation of this school. [6813]

  Mr. Byers
  Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools is statutorily responsible for determining when a school no longer requires special measures. I have asked Mr. Chris Woodhead to write to the hon. Member.

  Teachers (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many (i) headteachers, (ii) deputy headteachers and (iii) teachers took early retirement on the grounds of ill health in(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97, (1) in total and (2) in each LEA; and if he will make a statement. [6831]

  Mr. Byers
  The table shows the number of teachers in service at 31 March 1995 awarded ill-health retirement in financial year 1995–96 and those awarded ill-health retirement in 1996–97 whose last day of reckonable service was 31 March 1996 or later. The table covers the maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special education sector in England.
  352

  Ill-health retirements1 in financial year

  1995–96

  21996–97

  Heads

  Deputies

  Classroom teacher

  Heads

  Deputies

  Classroom teacher

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Camden

  0

  *

  19

  *

  *

  14

  Greenwich

  *

  0

  16

  *

  0

  19

  Hackney

  *

  *

  9

  0

  0

  5

  Hammersmith

  *

  0

  17

  7

  *

  6

  Islington

  *

  *

  5

  *

  0

  7

  Kensington and Chelsea

  *

  0

  9

  *

  0

  5

  Lambeth

  0

  0

  17

  0

  *

  13

  Lewisham

  *

  0

  9

  *

  0

  12

  Southwark

  *

  0

  13

  *

  *

  8

  Tower Hamlets

  0

  0

  11

  0

  *

  12

  Wandsworth

  0

  *

  11

  *

  0

  14

  Westminster

  *

  *

  8

  *

  0

  *

  Barking

  *

  *

  8

  0

  0

  8

  Barnet

  *

  0

  18

  *

  0

  11

  Bexley

  *

  *

  9

  *

  *

  12

  Brent

  0

  *

  10

  *

  *

  10

  Bromley

  7

  0

  12

  *

  *

  14

  Croydon

  *

  0

  17

  *

  *

  13

  Ealing

  0

  *

  11

  *

  *

  5

  Enfield

  *

  0

  16

  *

  *

  14

  Haringey

  6

  *

  7

  *

  *

  22

  Harrow

  0

  *

  13

  0

  0

  11

  Havering

  *

  *

  18

  *

  0

  11

  Hillingdon

  0

  *

  9

  0

  *

  *

  Hounslow

  *

  *

  19

  0

  *

  14

  Kingston upon Thames

  *

  *

  13

  0

  *

  *

  Merton

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  6

  Newham

  0

  0

  11

  0

  *

  21

  Redbridge

  *

  0

  7

  *

  0

  *

  Richmond upon Thames

  *

  0

  8

  0

  0

  6

  353

  Ill-health retirements1 in financial year

  1995–96

  21996–97

  Heads

  Deputies

  Classroom teacher

  Heads

  Deputies

  Classroom teacher

  Sutton

  0

  *

  13

  *

  *

  13

  Waltham Forest

  *

  *

  19

  *

  *

  17

  Birmingham

  6

  9

  94

  6

  *

  89

  Coventry

  0

  *

  26

  0

  *

  27

  Dudley

  *

  *

  23

  *

  *

  23

  Sandwell

  5

  *

  22

  *

  *

  23

  Solihull

  0

  *

  12

  *

  *

  20

  Walsall

  *

  *

  29

  *

  *

  30

  Wolverhampton

  0

  *

  19

  *

  *

  28

  Knowsley

  *

  0

  15

  *

  *

  7

  Liverpool

  *

  *

  42

  *

  11

  49

  St. Helens

  *

  *

  13

  *

  0

  18

  Sefton

  *

  *

  25

  *

  *

  29

  Wirral

  *

  *

  26

  0

  *

  26

  Bolton

  *

  *

  20

  *

  *

  21

  Bury

  *

  *

  17

  *

  *

  20

  Manchester

  *

  *

  36

  *

  5

  49

  Oldham

  *

  *

  18

  *

  0

  37

  Rochdale

  5

  *

  28

  *

  0

  19

  Salford

  0

  *

  21

  *

  *

  25

  Stockport

  *

  *

  32

  *

  6

  31

  Tameside

  *

  *

  22

  7

  *

  17

  Trafford

  *

  *

  23

  *

  *

  23

  Wigan

  *

  5

  23

  *

  5

  30

  Barnsley

  0

  5

  16

  *

  *

  21

  Doncaster

  *

  *

  25

  *

  *

  21

  Rotherham

  *

  *

  14

  *

  *

  18

  Sheffield

  6

  *

  32

  *

  *

  41

  Bradford

  7

  5

  39

  6

  5

  67

  Calderdale

  *

  *

  20

  5

  *

  18

  Kirklees

  *

  *

  39

  5

  9

  48

  Leeds

  *

  6

  72

  *

  6

  59

  Wakefield

  5

  *

  42

  *

  *

  23

  Gateshead

  *

  *

  26

  *

  *

  25

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  0

  0

  18

  *

  *

  26

  North Tyneside

  *

  *

  9

  *

  0

  19

  South Tyneside

  *

  *

  15

  0

  *

  11

  Sunderland

  *

  *

  33

  *

  *

  40

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Former Avon3

  12

  8

  57

  10

  6

  45

  Bedfordshire

  *

  5

  34

  *

  *

  41

  Berkshire

  *

  *

  55

  7

  9

  42

  Buckinghamshire

  5

  *

  44

  6

  *

  45

  Cambridgeshire

  *

  5

  37

  5

  6

  52

  Cheshire

  12

  7

  74

  15

  14

  67

  Former Cleveland3

  5

  11

  76

  *

  5

  86

  Cornwall

  12

  7

  35

  15

  7

  44

  Cumbria

  5

  9

  34

  *

  5

  30

  Derbyshire

  14

  9

  47

  8

  5

  57

  Devon

  17

  9

  78

  17

  11

  69

  Dorset

  6

  0

  50

  6

  *

  59

  Durham

  6

  11

  85

  6

  7

  67

  East Sussex

  8

  5

  37

  8

  *

  50

  Essex

  9

  14

  110

  12

  8

  116

  Gloucestershire

  5

  *

  32

  7

  *

  40

  Hampshire

  11

  12

  129

  16

  18

  132

  Hereford and Worcester

  12

  8

  59

  14

  7

  66

  Hertfordshire

  *

  *

  75

  12

  12

  56

  Former Humberside3

  6

  13

  86

  12

  9

  123

  Isle of Wight

  *

  0

  16

  0

  *

  8

  Kent

  26

  11

  131

  15

  13

  119

  Lancashire

  24

  20

  175

  18

  15

  129

  Leicestershire

  6

  5

  73

  8

  11

  52

  Lincolnshire

  9

  *

  41

  13

  *

  65

  Norfolk

  16

  11

  58

  16

  5

  58

  Former North Yorkshire3

  7

  5

  39

  7

  8

  59

  Northamptonshire

  6

  5

  68

  8

  8

  44

  Northumberland

  5

  *

  26

  6

  *

  16

  Nottinghamshire

  13

  9

  78

  9

  7

  77

  Oxfordshire

  *

  *

  47

  12

  *

  39

  Shropshire

  8

  *

  28

  11

  *

  33

  Somerset

  15

  6

  49

  13

  5

  37

  Staffordshire

  8

  11

  115

  14

  6

  83

  Suffolk

  8

  *

  52

  7

  9

  44

  354

  Ill-health retirements1 in financial year

  1995–96

  21996–97

  Heads

  Deputies

  Classroom teacher

  Heads

  Deputies

  Classroom teacher

  Surrey

  7

  5

  50

  9

  7

  75

  Warwickshire

  5

  *

  38

  *

  7

  43

  West Sussex

  8

  *

  26

  *

  5

  53

  Wiltshire

  5

  *

  38

  9

  6

  44

  England

  483

  381

  3,753

  520

  393

  3,778

  1 In order to avoid sensitive information about individuals being identified, numberS less than 5 are shown as asterisks.

  2 A small number of pensioners, probably less than 100, who retired in 1996–97, entered service after 31 March 1996.

  3 Includes the unitary authorities created as a result of Local Government Reorganisation.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Tourism and Hospitality Training
  Mr. Roy Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action she proposes to ensure that Government funding for tourism and hospitality training in Northern Ireland matches that provided in Great Britain. [6137]

  Mr. Worthington
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Ian Walters. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Ian Walters to Mr. Roy Beggs, dated 4 July 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me, as Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency, to reply to your question about Government funding for tourism and hospitality training in Northern Ireland.
  I regret I am unable to provide information which could be used to make a meaningful comparison between funding for tourism and hospitality training in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Because of the very different arrangements which apply in the regions, the information could only be made available at a wholly disproportionate cost.
  I can assure you however that the Training and Employment Agency is fully committed to supporting training within the tourism and hospitality industry which is treated as a top priority. Evidence of the Agency's commitment lies in the £7.2m which was spent during 1996/97 on a wide range of training programmes. This support included European Social Fund assistance amount to £2.4m administered by the Agency. Support was also made available through the Agency's Johskills pmgmmtne (£4m), the Company Development Programme (£0.5m), the Priority Skills Initiative (£0.24m) and the Scctoral Development Programme (£0.07m). In addition, over £3 in is being made available over two years from the European Union's Special Programme for Peace and Reconciliation.
  I feel sure you will agree that the total level of assistance represents a very generous measure of support by any standard.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to review the prioritisation of areas of special need in Northern Ireland in terms of targeting inward investment. [5978]

  Mr. Ingram
  The recent report by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights on employment equality included recommendations on job location. These will be considered carefully Government.

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will publish her Department's submissions relating to freedom of information legislation. [6037]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 2 July 1997]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my Right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Friday 4 July 1997, Official Report columns 293–94.

  Waste Imports and Exports
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what have been the amounts of waste(a) exported from Northern Ireland to (i) the Irish Republic and (ii) Great Britain and (b) imported form the Irish Republic to Northern Ireland; if he will indicate (1) the tonnages by categories and (2) the descriptions used in each of the last three years; and what are the estimates for (X) the current year and (Y) the next two years. [7150]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Environment and Heritage Service under its Chief Executive, Mr. Robert C. Martin. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Robert C. Martin to Mr. William Ross, dated 7 July 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about the import and export of waste.
  The information is not held centrally and indeed district councils, the enforcement authorities for waste management in Northern Ireland, only collate statistics of movements of 'Special Waste' as defined.
  I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful.

WALES

  Conservation (Cardigan Bay)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will make a statement on the objectives for the Cardigan Bay special area of conservation. [5851]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 26 June 1997, column 626.

  Housing Needs (Women)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what role he plans for housing associations in Wales to meet the specific and special housing needs of women in 356
  Wales; what assessment he has made of the adequacy of Tai Cytnru's plans for meeting these needs in its strategic programmes; and if he will make a statement. [5835]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  It is for local authorities to assess and specify the varying needs within their areas in the annual housing strategy and operational plans. With effect from 1997–98, the developments funded out of Tai Cymru's capital programme have been determined by reference to each local authority's plan rather than by formula (Housing Needs Index) as in past years. Moneys from Tai Cymru also support the running costs of women's refuges.

  Daily Post Article
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which journalists were present at the meeting with him on which David Rose's article of 16 May in the Daily Post was based. [7069]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  It is not my normal practice to release details of meetings held on Lobby terms between Ministers and journalists.

  Bathing Beaches
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will issue guidelines to local authorities in Wales with regard to the need to ensure the safety of swimmers on bathing beaches from the dangers caused by(a) jet skis and (b) other fast pleasure boats; and if he will make a statement. [6952]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to issue such guidelines. Local authorities have powers under section 76 of the Public Health Act 1961 to regulate seaside pleasure boats for the prevention of danger, obstruction or annoyance to persons bathing in the sea or using the seashore, and for the prevention and suppression of nuisances. An inter-departmental working party is undertaking a review of byelaw powers for the coast, and a discussion paper was issued in Wales in February 1997, in parallel with a similar exercise in England. We shall be considering whether existing powers are adequate as part of this review.

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish his Department's submissions relating to freedom of information legislation. [6038]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  [holding answer 2 July 1997]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Friday 4 July, Official Report, column 294.

DEFENCE

  Defence Review Seminars
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will announce the names of(a) those attending the Defence Review seminars and (b) the experts on the advisory panel. [6354]

  Dr. Reid
  The names of participants at the Strategic Defence Review seminars are being released on the days that the seminars take place. We expect to announce the names of the members of the advisory panel later in the summer.

  Falklands
  Mr. Cordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what was the cost of maintaining the Falklands garrison in each of the last three years. [4862]

  Dr. Reid
  [pursuant to his written reply 24 June 1997 Official Report, column 424]: I regret that there was an error in the figure given for the outtum cost for financial year 1995–96 to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle on the cost of the Falkland Islands Garrison. The figure should have been £66.5 million and not £70 million.

  Parliamentary Armed Forces Scheme
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the parliamentary armed forces scheme. [6415]

  Mr. Spellar
  We place great value on the armed forces parliamentary scheme as a way of promoting a better understanding of the armed forces by parliamentarians, and pay tribute to those hon. Members who have so far participated and to Sir Neil Thorne and the scheme sponsors. We are actively considering the options for enhancing the scheme and a letter will be sent to all Members shortly inviting them to participate; and that it will recommence as soon as practicable.

  Defence Diversification Agency
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the Defence Diversification Agency to be established. [6422]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) on 16 June 1996,Official Report, columns 11–12.

  Ship Workers
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average number of (i) civilian staff and (ii) uniformed service men working in HM dockyards on shipbuilding or ship repairing duties for each year between 1967 and 1985. [6494]

  Mr. Spellar
  We do not retain detailed records of staff numbers over these years but the numbers of civilian and 358
  uniformed personnel in HM Dockyards in 1967–1985 as recorded in relevant Statements of Defence Estimates were as follows:

  Year

  Uniformed

  Civilian

  Note

  1967

  190

  47,300

  1

  1968

  210

  46,500

  2

  1969

  200

  44,600

  2

  1970

  1—

  49,200

  3

  1971

  1—

  49,000

  3

  1972

  1—

  41,600

  3

  1973

  1—

  41,300

  3

  1974

  1—

  41,300

  3

  1975

  100

  35,900

  4

  1976

  100

  34,700

  4

  1977

  100

  35,400

  4

  1978

  100

  34,900

  4

  1979

  100

  34,200

  4

  1980

  100

  33,800

  4

  1981

  100

  32,800

  4

  1982

  100

  28,800

  4

  1983

  100

  25,600

  4

  1984

  1—

  23,500

  4

  1985

  1—

  18,500

  4

  1 Not known.

  1. Includes aircraft repair yards and port auxiliary service.

  2. Includes aircraft repair yards.

  3. Figures presented on a different basis to cover all civilians involved in production and repair.

  4. Figures cover HM dockyards only.

  Former Yugoslavia
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the total costs to date to public funds of the United Kingdom contingent of the Stabilisation Force in the former Yugoslavia; and what estimate he has made of the future costs. [6755]

  Dr. Reid
  The total cost of the United Kingdom contingent of the Stabilisation Force in the former Yugoslavia up to 31 March 1997 was £22.3 million. It is estimated that costs of around a further £190 million will be incurred in this and future years for the 18 month deployment which began on 20 December 1996, immediately following the ending of the mandate of the Implementation Force.

  Strategic Defence Review
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates and attendees by Department and grade of meetings of officials which have taken place in his Department on the strategic defence review. [6760]

  Dr. Reid
  No. A considerable number of meetings has taken place on the strategic defence review. Information on dates and attendees is not held centrally and could he provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by what means he will announce the results of his strategic defence review. [6685]

  Dr. Reid
  The outcome of the strategic defence review will be published in a White Paper.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the members, with their current occupations, of
  359
  the panel of external experts advising him on the strategic defence review. [6773]

  Dr. Reid
  The advisory panel of experts has not yet been formed. We expect to announce the names of members later in the summer.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the corporate research programme will be included in the strategic defence review. [6841]

  Dr. Reid
  The strategic defence review is foreign policy led and will ensure that we are getting the best possible defence output from available resources. The Corporate Research Programme is an important resource and will accordingly be included in the review at the appropriate stage.

  Peacekeeping Forces
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the defence review will include consideration of the costs and value of contributing to international peacekeeping forces; and if he will make a statement. [6642]

  Dr. Reid
  The contribution that the armed forces make to the international peacekeeping will be taken fully into consideration in the strategic defence review, both in setting the policy baseline and in deciding how the armed forces should be structured, equipped and deployed to meet our national interests and commitments.

  1 Armoured Division (Transfer)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated cost of transferring the 1 Armoured Division from Germany to the United Kingdom. [6763]

  Dr. Reid
  No reliable estimate of the cost of withdrawing 1 (UK) Armoured Division from Germany to the United Kingdom is currently available.

  Departmental Advisers
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the terms on which Mr. Bernard Gray has been appointed as his special adviser. [7066]

  Mr. Robertson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 25 June,Official Report, column 546.

  Homosexuals
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on the ban on homosexuals in the armed forces. [6903]

  Dr. Reid
  The issue of homosexuality in the armed forces is reviewed as a matter of course in every Parliament. The Government will form a view on the weight of the evidence, taking account of the UK's laws, and of the views of the European Court, and of the armed forces. The Government will start with the position agreed in the last Parliament, which supported the policy of excluding homosexuals from the services, and will look in detail at the findings of the detailed review of the policy which was undertaken by this Department in 1995–96.360
  Ministers will then seek to establish the way forward in consultation with the Chiefs of Staff.

  Workers (Exposure to Chemicals)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what follow-up medical checks have been carried out on workers who were employed at the former chemical warfare plant at Nancekuke in Cornwall; and what research has been carried out to assess the long-term effects on the health of workers who were exposed to chemicals during their employment ant Nancekuke. [6360]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from J. Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 7 July 1997:
  I have been asked to reply to your question about follow-up medical checks on workers who were employed at the former Chemical Defence Establishment at Nancekuke Cornwall, since this was an outstation of the Chemical & Biological Defence Sector at Porton Down which is now part of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency of which I am Chief Executive.
  The Chemical Defence Establishment Nancekuke closed in 1980, following a decision taken in the 1976 Defence Review. On closure its staff were either transferred elsewhere in the public service or left on voluntary early retirement or redundancy terms, since the large majority had arranged other employment.
  All the work at the site when it was operational would have been conducted according to the appropriate health and safety guidelines. The records do not show that any formal follow-up medical checking system to monitor the subsequent health of former employees were put in place at the closure of the establishment. I assume this would have been because staff would not have been generally exposed to chemical agents and it would not therefore have been felt necessary to carry out routine follow-up checks.
  The records that have been retrieved for Nancekuke indicate that for at least part of the pre-closure period during which equipment was being decontaminated and dismantled staff were subject to daily medical monitoring. There is also earlier evidence that as a result of the intervention of the local MP, the Registrar General conducted a statistical medical survey to trace all the deaths up to 1969 of all the persons employed at Nancekuke. His conclusion was that mortality rates were generally lower than the national average. This information was published in answer to a Parliamentary Question on 2 November 1970.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from councils in Dorset in respect of the provision of CCTV. [5518]

  Mr. Michael
  I have received no representations from Dorset councils in respect of the provision of CCTV. I understand that Dorset councils submitted a total of six bids in the three rounds of the CCTV Challenge Competition and that one of these was successful.

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he intends to
  361
  take to ensure that crime prevention is given a higher priority [5530]

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's plans to ensure that crime prevention is given increased priority. [5506]

  Mr. Michael
  We are determined to raise the profile of crime prevention across the board. It makes far more sense to stop a crime happening than to have to pick up the pieces afterwards.

  One of our first priorities is to place a new duty on local authorities and the police service together to develop statutory local partnerships for crime prevention and community safety and, with the key partners, to agree local community safety targets. Our proposals—which we hope to include in the Crime and Disorder Bill to be published later this year—will be developed on the basis of full consultation with all interested parties.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list Government expenditure on crime prevention including policing for each of the last five years. [7119]

  Mr. Michael
  Previously published figures for estimated Government expenditure on crime prevention are as follows:

  1992–93: £225.5 million

  1993–94: £241.3 million

  1994–95: £260 million

  Since April 1995, crime prevention projects have been eligible for Government funding under the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) Challenge Fund. Expenditure on crime prevention within this budget is not separately identified. Of the 372 projects funded under rounds one and two of the SRB process, 183 (which will receive £1.4 billion in total) include a crime prevention element.

  Overall expenditure on policing for the last five years is as follows:

  1993–94: £16.027 million

  1994–95: £6.271 million

  1995–96: £16.494 million

  1996–97: £16.867 million (estimated outturn)

  1997–98: £17.163 million (planned).

  Crime prevention is an integral part of policing and expenditure is not separately identified.

  European Convention on Human Rights
  Mr. Desmond Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans to incorporate into British law the European convention on human rights. [5533]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We will introduce a Bill for this purpose in this Session of Parliament.

  New Prisons
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many new prisons are 362
  intended to be built over the next three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Ms Joyce Quin
  There are currently three new prisons being built under the Private Finance Initiative: HMP Altcourse (Liverpool), HMP Parc (Bridgend) and HMP Lowdham Grange (near Nottingham).

  The Prison Service has plans and funding (under the PFI) to provide a further 2,400 places at new prisons over the next three years. Planning approval has been given to re-build HMP Pucklechurch, near Bristol, as a 400-place prison for males under 21. Planning approval has also been given to build an 800-place prison at Agecroft in Salford. The remaining 1,200 places will be provided by two more prisons once suitable sites have been agreed.

  Anti-social Behaviour
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to deal with criminal anti-social behaviour in neighbourhoods. [5535]

  Mr. Michael
  We intend to introduce Community Safety Orders in the Crime and Disorder Bill.

  Courts will be given the power to grant such orders on the application of a local authority or the police. The order will apply to a named individual or individuals and would prevent that person or persons from continuing with specified anti-social conduct.

  A breach of the order will be a criminal offence which would carry stiff penalties—including the possibility of imprisonment.

  Young People (Alcohol)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to reduce the pressures on young people to engage in under-age consumption of alcohol. [5536]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Ministerial Group on Alcopops are considering a range of possible industry and Government measures to tackle under-age drinking. These include how alcohol is promoted to, and appeals to, young people and how it reaches them. We expect to make an announcement later this month.

  Police
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police there are on average per head of population in(a) Cornwall and Devon and (b) England. [5537]

  Mr. Michael
  The Devon and Cornwall Constabulary has one police officer to 538 people. The average ratio for England is one officer to 413 people. This is based upon police numbers at 31 March and the latest known population figures, which are for June 1995.

  Drugs and Crime
  Mr. Desmond Turner
  To ask the Secretary of Suite for the Home Department what plans he has to address the link between drugs and crime. [5538]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Home Office has a research programme designed to shed further light on the
  363
  links between drugs and crime. In addition, a Home Office Drugs Prevention Initiative study is testing the impact of drug treatment interventions in the criminal justice system—from arrest through to sentence and beyond—to refer people with drugs problems to drug treatment programmes.

  A new testing and treatment order will be introduced to give courts the powers to require drug misusing offenders to undergo treatment. The new order will be rigorously enforced and include the use of drug testing to ensure those in treatment are staying off illegal drugs.

  The Government will also appoint an anti-drugs supremo to co-ordinate action against drugs. One of his or her first tasks will be to review urgently the existing drugs strategy and to put forward proposals for tackling drug misuse and related crime with renewed vigour.

  Bribery (Members of Parliament)
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans to make bribery of hon. Members an offence. [5539]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government are committed to tackling corruption in all areas of public and private life, including the bribery of hon. Members.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary published on 9 June a statement on reform of the corruption statutes for consultation. A copy is available in the Library. The Law Commission will be producing proposals for reform of the law in this area later in the year.

  He will consider carefully the results of all of these exercises, together with any further recommendations which the Nolan Committee may make in relation to the criminal law.

  He expects to make a further statement on the reform of the law in this area early next year.

  Police and School Liaison
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to encourage greater liaison between police officers and school pupils. [5540]

  Mr. Michael
  My Department and the Department for Education and Employment are currently considering further means of encouraging effective liaison between the police and schools. I welcome the new Police Education Partnership which has just been launched between the Suffolk Education Department and Suffolk Constabulary.

  Immigration Advisers
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to regulate immigration advisers. [5541]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Our manifesto commits us to controlling unscrupulous immigration advisers. We are examining the options for delivering on this commitment,364
  together with those principally involved. We shall issue a consultation paper as soon as possible.

  Pub Opening Hours
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will delegate the powers of determining pub opening hours to(a) local licensing magistrates or (b) local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [5542]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We have no present plans to delegate the setting of normal licensing hours.

  Fire Safety
  Mr. John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce measures to improve fire safety. [5543]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell).

  Racial Harassment
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to deal with racial harassment. [5545]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government intend to introduce new offences of racial harassment and violence. These will send out a strong message that racial crime is unacceptable and will act as a forceful deterrent. We will be working closely with all the relevant agencies to ensure that these measures are implemented, successfully.

  Prisons (Crime)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new proposals he has to deter prisoners from engaging in criminal activity while in prison. [5527]

  Ms Joyce Quin
  A number of recent initiatives are intended to discourage criminal activity.

  These include new systems and procedures designed to minimise the risk of prisoners making unauthorised communications with the victims of their crime, and efforts to curb drug misuse.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) boys and (b) girls aged under 18 years have been received into prisons and young offenders institutions in England and Wales following sentence or remand into custody in each of the last six years for which figures are available by (i) age of offender and (ii) category of offence; and if he will make a statement. [6329]

  Ms Joyce Quin
  The information requested is given in the attached tables.
  365

  Table 1: Receptions of remand prisoners aged 15–17 years into prisons in England and Wales, 1991–96

  Aged 14

  Aged 15

  Aged l6

  Aged 17

  Year and type of custody

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  1991

  Untried

  12

  —

  390

  1

  694

  2

  3,995

  129

  Convicted unsentenced

  4

  —

  72

  2

  194

  —

  1,580

  74

  1992

  Untried

  4

  —

  354

  —

  665

  1

  3,328

  125

  Convicted unsentenced

  1

  —

  123

  —

  280

  —

  1,560

  60

  1993

  Untried

  —

  —

  428

  1

  839

  1

  3,402

  125

  Convicted unsentenced

  —

  —

  226

  —

  456

  —

  2,043

  63

  1994

  Untried

  —

  —

  613

  —

  1,042

  2

  3,419

  126

  Convicted unsentenced

  —

  —

  331

  —

  626

  1

  2,182

  65

  1995

  Untried

  —

  —

  602

  2

  1,180

  2

  3,420

  154

  Convicted unsentenced

  —

  —

  347

  —

  714

  3

  2,320

  93

  19961

  Untried

  —

  —

  685

  —

  1,253

  2

  3,727

  154

  Convicted unsemenced

  —

  —

  401

  —

  827

  3

  2,567

  93

  1 Provisional figures.

  Table 2: Receptions of sentenced prisoners aged 15–17 into prisons in England and Wales, 1991–96

  Offence

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Violence against the person

  306

  13

  390

  18

  425

  34

  424

  54

  546

  48

  665

  68

  Sexual offences

  45

  1

  33

  —

  47

  —

  33

  —

  46

  3

  62

  —

  Burglary

  1,084

  14

  1,048

  8

  1,070

  4

  1,211

  15

  1,258

  21

  1,284

  15

  Robbery

  268

  18

  296

  15

  330

  22

  378

  28

  521

  28

  704

  40

  Theft and handling

  872

  19

  726

  15

  1,004

  20

  1,192

  31

  1,268

  39

  1,219

  43

  Fraud and forgery

  2

  —

  5

  3

  4

  3

  10

  —

  8

  —

  14

  2

  Drugs offences

  18

  3

  35

  4

  32

  2

  26

  3

  43

  4

  63

  4

  Other offences

  538

  8

  543

  6

  555

  15

  625

  13

  721

  20

  789

  31

  Offence not recorded

  480

  20

  251

  11

  97

  2

  72

  5

  94

  3

  271

  11

  Total

  3,613

  96

  3,327

  80

  3,564

  102

  3,971

  149

  4,505

  166

  5,071

  214

  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which prisons and young offender institutions in England and Wales were holding girls aged(a) 15, (b) 16 and (c) 17 years on the latest date for which figures are available broken down by institution and age of prisoner; and if he will make a statement. [6331]

  Ms Quin
  The information requested is given in the attached table for 31 May 1997.

  Girls aged 15–17 held in prisons and young offender institutions

  Institution

  Aged 15

  Aged 16

  Aged 17

  Askham Grange

  1

  —

  —

  Brockhill

  —

  —

  6

  Bullwood Hall

  3

  5

  10

  Drake Hall

  —

  1

  4

  Eastwood Park

  —

  1

  4

  Highpoint

  1

  —

  3

  Holloway

  1

  2

  11

  Low Newton

  —

  —

  3

  New Hall

  1

  2

  4

  Risley

  —

  1

  4

  Styal

  —

  1

  3

  Total

  7

  13

  52

  Electoral Registers
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the costs of(a) compiling, (b) maintaining, (c) issuing and (d) using the electoral registers employed at the last general election. [6019]

  Mr. George Howarth
  [holding answer 1 July 1997]: Figures on local authority spending on electoral registration are not held centrally, but the total cost of registration is generally estimated at about £40 million per annum.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of people who were registered in more than one polling district area at the last general election; and if he will make a statement. [6021]

  Mr. Howarth
  [holding answer 1 July 1997]: None. The information needed for such an estimate to be made is not available.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the numbers of people whose names appear on current electoral registers who had died before the date of the last general election; and if he will make a statement. [6016]
  367
  Mr. Howarth
  [holding answer 1 July 1997]: None. Any figures for the total number of the deaths of all adults aged 17 and over in a given period would include a number whose names did not, for one reason or another, appear in the published electoral register.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the extent of electoral registration at the last general election relative to each general election since 1979. [6017]

  Mr. Howarth
  [holding answer 1 July 1997]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on 12 June, Official Report, column 511.

  General Election
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will assess the effectiveness of electoral procedures relating to the last general election separately examining(a) publicity to encourage electoral registration, (b) accessibility of polling stations, (c) dissemination of papers relating to the election and (d) postal and proxy voting. [6010]

  Mr. George Howarth
  [holding answer 1 July 1997]: When the time comes for a review of electoral procedures I will hear these matters in mind.

  Prisons (Drug Testing)
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the results of the studies commissioned by the Prison Service relating to the use of mandatory drug testing in prisons conducted by the University of Oxford Centre for Criminological Research and the national addiction centre. [6351]

  Ms Joyce Quin
  Results from both the University of Oxford research into staff and prisoner attitudes to drug misuse and mandatory drug testing and the national addiction centre research into patterns and trends of drug misuse revealed by mandatory drug testing are not expected before the spring of 1998. I would expect the results to be published as soon as practicable after that.

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish his Department's submissions relating to freedom of information legislation. [6028]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 2 July 1997]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 4 July, Official Report, column 294.

  Alcohol Sales (Minors)
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there were for selling alcohol to those aged under 18 years(a) nationally and (b) in Nottinghamshire in each of the last live years; and if he will make a statement. [6560]
  368
  Mr. Michael
  Information for 1991 to 1995 (latest available) is given in the table.

  Number of defendants prosecuted for selling intoxicating liquor to persons under 181 in Nottinghamshire police force area and England and Wales 1991–1995

  Area

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Nottinghamshire

  11

  —

  1

  —

  2

  England and Wales

  309

  195

  156

  137

  198

  1 Section 169(1) of Licensing Act 196.

  Immigration Detainees
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the daily cost to the Prison Service budget of keeping a detained asylum seeker in Strangeways Prison, Manchester. [6594]

  Ms Joyce Quin
  £52.

  Animal Experimentation
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has made to the representations he has received calling for greater openness in respect of the nature and types of animal experimentation in the United Kingdom; and what actions the Government are planning in this respect. [6580]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I have replied that section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 prohibits the disclosure of information provided confidentially in licence applications. These are assessed by Home Office inspectors, in whose expertise and integrity we have complete confidence. Annual statistics are published which provide detailed information on the nature and type of scientific procedures carried out on animals in each year. The report of the Animal Procedures Committee also sets out details of the operation of the Act.

  Licensing Laws
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the operation of the present licensing laws, with particular reference to their operation in seaside towns and tourist areas on Sundays. [6578]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We are considering a number of licensing issues, including calls for a general review.

  Air Rifles
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the current arrangements regarding the manufacture, distribution, marketing, sale and ownership of air rifles. [7110]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government will consider carefully whether changes are necessary on a wide range of firearms controls, including those on air weapons, in due course. We decided that the first priority for this session must be to resolve the outstanding issue of .22 handguns and to ensure that the legislation on handguns is properly in place as quickly as possible.

  Sex Offenders Act 1997
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to implement the Sex Offenders Act 1997; and if he will make a statement.[6919]

  Mr. Michael
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. member for Ashford (Mr. Green) on 30 June,Official Report, column 3.

  WPC Yvonne Fletcher
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 23 June,Official Report, column 357–58, for what reasons the police assessment of the film. "Murder at St. James's", will take over three months. [5591]

  Mr. Straw
  As I stated in my answer of 23 June,Official Report column 358, the Metropolitan Police's review of the contents of the programme involves a good deal of detailed analysis of the extensive documentation already generated by their investigation.

  Probation Officers
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the arrangements for the training of new probation officers, with particular reference to resourcing and qualifications; and if he will make a statement. [5631]

  Ms Joyce Quin
  I am currently considering the future recruitment and training of probation officers, taking account of a joint proposal produced by the Association Of Chief Officers of Probation, the Central Probation Council and the National Association of Probation Officers, and I intend to make a statement in due course.

  Immigration
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if same sex partners have the same rights as husbands and wives of British citizens under present immigration procedures. [5887]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No. The Immigration Rules provide for the admission of married couples and of fiance(e)s who are expected to marry within a reasonable period of time. At present, the Rules do not provide for the admission of foreign nationals who are partners in same sex relationships.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applications were made for each of the last 24 months; and how many of these were made(a) at port of entry, (b) within one week of arrival, (c) within one month of arrival, (d) within three months of arrival and (e) later than three months after arrival [6598]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Information regarding the number of applications for asylum lodged in the United Kingdom, and on the length of time between arrival date and application date, for those who applied after having been previously granted leave to enter or remain under another section of the Immigration Rules, is given in the tables.
  370

  Table 1: Applications1 received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, by location of application, June 1995 to May 1997

  Asylum applications

  Total

  Port

  In-country

  1995

  June

  3,630

  1,090

  2,540

  July

  3,415

  980

  2,435

  August

  3,890

  1,085

  2,805

  September

  4,020

  1,360

  2,660

  October

  4,595

  1,505

  3,090

  November

  4,715

  1,850

  2,860

  December

  3,540

  1,640

  1,895

  19962

  January

  3,310

  1,070

  2,240

  February

  2,850

  975

  1,880

  March

  3,145

  985

  2,160

  April

  2,070

  760

  1,310

  May

  1,755

  740

  1,010

  June

  1,730

  805

  925

  July

  2,515

  835

  1,680

  August

  2,140

  905

  1,230

  September

  2,010

  1,205

  805

  October

  2,150

  1,270

  885

  November

  1,920

  1,180

  735

  December

  2,340

  1,710

  635

  19972

  January

  2,275

  1,210

  1,065

  February

  1,985

  1,135

  850

  March

  1,820

  1,210

  610

  April

  2,275

  1,385

  890

  May

  2,240

  1,365

  880

  1 Figures rounded to five.

  2 Provisional figures.

  Time taken to apply for asylum by persons granted leave to enter or remain under another section of the immigration rules1, June 1995 to May 1997

  Percentage

  Within one week

  One week to one months

  One to three months

  Over three months

  Total

  1995

  June

  20

  15

  10

  55

  100

  July

  20

  20

  10

  50

  100

  August

  25

  20

  15

  40

  100

  September

  20

  15

  15

  50

  100

  October

  20

  20

  15

  45

  100

  November

  20

  15

  15

  50

  100

  December

  30

  15

  10

  45

  100

  1996

  January

  20

  15

  15

  50

  100

  February

  15

  10

  15

  60

  100

  March

  15

  10

  10

  65

  100

  April

  15

  10

  10

  65

  100

  May

  15

  10

  10

  65

  100

  June

  15

  15

  10

  60

  100

  July

  25

  15

  15

  45

  100

  August

  25

  15

  15

  45

  100

  September

  25

  10

  15

  50

  100

  371

  Time taken to apply for asylum by persons granted leave to enter or remain under another section of the immigration rules1, June 1995 to May 1997

  Percentage

  Within one week

  One week to one months

  One to three months

  Over three months

  Total

  October

  15

  15

  15

  55

  100

  November

  20

  15

  15

  50

  100

  December

  25

  10

  15

  50

  100

  1997

  January

  20

  10

  15

  55

  100

  February

  25

  10

  10

  55

  100

  March

  30

  10

  15

  45

  100

  April

  35

  15

  10

  40

  100

  May

  35

  15

  15

  35

  100

  1 Estimated and rounded to the nearest 5 per cent. Excludes those in-country cases for which arrival dates are not known.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will snake a statement on the current length of detention for asylum seekers. [5528]

  Mr. O'Brien
  The number of people recorded as being detained on 31 May 1997, who had sought asylum at some stage, was 733. Of these, 601 had been detained for less than six months and 21 for longer than twelve months. Policies relating to detention are currently under review.

  Notifiable offences where the victim has been injured or killed

  England and Wales

  Offenc

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Offences where the victim wax injured

  Attempted murder

  568

  661

  651

  634

  671

  Wounding or other act endangering life

  10,741

  10,701

  11,033

  10,445

  12,165

  Other wounding

  183,717

  186,765

  198,383

  193,016

  216,251

  Robbery

  52,894

  57,845

  60,007

  68,074

  73,957

  Total

  247,920

  255,972

  270,074

  272,169

  303,044

  Offences where the victim was killed

  Homicide

  687

  670

  726

  745

  683

  Child destruction

  —

  3

  7

  8

  2

  Causing death by dangerous driving or by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs

  277

  292

  278

  242

  318

  Causing death by aggravated vehicle taking

  19

  17

  14

  21

  34

  Total

  983

  982

  1,025

  1,016

  1,037

  Crime Costs
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the cost of crime to the United Kingdom economy during each of the last five years. [7117]

  Mr. Michael
  Information to provide a full answer to this question is not available. I will write to the hon. Gentleman shortly to outline such information as we possess, and will place a copy of that letter in the Library.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the number of people(a) injured and (b) killed as a result of crime in each of the last five years. [7118]

  Mr. Michael
  The available information from the recorded crime statistics is given in the following table. With regard to persons injured, the figures given relate to the number of offences in certain categories of offences of violence against the person where the assumption is that an injury or threat to cause injury has occurred. Robbery has been included for the same reason. It is not possible to identify separately threats from the substantive offence. Where a person has been injured during the commission of another offence (i.e. a burglary) then, for recording purposes, the offence of violence usually takes precedence.

  The British Crime Survey (BCS) gives an estimate for 1995 of the number of people injured in woundings, robberies and common assaults of 2,185,000. The equivalent figure for 1993 is 2,153,000. the numbers injured as a result of crime is much higher than those from offences recorded by the police because (i) not all offences are reported to the police, and (ii) they include common assaults (which as summary offences are not currently recorded by the police). The injuries covered by the BCS range from bruises/scratches to more severe injury. Common assaults involve only minor injuries. Because it is a survey of victims, the BCS does not cover people killed.

  Crime (Urban Areas)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the. Home Department what measures he proposes to reduce crime in urban areas, with particular reference to violent crime. [5513]

  Mr. Straw
  Our comprehensive strategy to tackle crime includes: the introduction of a duty on local authorities and the police to develop statutory partnerships for crime prevention and community safety; community safety orders to restrain the behaviour of named individuals; new offences of racial harassment and racially-motivated violence; action on alcohol-related
  373
  crime; the appointment of an anti-drugs supremo to co-ordinate the battle against drugs; and a total ban on the private possession of handguns.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Housing (Scotland)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the final permitted total amount for each Scottish local authority in 1996–97 which can be spent at the discretion of the local authority for private tenants who experience exceptional hardship as a result of their housing benefit entitlement being reduced following a local reference rent or a single room rent determination; and what had been spent by each local authority from this discretionary fund by the end of March. [2536]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, has announced her decision to revoke the Regulations, laid by the last Government, that would have reduced the Housing Benefit entitlement for single people aged over 25.

  The information requested on Permitted Totals for Scottish local authorities will not be available until the beginning of next year.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment she has made of the impact on the budget of the DSS of any given levels of minimum wage. [3743]

  Mr. Field
  We will ask the independent Low Pay Commission, before it reaches a recommendation on the level at which the National Minimum Wage might be set, to take into account all the economic circumstances, including its likely impact. We will not speculate about the possible effects of hypothetical levels before the Commission has had a chance to consider the issues.

  Child Support
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the average weekly Child Support Agency full assessment on(a) 30 September and (b) 31 March for each year of the CSA's operation indicating the figures for (i) court orders and (ii) liable relative negotiated agreements for the previous two years. [5276]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Government believes that all children are entitled to the support of both parents, irrespective of where they live. Children should only be supported by the taxpayer when their parents are unable to do so.

  The information is not available in the format requested. The table gives the average weekly Child Support figures at the closest possible dates. Prior to the introduction of Child Support the average maintenance per child was £15 if arranged by the Department of Social Security or the Magistrates' court; £20 if arranged by the County court and £24 when arranged by the Scottish courts.
  374

  Average weekly full maintenance assessments

  Average of maintenance assessments where absent parent has income from employment £

  All full maintenance assessments £

  June 1994

  45.53

  27.06

  October 1994

  44.34

  26.39

  March 1995

  43.46

  25.56

  August 1995

  38.66

  23.37

  February 1996

  38.62

  22.86

  August 1996

  38.02

  22.02

  February 1997

  37.73

  21.39

  The drop in the average amount of child support maintenance after March 1995 reflects the policy changes which took effect from April 1995.

  Source:

  Children Come First Volume 2—Table 12.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many absent parents on income support and income based jobseeker's allowance are currently clients of the Child Support Agency; what proportion of each have deductions made from their benefit in lieu of child maintenance excluding those on income support or receiving jobseeker's allowance; how many absent parents have a nil liability for child maintenance; and how many are liable to pay the minimum payment. [5250]

  Mr. Bradley
  At February 1997 there were 168,900 absent parent clients of the Child Support Agency receiving income support and a further 2,500 receiving income based jobseeker's allowance. At August 1996, the most recent date for which income support information is available, some 30,000 absent parents had a contribution to maintenance deducted from their benefit. Since this was before the introduction of jobseeker's allowance it includes unemployed absent parents receiving income support.

  At February 1997 there were 57,500 absent parents with nil liability for child maintenance and a further 42,400 liable to pay the minimum amount. This excludes those receiving income support or income based jobseeker's allowance who automatically have nil liability under the formula provisions.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research her Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the impact of a reduced benefit direction on children. [5256]

  Mr. Bradley
  We think it right that lone mothers should co-operate wherever possible in seeking maintenance for their children. The Department is continually monitoring and evaluating reduced benefit directions which apply only where a parent with care has failed to co-operate with the Child Support Agency and has no good reason for this failure. This evaluation is supported by research conducted by the Agency on the requirement to co-operate provisions, published in April last year ("The Requirement to Co-operate: A Report on the Operation of the 'Good Cause' provisions. Department of Social Security in-house report 14").

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will give a breakdown of the benefit savings made as a result of Child Support Agency activity in
  375
  1996–97; what is the expected breakdown of benefit savings for the current financial year; and if she will estimate total benefit savings over the next five years. [5304]

  Mr. Bradley
  The actual benefit savings for 1996–97 and the estimated savings for 1997–98 is in the table.

  £ million

  1996–97 outturn

  1997–98 estimates

  Income support reductions

  208.6

  235.6

  Family credit/disability working allowance reductions

  48.1

  58.7

  Deductions from absent parents income support

  4.8

  7.3

  Maintenance cessations—maintenance exceeds rate of income support

  6.3

  51.1

  Non maintenance cessations—benefit claim withdrawn within four to eight weeks of CSA action

  201.2

  152.0

  Total

  469.0

  504.7

  Within the situation we have inherited the current estimate of total benefit savings over the next five years from April 1997 is some £2,800 million.

  Pensions
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the full state pension as a proportion of average earnings for each year since 1980 and her estimate for the next three years assuming uprating is linked to prices. [6597]

  Mr. Denham
  We believe that all pensioners should share fairly in rising national prosperity and are committed to examine the means of delivering more help to the poorest pensioners. We will retain the basic State pension as the foundation of pension provision, increasing it at least in line with prices.

  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Year

  Standard rate of Category A retirement pension as a proportion of average earnings (per cent.)

  November 1980

  22.6

  November 1981

  22.4

  November 1982

  23.1

  November 1983

  21.7

  November 1984

  21.4

  November 1985

  21.4

  July 1986

  20.5

  April 1987

  19.9

  April 1988

  18.8

  April 1989

  18.2

  April 1990

  17.8

  April 1991

  18.3

  April 1992

  17.8

  April 1993

  17.7

  April 1994

  17.7

  April 1995

  17.5

  April 1996

  17.4

  1997

  17.1

  1998

  16.9

  1999

  16.6

  1. For years up to and including 1996, both the actual standard rate
  376
  of Category A retirement pension and actual average earnings for all full-time adults from the News Earning Survey are available, and these figures are used to produce the proportions shown in Table 6.1 of The Abstract of Statistics for Social Security Benefits and Contributions and Indices of Prices and Earnings 1996 Edition. However, the published figure for 1996 was provisional only, and the final figure is shown in the table.

  2. To calculate the proportion of average earnings represented by the standard rate of category A retirement pension for years after 1996, it has been assumed that retirement pension rates remain constant in price terms while average earnings increase by 1.5 per cent. each year.

  3. All figures are rounded to the nearest 0.1 per cent.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which pensioner organisations she has met since her appointment; and what other discussions she plans to hold prior to the announcement of the state pension level for 1998–99. [6600]

  Mr. Denham
  Amongst the meetings I have attended was the National Pensioners Convention Conference in Blackpool on 17 June and my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, attended the AGM of the Southwark Pensioner's Forum.

  The pensions review, which will be announced shortly, will look at the central areas of insecurity for elderly people, including all aspects of the basic pension and its value. In undertaking this review we will ensure that the voices of pensioners are put at the centre of Government. I anticipate meeting representative pensioners organisations on a number of occasions during the visit.

  We believe that all pensioners should share fairly in rising national prosperity and we are committed to examining ways to deliver more automatic help to the poorest pensioners. We will retain the basic State pension as the foundation of pension provision, increasing it at least in line with prices and we intend to have a number of discussions with interested groups before the level of State pension for 1998–99 is announced.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if she will ensure that the Government Actuary reviews the level of contracted-out rebates immediately following any changes in the tax regime that reduce the investment income of contracted-out occupational, and appropriate personal pension, schemes; [6563]

  (2) if she will estimate the level of age-related payments in respect of personal pension schemes for the year 1997–98, if such schemes did not receive a credit of advance corporation tax; [6564]

  (3) if she will estimate the impact on expenditure from the national insurance fund by way of additional age-related payments to personal pension schemes in the year 1997–98, if their level had been calculated on the assumption that contracted-out occupational pension schemes did not receive a credit of advance corporation tax; [6565]

  (4) what would be the charge on expenditure from the national insurance fund in respect of additional age related payments to contracted-out money purchase schemes for contracted-out employment in the financial year 1997–98, if their level had been calculated on the assumption that contracted-out occupational pension schemes did not receive a credit of advance corporation tax; [6566]
  377
  (5) what would be the increase in the (a) financial primary and secondary class 1 and class 4 national insurance contributions, (b) class 2 and class 3 national insurance contributions and (c) percentage of payments to the national insurance fund under section 2 of the Social Security Act 1992 needed to offset the cost to the national insurance fund of an increase in the flat rate contracted-out rebates to contracted-out occupational pension schemes and in age-related payments to contracted-out money purchase and appropriate personal pension schemes is such schemes did not receive a credit of advance corporation tax; [6568]

  (6) if she will estimate the reduction in income to the national insurance fund in respect of contracted-out employment in the year 1997–98, if the level of the national insurance rebates to contracted-out (a) salary-related and (b) money purchase schemes had been calculated on the assumption that the schemes did not receive a credit of advance corporation tax; [6569]

  (7) if she will estimate the reduction in (a) primary and (b) secondary Class 1 national insurance contributions on contracted-out money purchase schemes and the levels of age rebated payments to such schemes in respect of contracted-out employment in the year 1997–98, if such schemes did not receive a credit of advance corporation tax; [6570]

  (8) if she will estimate the reduction in (a) primary and (b) secondary class 1 national insurance contributions for contracted-out salary-related schemes in respect of contracted-out employment in the year 1997–98, if such schemes did not receive a credit of advance corporation tax. [6571]

  Mr. Denham
  What matters is the long run performance of investments and the health of companies providing occupational and personal pensions. It is the long term rates of return on pension fund investments which are reflected in the national insurance rebates. The Budget promotes investment. Like other shareholders, members of pension schemes will benefit from the better climate for investment by companies, as will the companies which provide occupational and personal pensions.

  We shall consider whether it is necessary to ask the Government Actuary to look again at the assumptions underlying the national insurance rebates for contracting-out of SERPS.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the cost of increasing the state pension to the basic level for all persons entitled to income support as a supplement to their existing pension. [6609]

  Mr. Denham
  We estimate that one in four pensioners are entitled to income Support. We do not have enough information to estimate the costs of bringing all those in this group who have less than a full basic Retirement Pension up to that level. However, we are commissioning research to determine why some pensioners do not claim the income Support to which they are entitled; we are also committed to reviewing the central areas of insecurity for our older citizens.

  VAT on Fuel
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what factors underlie the different estimates contained in the answer of 24 June,Official Report, column 491, and the Prime Minister's oral answer of 24 June, Official Report, column 686, on the impact on pensioners of the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel. [71 16]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The policies of the previous administration, including the introduction of VAT on fuel, have created real poverty, growing inequality and widespread insecurity for pensioners. Between April 1994 and April 1997, the average pensioner was undercompensated for the additional cost of fuel and power. In 1997 the compensation is adequate because of a real fall in the prices of fuel and power. Some pensioners could still be worse off, because of their individual circumstances.

  The reduction of VAT on fuel to 5 per cent. will ensure that the poorest households, including pensioners, benefit most in proportion to their incomes, and that everyone will see the benefit in their fuel bills this winter.

  Commissioners' Decisions
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make the decisions of the social security commissioners binding throughout the United Kingdom. [7149]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Social Security Commissioners have jurisdiction throughout Great Britain. There is a separate statutory authority for Social Security arrangements in Northern Ireland which has its own Social Security Commissioners. To make all Commissioners decisions binding throughout the United Kingdom would involve a fundamental change to the way in which precedent operates throughout the legal jurisdictions in Great Britain. The Government has no plans to change this arrangement.

  Legislation will be brought forward to improve current decision making and appeals arrangements for all Social Security matters throughout the United Kingdom. Further details will be announced in due course.

SCOTLAND

  Highlands and Islands Convention
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to change the composition and remit of the Highlands and Islands Convention; and if he will make a statement. [3796]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 23 June 1997]: Members are able to raise such issues for discussion at convention meetings.

  GP Funding
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland it' he will ensure that NHS funding under the control of general practitioner fundholders and NHS trusts is used exclusively to purchase NHS medical care and services. [5860]
  379
  Mr. Galbraith
  The National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 as amended imposes a duty on NHS trusts and general medical practitioner fundholders to expend NHS funds on the provision of medical care and services for NHS patients. Under the regulations boards and GP fundholders can refer to centres outwith the NHS.

  However, the interests of the patient must be paramount and I expect referrals outwith the NHS to take place only when the service is not readily available locally within the NHS.

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish his Department's submissions relating to freedom of information legislation. [6040]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 2 July 1997]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, on 4 July 1997, column 293.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the deficit or surplus accrued as at 31 March for each NHS trust in Scotland. [6853]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 4 July 1997]: The retained deficit or surplus position as at 31 March for each NHS Trust in Scotland, is set out in the table. These figures are subject to final audit.

  Trust

  Surplus/(deficit) £000s

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,861

  Angus NHS Trust

  1,469

  Argyll and Bute NHS Trust

  615

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Healthcares NHS Trust

  2,204

  Borders Community Health Services NHS Trust

  420

  Borders General Hospital NHS Trust

  700

  Caithness and Sutherland NHS Trust

  1,098

  Central Scotland Healthcare NHS Trust

  (439)

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,l590

  Dumfries and Galloway Community Health NHS Trust

  382

  Dundee Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,587

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  6,793

  East and Midlothian NHS Trust

  11,526

  Edinburgh Healthcare NHS Trust

  404

  Edinburgh Sick Children's NHS Trust

  1,646

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  567

  Fife Healthcare NHS Trust

  (1,978)

  Glasgow Dental Hospital and School NHS Trust

  1,837

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary University NHS Trust

  3,780

  Grampian Healthcare NHS Trust

  5,987

  Greater Glasgow Community and Mental Health Services NHS Trust

  252

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse Hospitals NHS Trust

  698

  Highland Communities NHS Trust

  851

  Inverclyde Royal NHS Trust

  2,065

  Kirkcaldy Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,850

  Lanarkshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,403

  Law Hospital NHS Trust

  630

  Lomond Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,146

  380

  Trust

  Surplus/(deficit) £000s

  Monklands and Bellshill Hospitals NHS Trust

  3,326

  Moray Health Services NHS Trust

  622

  North Ayrshire and Arran NHS Trust

  5,942

  Perth and Kinross Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,232

  Queen Margaret Hospital NHS Trust

  2,025

  Raigmore Hospital NHS Trust

  2,649

  Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,205

  Royal Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  2,206

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust

  3,347

  Scottish Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  1,135

  South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,026

  Southern General Hospital NHS Trust

  2,323

  Stirling Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  1,737

  Stobhill NHS Trust

  1,991

  Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust

  (6,044)

  West Glasgow Hospitals University NHS Trust

  331

  West Lothian NHS Trust

  1,378

  Western General Hospitals NHS Trust

  3,241

  Yorkhill NHS Trust

  2,755

  Nurses
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many nursing vacancies there were in each NHS trust in each of the last five years. [6379]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Only a few trusts were in existence five years ago. Information on vacancies at Scotland level is available in the 14th and previous reports of the Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine at Appendix D, Table 4 (Cm 3538), a copy of which is available in the House Library.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many newly qualified nurses there were in each of the last five years. [6380]

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

  Student nurses completed training 1992–93 to 1996–97

  Nurses in training

  1992 courses (P2000)1

  1992–93

  3,136

  —

  1993–94

  3,020

  —

  1994–95

  2,608

  —

  1995–96

  614

  1,460

  1996–972

  388

  1,622

  Notes:

  1 In 1992 new courses for training nurses were introduced. Students are no longer NHS employees but have student status and receive bursaries. The "old" courses were gradually phased out as the last of these students passed through over the next few years.

  2 These figures are provisional and unpublished.

  Source:

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

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number and percentage of nurses who are on temporary contracts, indicating the proportion of nurses on contracts of one year or less. [6382]
  381
  Mr. Galbraith
  Information at a current date could not be obtained other than at disproportionate costs. Most recent data available from 1996 suggested that overall only 5¼ per cent. of nurses were on temporary contracts.

  Health Service Staff Vacancies
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many unfilled vacancies there are in each NHS trust in Scotland; and if he will provide a breakdown of the vacant posts by specialisation. [6381]

  Mr. Galbraith
  With regard to unfilled consultant vacancies I refer the hon. Lady to my answer to her questions of 5 June on the same subject,Official Report, column 230.

  Information on other staff vacancies cannot be obtained other than at disproportionate costs.

  Information on vacancies at Scotland level for staff groups covered by the Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives. Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine is given in their fourteenth reports at Appendix D, Table 4 (Cm 3538/9), a copy of which is available in the House Library.

  General Practitioner Trainees
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many GP trainees there were in Scotland in 1996. [6384]

  Mr. Galbraith
  There were 283 GP trainees in post as at 1 April 1996 and 234 as at 1 October 1996.

  Hospital Beds
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the number of hospital beds in Scotland broken down to show figures for(a) psychiatric, (b) geriatric, (c) acute and (d) maternity beds. [6385]

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

  Average available staffed beds in Scotland at 31 March 19971

  Specialty

  Bed numbers

  Psychiatric

  9,216

  Geriatric: long stay

  5,294

  Geriatric: assessment

  3,685

  Acute

  15,503

  Maternity

  1,400

  1 Provisional.

  NHS Finance
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the surplus or deficit for each NHS(a) trust and (b) health board at the start of the financial year 1997–98. [6395]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The surplus or deficit for each NHS Trust and Health Board at the start of the financial year 1997–98, is set out in the tables. These figures are subject to final audit.
  382

  Trust

  Surplus/(deficit) £000s

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,861

  Angus NHS Trust

  1,469

  Argyll and Bute NHS Trust

  615

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,204

  Borders Community Health Services NHS Trust

  420

  Borders General Hospital NHS Trust

  700

  Caithness and Sutherland NHS Trust

  1,098

  Central Scotland Healthcare NHS Trust

  (439)

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,590

  Dumfries and Galloway Community Health NHS Trust

  382

  Dundee Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,587

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  6,793

  East and Midlothian NHS Trust

  11,526

  Edinburgh Healthcare NHS Trust

  404

  Edinburgh Sick Children's NHS Trust

  1,646

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  567

  Fife Healthcare NHS Trust

  (1,978)

  Glasgow Dental Hospital and School NHS Trust

  1,837

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary University NHS Trust

  3,780

  Grampian Healthcare NHS Trust

  5,987

  Greater Glasgow Community and Mental Health Services NHS Trust

  252

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse Hospitals NHS Trust

  698

  Highland Communities NHS Trust

  851

  Inverclyde Royal NHS Trust

  2,065

  Kirkcaldy Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,850

  Lanarkshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,403

  Law Hospital NHS Trust

  630

  Lomond Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,146

  Monklands and Bellshill Hospitals NHS Trust

  3,326

  Moray Health Services NHS Trust

  622

  North Ayrshire and Arran NHS Trust

  5,942

  Perth and Kinross Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,232

  Queen Margaret Hospital NHS Trust

  2,025

  Raigmore Hospital NHS Trust

  2,649

  Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,205

  Royal Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  2,206

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust

  3,347

  Scottish Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  1,135

  South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,026

  Southern General Hospital NHS Trust

  2,323

  Stirling Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  1,737

  Stobhill NHS Trust

  1,991

  Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust

  (6,044)

  West Glasgow Hospitals University NHS Trust

  331

  West Lothian NHS Trust

  1,378

  Western General Hospitals NHS Trust

  3,241

  Yorkhill NHS Trust

  2,755

  Health boards

  Surplus/(Deficit) £000s

  Argyll and Clyde Health Board

  671

  Ayrshire and Arran Health Board

  1,847

  Borders Health Board

  477

  Dumfries and Galloway Health Board

  980

  Fife Health Board

  299

  Forth Valley Health Board

  579

  Grampian Health Board

  968

  Greater Glasgow Health Board

  3,463

  Highland Health Board

  89

  383

  Health boards

  Surplus/(Deficit) £000s

  Lanarkshire Health Board

  (2)

  Lothian Health Board

  2,070

  Orkney Health Board

  (1)

  Shetland Health Board

  125

  Tayside Health Board

  1,943

  Western Isles Health Board

  92

  State Hospital

  1

  CSA

  478

  SCPMDE

  384

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Beef
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what is his estimate of total beef consumption by volume, in the United Kingdom in each of the past three years; [6607]

  (2) what is his estimate of the level of beef imports, by volume, to the United Kingdom in each of the past three years. [6608]

  Mr. Rooker
  Information on the total level of actual beef consumption is not available. However, estimates of the total volume of beef available for domestic usage are available in "Quarterly supplies and domestic usage of meat in the United Kingdom, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Information on the volume of beef imports (in carcase weight equivalent) is available from the same source.

  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what response he has made to the communication he has received from Commissioner Bonino in respect of alleged illegal exportation of beef from the United Kingdom; what actions he proposes to initiate on this matter; and if he will make a statement. [7094]

  Dr. Cunningham
  I replied immediately to Commissioner Bonino expressing my deep concern about the alleged illegal beef exports. I assured her that my officials were continuing their investigations into the allegations with the utmost speed and rigour in conjunction with the Commission's Anti-Fraud Unit and the Dutch authorities. I have placed a copy of the letter in the Library, of the House.

  Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to review salmon and freshwater fisheries legislation. [7190]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I will shortly be establishing a small, independent group to review all aspects of existing policies and legislation on salmon and freshwater fisheries in England and Wales. This will be a comprehensive review, intended to produce ideas for the future management and conservation of salmon and freshwater fish. We will be announcing the members of the review group in the autumn.

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish his Department's submissions relating to freedom of information legislation. [6030]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 2 July 1997]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 4 July. Official Report, columns 293–94.

  Fish (Abnormal Isoforms)
  Mr. Camphell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence his Department has evaluated in respect of the presence of abnormal isoforms of prion protein in normal fish. [6556]

  Mr. Rooker
  The only evidence that is available and has been evaluated by my Department is the paper recently published by C. J. Gibbs and C. L. Bolis, titled 'Normal isoform of amyloid protein (PrP) in brains of spawning salmon' (reference: MOLECULAR-PSYCHIATRY, 1997, V2, N2, MAR, Pp 145–147. ISSN: 1359–4184). In the knowledge that the normal isoform of Protease resistant Protein (PrP) has been identified in the tissues of all mammalian species thus far tested, as well as in Drosophila, the authors report the presence of this protein for the first time in the brains of fish (Pacific salmon). They go on to speculate about the theoretical probability that the abnormal isoform of PrP could arise spontaneously in fish, but do not report that it has been identified. This information has been passed to SEAC who have made no recommendations.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the incidence of abnormal isoforms of prion protein in experimentally-infected fish. [6557]

  Mr. Rooker
  As far as we are aware, there have been no experimental exposures of fish to spongiform encephalopathies.

  Food (Radioactive Contamination)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the maximum permitted level of radioactive contamination of foodstuffs following(a) a nuclear accident and (b) any other case of radiological emergency for nuclides of half-life greater than 10 days. [6401]

  Mr. Rooker
  Derived reference levels, which may he used as a basis for the fixing of maximum permitted levels of radioactive contamination for foodstuffs, are set by several European Union Regulations. These levels apply both to nuclear accidents and to any other case of nuclear emergency which is likely to lead, or has led, to significant radioactive contamination of food. The situation regarding the maximum permitted levels for radionuclides with a half-life of greater than 10 days is complicated, hut for most such nuclides and foods, a level of 1,250 Bq/kg would apply.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the likely impact of a criticality in an underground repository on foodstuffs. [6407]
  385
  Mr. Rooker
  No such assessment had been made. If an application for authorisation of an underground repository is made, MAFF will fulfil its role in assessing the associated safety case to ensure the safety of foodstuffs. This will encompass all relevant scenarios for the release of radionuclides.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what level of technetium 99 has been found in lobsters obtained from the Irish sea in the vicinity of Sellafield; and if it exceeds the maximum permitted level of radioactive contamination of food-stuffs for nuclides of half-life greater than 10 days. [6551]

  Mr. Rooker
  As reported in the MAFF report, "Radioactivity in Food and the Environment", the average level of technetium-99 in lobsters from the Irish Sea close to Sellafield was 8,300 Bq/kg in 1995. In 1996 the average level was 9,150 Bq/kg. The EU maximum permitted level of 1.250 Bq/kg only applies in the event of a nuclear accident and is not relevant in this case.

  The level would be applied in the early stages of an accident before an assessment can be made and is based on the most restrictive radionuclides. The radiological significance of technetium-99 is low in comparison. The annual radiation exposure to the most exposed group associated with lobster consumption was 18 µSv/year in 1995 and 29 µSv/year in 1996. This can be compared with the public dose limit of 1000 µSv/year and presents no food safety concerns.

  Departmental Accommodation
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will happen to the accommodation vacated by Ministers and officials in Whitehall Place. [6962]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The accommodation vacated by Ministers and officials in Whitehall Place will be occupied by staff of the Department. Within the next few years the Whitehall Place buildings will need to be vacated for renovation.

  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what date is planned for the move of Ministers and certain officials from Whitehall Place to Nobel House. [6958]

  Dr. Cunningham
  The move of Ministers and officials from Whitehall Place to Nobel House is expected to be completed by 30 November 1997.

  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for how long officials decanted out of Nobel House will remain in temporary accommodation; where is that accommodation; and what is the cost of making it available. [6964]

  Dr. Cunningham
  Officials decanted out of Nobel House are not expected to remain in temporary accommodation beyond 30 June 1998. The temporary accommodation is at St. Christopher House, Southwark Street, London SE1. It is estimated that it will cost £220,000 to prepare it for the Department's occupation. The building is already on the Government estate so there will be no additional rental costs to the Exchequer but the Department will pay an occupancy charge (rent, rates and 386
  service costs) of £367,000 for the year to the Property Advisers to the Civil Estate, an executive agency of the Cabinet Office.

  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many officials, listed according to function and grade, will be moved out of Nobel House to permit Ministers and other officials to move in. [6963]

  Mr. Cunningham
  The Department's Chief Scientist's Group will be moved out of Nobel House to St. Christopher House. The numbers and grades of officials are as follows:

  Senior Civil Service Grades: 5

  Grade 6: 10

  Grade 7: 16

  SEO and equivalent, and below: 89

  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the functions of his Department which will be located in Nobel House once Ministers and officials have moved there; and if he will list the functions remaining at Whitehall Place. [6954]

  Dr. Cunningham
  The main departmental functions in Nobel House, after Ministers have moved, will comprise the Permanent Secretary; three Heads of Directorate; the Secretariat; Press Branch; Fisheries Group; Environment Group; Establishments Group (part).

  The functions which will remain at Whitehall will comprise European Union and Livestock Group; Arable Crops Group (part); Food, Drink and Marketing Policy Group; Legal Department; and Economics and Statistics Group.

  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many officials, listed according to function, will move with Ministers to Nobel House. [6957]

  Dr. Cunningham
  The functions of the Department that will move from Whitehall Place to Nobel House are the Permanent Secretary, three Heads of Directorate, the Secretariat, Press Officials and other support staff. About 76 officials will move.

  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food what is the estimated cost of the move to Nobel House with special reference to reorganisation of rooms, increased security, and new conference facilities. [6966]

  Dr. Cunningham
  The estimated cost of moving Ministers and officials from Whitehall Place to Nobel House is £120,000. Re-organising rooms and providing new and better conference facilities will cost a further £240,000. Expenditure of this order would have been incurred anyway within the next few years when the Department renovated Whitehall Place. It is not anticipated that there would be any additional costs in relation to security provision.

  EU Presidency
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what facilities the Minister assesses are necessary to host the United Kingdom Presidency of the EU. [6955]
  388
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The United Kingdom presidency of the Agriculture and Fisheries Councils will require MAFF Ministers to host a series of meetings in London with EU Ministers and Commissioners over and above those they would normally expect to hold.

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

Museums and Galleries: Admission Charges
The Earl of Clancartyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy on the issue of free admission to public museums and galleries in the United Kingdom.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the decision on whether to offer free admission is one for the governing body of each museum and gallery to make. Nevertheless the Government believe that all members of the community should have the widest possible access to the national collections and are therefore reviewing the practice of charging for admission at some national museums and galleries. I hope that the review will be completed by the end of September.
The Earl of Clancarty: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Even at this late stage will not the Government intervene to stop the introduction of the general admission charge to museums run by National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside, which include the very important Walker Art Gallery, by guaranteeing what I think is in these circumstances the reasonably small amount of money required to prevent the budget from going into deficit?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we tried. The Secretary of State saw the director of the galleries on 24th June who took back to his trustees the message that we did not want them to charge, at any rate before the completion of our review in September. However, his trustees took the view that their fiduciary duty dictated that they had to charge.
As to making up any deficit, the problem with that is that it would be an open-ended commitment; anyone could introduce charges and require us to make up the deficit.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some galleries and museums close on certain days of the week simply because they cannot afford to pay for guards for each room? What do the Government suggest in order that they can pay the guards?
Is the Minister aware that Canterbury Cathedral is now to charge an entrance fee on Sundays?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as regards Canterbury Cathedral, I fear that that is outside the scope of this Question and of our ability to do anything about.
406
We are aware that some museums and galleries have had to restrict opening hours because of financial shortages, and that is very regrettable, but it is up to the trustees of each gallery to make sure that the government grant is used to the best possible effect in order to achieve the widest possible access.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that when I became Arts Minister in 1974 I inherited a charging arrangement in respect of all the national museums and galleries? Ten days later they were all free. I shall be very happy to advise my noble friend exactly how that was achieved.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on his powers of persuasion in 1974 and we shall certainly take his advice about how to achieve the same effect now. However, I fear that, with charging having been in operation in a number of museums and galleries for some years now, it will be rather more difficult than simply summoning everyone together and telling them to drop charges.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what proportion of the admission charge relates to tourists, bearing in mind that when I go away to foreign parts I am, as a museum-goer, obliged to pay entry charges to their museums? If admission were to be free, would it not be extremely sad to miss out on the admission charge that would be levied on tourists?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Museums and Galleries Commission has commissioned research from Glasgow Caledonian University into the nature and effect of charging by museums and galleries. One of the items in that research should be the extent of the revenue obtained from tourists. We hope to take the early results from that research into account when we undertake the review and we shall be able to answer the noble Lord's question more fully then.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether, as part of this review, the Government will consider helping the more important university museums, such as the Ashmolean at Oxford and the Fitzwilliam at Cambridge which are badly in need of financial assistance and house collections of national importance?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the review as planned does not cover either university museums or local authority museums or galleries but the research to which I referred in my previous answer does and the lessons learnt from museums run by universities and local authorities will be of great value in our review.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that many benefactors, among whom are forebears of your Lordships, generously gave to the national collections some of their finest works of art, on the understanding that they would be displayed for the benefit of the public free of charge, for ever? Will he please inform those directors of galleries and institutions

407
which are contemplating imposing admission charges that, first, we shall be very disappointed and secondly possibly they will be in breach of contract?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sure that it does not need me to inform the directors of museums and galleries of the issue raised by the noble Earl. They are aware that in some cases gifts to their collections were made with conditions which would restrict the imposition of charges and they will take that into account in any decision that they make. But it must be their decision.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, will the Government confirm that so long as trustees of national museums and galleries can lawfully make admission charges, Her Majesty's Government when distributing central government grants will not discriminate against those who do so?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware that under the Heath administration the 1972 Museums and Galleries Act allowed galleries and museums to impose charges. We cannot and would not discriminate between museums and galleries according to whether or not they charge. We allocate grant according to their needs.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside. Will the noble Lord accept that the Merseyside trustees came to their decision to introduce admission charges with the utmost reluctance and it was impossible to delay the introduction because everything had been set in motion? We now see the charges as a marketing tool, emphasising the lowness of the charges and introducing family tickets, season tickets and the like. Does the noble Lord agree, in the event of further government funding not being forthcoming and the introduction of charges becoming more widespread, that the idea of a code of best practice is something which should be studied?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I readily acknowledge the reluctance of the trustees of the National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside to impose charges. That was confirmed by letter in the Daily Telegraph on Saturday from the chairman of the trustees. I also recognise that the charges they propose to introduce are quite small. But, certainly, their experience will be useful in our review.

Cruelty to Wild Animals: 1951 Report
2.45 p.m.
Lord Denhamasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will cause the Report of the Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals, 1951 (Command 8266) to be reprinted and to ensure that enough copies are available to Members of both
408
Houses of Parliament and to the general public before a Bill or a Resolution on the subject matter of that report is debated in either House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, arrangements have been made to ensure that sufficient copies of the report are available to Members of both Houses and to the general public. Peers may obtain copies from the Printed Paper Office. Members of another place may obtain copies from the Vote Office. Members of the public may obtain copies from the Stationery Office, on demand, price £12.60.
Lord Denham: My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the words in his party's manifesto foreshadowing a free vote in Parliament on whether hunting with hounds should be banned by legislation. Is he also aware how grateful Members of both Houses will be that they can now take that decision with the benefit of the one authoritative document that will enable them to do so objectively?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. The Government's policy means that, as he said, we are committed to allowing a free vote on the issue. As he probably knows better than I, the Scott-Henderson report is about 40 years out of date. Further research, opinions and all contributions to this genuine question of public debate are welcomed.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the solution is to approve drag hunting, which has all the advantages of galloping over wonderful country in costume and not the disadvantage of cruelty to the fox?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, certainly that is a proposed alternative. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Denham, would agree with the thrust of the noble Earl's question. Drag hunting would have the benefit that it could not fairly be described as "the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable", which was Oscar Wilde's view of hunting. In any event, the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable has now been taken over by Mr. Tyson and Mr. Holyfield.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, last weekend the Prime Minister sent a message of support to the Gay Pride march. Is the Minister aware that on Thursday another minority group, people who live and work in the countryside of our nation and not just those who support hunting with hounds, is gathering in Hyde Park because those people feel that the voice of the countryside may not be listened to in this House and another place? Will the Prime Minister, who said that he would govern on behalf of the whole nation, also send a message of reassurance to the countryside rally on Thursday?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, your Lordships will be shocked that I myself was not

409
consulted by the Prime Minister as to whether or not he was going to send a message of support to Gay Pride. The noble Baroness makes a very serious and well taken point. I shall certainly undertake that her request is transmitted to the appropriate quarter. It is important that everyone in our community is listened to. I myself live in the country. I do not hunt foxes but some of my best friends do so. It is very important that people who think they are in a minority should have their voice clearly listened to. Perhaps I may say that they are very fortunate indeed to have the voice of moderate, rational reason, which is always the voice of the noble Baroness.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his assurance that everyone will be listened to is extremely welcome? Is he further aware that many people are worried that Ministers in particular, of all governments, listen carefully but, having done so, turn and go in the opposite direction to that advised?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord knows perfectly well that he and I often sat late at night on opposite Benches under the last regime; his comment is well justified.
Lord Monson: My Lords, will the Government also consider making available, though it is not a Stationery Office publication, the report of the expert scientific committee chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, published about 20 years ago, which established beyond doubt that fish feel pain and suffer from stress just as much as mammals?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am not sure that it is for the Government to disseminate the report of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. It is available. It is well known. And those who wish further argument for their views will dip in as appropriate.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, the report to which my noble friend refers covers many aspects of controlling wildlife. Can the Minister assure us that any review that is performed will look at the whole aspect of looking after rabbits, hares, otters and all other such animals? Will it also look at the whole question of trapping, gassing and poisoning as well as hunting which should be taken into consideration? The issue is how to control animals as well as how to prevent cruelty.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is extremely important that the welfare of all animals is carefully attended to. Whether it is wise to have a panoramic review of every single aspect of mistreatment of animals is questionable. What is likely to be before your Lordships if it passes another House
410
is a Private Member's Bill which will be dealt with in the usual way. That seeks to outlaw the hunting of wild mammals with the use of hounds.

Higher Education: Dearing Report
2.52 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaireasked Her Majesty's Government:
How they propose to promote public debate within and beyond Parliament on the future of higher education in the United Kingdom after the publication of the Dearing Report.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education is expected to be published later this month. At that point the Government will make a Statement and invite comments on its recommendations, with the intention of making a fuller response later in the year. The Government will also take into account the wide range of consultation already undertaken by the National Committee of Inquiry.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that urgency and importance push in different directions in relation to the report? The budgetary squeeze on universities is sufficiently acute for many of them to want to take decisions before the 1998 year. The importance of this for the future of universities suggests that a period of consultation—which may, for example, be from late July to late September, when most of us are on vacation—will not necessarily be such as to encourage wide public understanding.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am fully aware, having been the head of an academic institution myself, that universities are, in part at least, on holiday during August and September. However, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, many people in universities work extremely hard even in August and September. It has been known for a long time that the date of publication of the Dearing Committee's report would be towards the end of July. Most academic institutions and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals are well aware of that fact.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the University of Oxford's congregation met only once in August in the past 50 years? That was to acknowledge and receive a major private benefaction. Where there is money on the table, universities will ignore their so-called holidays.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is wise of them to ignore their holidays when there is money on the table.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that during the previous administration it became the practice of the Conservative Government to consult on

411
major changes in education during the summer vacation period? That gave a bad name to that government in regard to public consultation on significant issues. Can the Minister assure the House that that will not be the practice of the new Government?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that that will not happen. Perhaps I may put a little flesh on what I said earlier. The Dearing inquiry has already consulted widely in drawing up its recommendations. During the course of its work it received written evidence from 840 individuals and organisations and had 150 meetings with interested parties. Therefore, there has already been an enormous amount of consultation. Moreover, on the day of publication I plan to write to the representative bodies enclosing a copy of the Government's Statement and inviting comments on the recommendations addressed to them. We shall be listening to what people have to say throughout the summer and, indeed, in the early autumn.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I welcome the statement about more discussion. Has the Minister considered—I have heard rumours to this effect—how replacing A-levels with a baccalaureate-style examination will affect university funding? I ask that in view of the fact that all our neighbours who use the baccalaureate always have four-year university courses, and Scotland, which has the equivalent of the baccalaureate, also has four-year university courses. Therefore, if the baccalaureate is on the cards, has the Minister given thought to the effect on funding?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, this supplementary question is rather far from the Question on the Order Paper. However, I am happy to say that a consideration such as whether a baccalaureate should be introduced would take into account the position of higher education and of the universities in particular. Perhaps I may add that no decisions have been made about introducing a baccalaureate and any suggestions in the press that indicate that are inaccurate.

Commercial Vehicles: Weight Limits
2.57 p.m.
Earl Attleeasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to amend the Construction and Use Regulations to provide for an increase in axle or gross weights of articulated commercial vehicles. In doing so, he declared an interest in that he is president of the trade association affected by the legislation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, when the United Kingdom's derogation from certain of the European Community weight limits expires on 31st December 1998 we will allow increases in the
412
weight limits for articulated vehicles on international journeys from 38 to 40 tonnes for vehicles with five or more axles and from 35 to 38 tonnes for vehicles with four axles. In both cases the drive axle weight limit will be increased from 10.5 to 11.5 tonnes.
The previous government issued a consultation document which invited views on, among other things, a possible general increase in the maximum weight limit to 44 tonnes for certain six-axle articulated and drawbar vehicles. We are considering the responses and, in particular, the possible effect of any increase in maximum lorry weights on rail freight.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. What will be the effect of the increase in axle weights in relation to road damage?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, road and bridge wear depend upon how a vehicle's total weight is spread via the axles to the road surface. Wear is reduced by spreading loads evenly and avoiding heavy individual axles. The 44-tonne six-axle vehicles with the drive axle weight limited to 10.5 tonnes cause no more wear than the 38-tonne five-axle vehicles that we already have.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Sub-Committee B of the European Communities Committee, of which I was then a member, recently published a report which came down in favour of 44-tonne six-axle vehicles because they do less damage to the road than the 40-tonne five-axle vehicles which we will have to accept at the end of next year in any case? Is the noble Baroness also aware that there is an estimate of 6,000 to 7,000 lorries being taken off the road if we go to 44 tonnes, most of which would not be applicable for rail freight? For example, petrol tankers delivering to garages by the side of the road would be an area where there would be a substantial reduction in the total number of lorries.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am aware of the arguments that the noble Lord puts forward. Although 44-tonne six-axle lorries would be more efficient and no more damaging than existing vehicles, the responses to the previous government's consultation document on lorry weights confirmed that there would be some loss of freight traffic from rail to road. The Government's overriding goal is to win more freight to the railways. So we shall have to consider that aspect very carefully as we work up proposals for an integrated transport policy.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. Is the Minister aware that when Sweden raised the maximum lorry weight from 40 to 60 tonnes 23 per cent. of the traffic was lost from rail to road? Does she agree that when 44 tonnes were being taken on six axles there was less pressure on the road surface? Does she further agree that when there are 44-tonne lorries on bridges nose to tail the extra four tonnes must cause more damage to big bridges?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my noble friend's contribution shows clearly that there is not a unanimity

413
of view on this issue and that we have to weigh up carefully the arguments that have been put in response to the consultation document and look carefully at the impact on rail freight.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, does the Minister also accept the need to achieve standardisation of maximum weights right across the EU? How will she achieve that?
Baroness Hayman: I suspect not single-handedly, my Lords. Many countries find that it is in their interests not to standardise in the sense that we have to have standardisation for international traffic but not necessarily for national traffic. There is also the issue of not having standardisation between journeys that take place only by road and having perhaps different weights for those that involve rail and road journeys. There are some complexities involved.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell attentive but ill-informed Members of the House like myself whether they are right in thinking that she did say that we shall shortly be obliged to admit lorries of greater axle weight than in the past? If that is the case, are we to face a massive programme of bridge closure, strengthening and cost?
Baroness Hayman: That was what I said, my Lords. We are under an obligation from 1st January 1999 to accept those lorries with higher axle weights. That has brought with it a programme of bridge strengthening, because we are equally under an obligation to have for international transport the primary routes available to those vehicles. By 1st January 1999 the Highways Agency aims to ensure that 40-tonne vehicles can use all structures carrying trunk roads and other important routes over trunk roads.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, can my noble friend give any idea of the number of bridges on country roads or in remote places that may need to be blocked off? It would be quite impractical to strengthen all of them. Many are of a masonry construction and not steel. It would be almost impossible to strengthen all of them. Has that point been considered with care? Will we have a whole series of signs saying, "No access to this road for vehicles over 44 tonnes in weight"?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, those are precisely the issues the Highways Agency has been addressing. It makes sense for the Highways Agency to concentrate on the motorway and trunk road network and for local authorities to concentrate on strengthening only those bridges on the routes where the most substantial flows of HGVs will take place. In most cases this will mean the primary route network, but we have to consider the areas where there are local roads leading to important industrial sites which need access.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, can the noble Baroness assure the House that there will be a sufficient
414
interval—say, a few weeks—before these new weights come into force so that Westminster Bridge can be opened just for a short time?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am sure that my honourable friend the Minister of Transport for London will have that point very much in mind. I shall pass the noble Lord's comments on to her.
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, will my noble friend acknowledge that the huge juggernauts she is talking about are all very well on motorways and trunk roads but are an entirely different proposition in small towns and villages? Is there not a case to be made for banning juggernauts of these new huge axle weights from all small towns and villages?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my noble friend makes a point that is obviously echoed around the House. I believe that a local view needs to be taken on whether to strengthen the structures on non-trunk roads or whether to use alternative measures, which might include a lorry ban.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, what increases in licensing charges will be imposed on these larger vehicles? Can the Minister say how part of the revenue resulting from any increase in licensing charges will be passed on to the local authorities which have to sustain the cost of upgrading the bridges and roads?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the cost of the upgrading programme is being met through grants from the Department of Transport. The issue of road fund taxation and its potential hypothecation is one that is considered primarily by the Chancellor.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, the answers the noble Baroness has given us have raised some concerns in my mind as to the amounts of money we shall have to find to meet an EU directive on these vehicles. Is there a case for applying to Brussels for EU structural funds to meet the cost of the directive?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, on the surface that sounds an attractive proposition. However, I have to say to the noble Baroness that we have had a derogation from 1985 to 1999 to undertake this programme. It is undoubtedly an expensive programme and I shall certainly bear her suggestion in mind.

Business
3.6 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Blackstone will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the White Paper on excellence in schools. I should like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that

415
discussion on a Statement following the end of the Minister's initial reply to the Opposition spokesmen should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification.

Succession to the Crown
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty may be graciously pleased to allow that Her undoubted Prerogative and interest may not stand in the way of the consideration by Parliament during the present Session of any measure providing for the removal of any distinction between the sexes in determining the succession to the Crown.—(Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Coordinated Universal Time Bill [H.L.]
Report received.
Law Officers Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill
3.9 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Sewel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 3 [Referendums: supplementary]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 2, line 32, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) The Secretaries of State, shall appoint an Independent Statutory Commission which shall monitor the conduct of the referendums provided for under this Act, and shall, in the light of the referendums, draw up recommendations for the conduct of future referendums, having regard to the 1996 Report of the Commission on the Conduct of Referendums, such recommendations to be laid before each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: At Second Reading Members of the Committee will remember that I highlighted the need for a referendums Bill and then a referendums Act if, as
416
the Government have promised, we are to have a number of referendums. I prayed in aid at a little length the report of the Commission on the Conduct of Referendums. I make no apology for doing so again today. Paragraph 40 of the report states:
"The various Representation of the People Acts govern the way in which elections are run in the UK and, through the provision of a consistent framework, ensure that they are fair. There is no comparable statute for referendums, and the arrangements for elections cannot simply be applied without change".
We certainly know the truth of the last phrase,
"[they] cannot simply be applied without change",
because late on Thursday evening I invited the Committee to consider an amendment which the Government accepted in principle. It will incorporate the two draft orders which accompany this Bill into primary legislation. I did so not only because I believe it is important that we discuss them as primary legislation, but also because—just in case some Members of the Committee missed the real significance—it should allow your Lordships and Members of the other place to rise for the Summer Recess at the end of July. If the Government had not had that "lifebelt", as I would describe it, thrown to them by me they would have had to keep Members of the Committee and of the other place going until about 7th August. I know that Members of the Committee are keen to stay here as long as they possibly can, but I must tell the House that those Members of the other place, especially Scottish MPs whose children have been on holiday now for a week and who go back to school in the middle of August, will not be pleased (at least, that is what they will tell their wives!) if they have to stay down here until almost the end of the school holidays.
I remember in the early 1980s that, for a number of reasons, the House sat well into August and how difficult it was for those of us with young children. Therefore, I very much hope that, having been helpful to the Government, I will hear no more statements from Downing Street or from the Secretary of State for Scotland about how obstructive the Opposition has been on this Bill. I believe by that one single stroke I have proved that I am being critical, but that I am not being obstructive.
My reason for introducing the draft orders and the schedules late on Thursday, apart from trying to help the members of the Committee with their August diary, was to highlight and underline how difficult it is to take the Representation of the People Act and amend it so that it applies to referendums. If the Committee has studied the draft it will see that it runs to many pages. It was on the Order Paper on Tuesday and Thursday of last week with the amendment to incorporate the draft as one of the schedules to the Bill.
I sat in the Library for some little time with the Representation of the People Act, following the changes that were being proposed by the Government in the orders. I hope that they got them all right because if they did not it may prove rather difficult to run the referendums. There may be small technical and logistical problems when it comes to running them. That is why I believe that it would be very much simpler to

417
do as the commission suggests and have a proper referendums Act so that all these matters can be properly dealt with.
Perhaps I may return to the words of the commission. It said very clearly that,
"Guidance should be drawn up dealing with organisational, administrative and procedural matters associated with holding a referendum. Established guidelines should include fixed rules for some matters (for example, the organisation of the poll, the election machinery and the count). For other matters, on which it is impossible to determine rules in advance (for example, wording of the question) the guidance should state how a decision should be reached".
That was the case I was arguing at Second Reading. I am not arguing that we should wait for a referendums Act before we have the Scottish and Welsh referendums. That would mean that I was attempting to delay the referendums until later. While I believe that there is a huge argument in favour of having the referendums after the necessary legislation is passed, I appreciate that the Government have a mandate to do it in this way, which I believe is wrong.
On the previous occasions in this country when we have had referendums, we have worked in the same kind of ad hoc way as we are doing in the present case, with amendments being made to the Representation of the People Act. Following the passage of the Referendum Act 1975, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, was appointed chief counting officer with responsibility for a number of matters relating to the referendum. When it came to the Scotland and Wales Act the incorporation of these provisions was handled by the civil servants in a constitutional unit.
If we are to have a number of referendums—and we are certainly promised them—we ought to consider very seriously the need for an independent statutory commission and a referendums Act. The independent statutory commission would make sure that the referendums were properly run under the proposals in any referendums Act.
Paragraph 47 of the commission's report says,
"There is now a strong case for giving responsibility for the conduct of referendums to an independent body. Public confidence in the neutrality of the conduct of a referendum is essential if the result is to be accepted as legitimate, particularly where the Government is pledged to support a specific outcome, or the interests of Members of Parliament are directly affected".
It is very obvious that in this case the Government have pledged to support a specific outcome.
The independent body would do a number of things. It would advise on the wording of the question; on allocating funds to campaign groups; it would liaise with and act as moderator between any campaign groups; it would act in an ombudsman's role to deal with any complaints; monitor balanced access to broadcasting media—I shall come back to that—provide public information including a balance statement of the opposing arguments—I shall come back to that in another amendment later on this afternoon—supervise the organisation for each polling station and the counting and declaration arrangements.
All these things require to be done—and would be better done—by an independent statutory commission backed by a referendums Act. As I have said. I
418
appreciate that that cannot be done in this case, but we have an opportunity before us to set up a body, which I have called an independent statutory commission, in order to monitor the referendums that we are going to hold in September, or whenever it is. As I have said before, that still seems to be a state secret although it is to be hoped, as I believe it is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate who is to reply to me on this occasion, that I might manage to squeeze from him the date for these referendums having signally failed to squeeze it from the noble Lords, Lord Sewel and Lord Williams of Mostyn. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will be a good deal more forthcoming as befits his high office, independent of the Government in many of its aspects. I shall not hold my breath as regards that expectation, but I certainly express it. If the Lord Advocate wishes to tell us the date of the referendums we shall be very grateful. We can then put it in our diaries so that those of us who are fortunate enough to have a vote will be able to make sure that we are at the polling station that day.
As I have said, when we look at how the referendum works it would be useful to have a body which can study the problems that arise—and I imagine that there will be problems—such as the places where it might be better to run it in a slightly different way from the way in which we run elections under the Representation of the People Act. In such cases there are candidates who have election campaigns in their constituencies and so on. That is an entirely different situation from that where there are no candidates, but the electorate has to fill in some answers on a ballot paper. There is also the question of national campaigns, perhaps with local organisations, but nonetheless national campaigns. For example, the returning officer does not have in each constituency a candidate and election agent to turn to if a problem arises which he needs to discuss. All these matters deserve to be looked at.
Amendment No. 47, which is grouped with Amendment No. 45, also asks the independent statutory commission to report on the impartiality of broadcasting material during the campaign. I was happy to accept the assurance from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, late on Thursday evening that that campaign will last about six weeks, give or take a week or two, from the publication of the White Paper, which is the important basis on which people will have to make up their minds. Clearly, the rules to which we are accustomed in relation to broadcasting during general election campaigns are not exactly applicable in this case. I shall not go into any great detail now because I have a more detailed amendment later which relates specifically to broadcasting. I hope that the Government will then be forthcoming and give us their views on what they would expect the rules governing the broadcasters to be during the campaign and, indeed, on how long that campaign will last. Such matters are defined in statute for general elections and local government elections, so everybody knows when the campaign is up and running and when the election rules have to be obeyed.
I hope that the Government will address the issue of establishing a statutory commission and a referendums Act. I do not recall that too much mention was made of the case that I presented at Second Reading—I am not complaining about that—but in summary perhaps I may remind the Government of guideline No. 3 in paragraph 67 of the commission's report. It states:
"If a Government is planning a series of referendums"—
I understand that that is what this Government are doing—
"it has the option of establishing a statutory framework for the conduct of referendums through the enactment of a generic Referendum Act. Such an Act would demonstrate the Government's commitment to the efficient, fair and consistent conduct of referendums. It would provide for the establishment of an independent 'Referendum Commission' and include fixed rules for some matters (for example the organisation of the poll and the count). For other matters, on which it is impossible to determine rules in advance (for example, the wording of the question) the Act should set out how a decision should be reached. Those matters which will be different in each referendum and are likely to be of Parliamentary concern could be dealt with through primary legislation on each occasion".
I know that I cannot have that in the referendums that we are about to have, but I believe that those referendums should provide a learning curve, if I may put it like that, for a general referendums Act and an independent commission. My proposal for an independent statutory commission to look at the way in which the referendums in September are to be conducted would, if implemented, be a major step towards having an independent commission responsible for the holding of all referendums and for a referendums Act. I very much hope that the Government will accept that I am not trying to do anything to disrupt the referendum that they propose to hold in September; instead I am looking at the broader picture of all the referendums that we are promised in the years to come. I beg to move.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie): As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, explained, these two amendments relate to the establishment of an independent commission to monitor the conduct of the referendums provided for under this Bill and then to draw up recommendations for the future conduct of referendums. I could understand the noble Lord's comments if this was to be the first ever referendum but, as the report of the Commission on the Conduct of Referendums acknowledges, previous referendums have been held successfully without guidelines and without such a commission and I have no doubt that forthcoming referendums will be conducted as successfully. The Government do not therefore see the need to set up such a statutory commission, as the noble Lord has suggested.
Each referendum is different. Whether it is a UK-wide referendum or in relation to a specific part of the country, there are bound to be differences in the conduct. The answer to questions such as how many questions there should be on the ballot paper or the wording of the propositions will depend on the issue in the particular referendum in question. I do not see how it will be possible to set down general rules for all future referendums. Quite rightly, I believe that Parliament will
420
wish to consider the legislation providing for each referendum as we are doing here today. We will therefore have the opportunity to consider how each individual referendum will be run, so I do not think anything will be gained by accepting these amendments.
Amendment No. 45 is unnecessary and would be likely to lead to delay in holding the referendums in Scotland and Wales, despite the statement by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, that that is not his intention. The Government were elected on their manifesto commitment to legislate for a Scottish parliament and a Welsh assembly in our first year, following referendums. This Bill has been introduced to implement that commitment. Furthermore, we are committed to the referendums taking place not later than the autumn of 1997. At this stage perhaps I may put the noble Lord out of his misery. I regret that I am unable to be more precise than were my noble friends, but I am pleased to note—I have concern for the noble Lord's health—that he did not hold his breath while awaiting this information.
I turn now to Amendment No. 47, which would require the independent statutory commission to report on the impartiality of broadcasting and on the publication and distribution of campaign material. There are already rules on broadcasting which require fairness, balance and impartiality. I do not consider that any improvements can be made to these rules by an independent commission.
Under the broadcasting arrangements in this country, responsibility for what is broadcast on television and radio rests with the broadcasters and the regulatory bodies—that is, the governors of the BBC, the Independent Television Commission, S4C (the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority) and the Radio Authority. These bodies are already independent of the government and are responsible for safeguarding the public interest in broadcasting. In carrying out their responsibilities, the regulatory bodies have a duty to treat controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality, both in news services and in the more general area of programmes dealing with matters of public policy or of political controversy. Each body is required to establish and follow a code to ensure that those general principles are followed. The code ensures that reporting is dispassionate, wide-ranging and well informed. Programme-makers must ensure that over a reasonable period of time a proper balance of different points of view is achieved. In my respectful submission, the amendment would not add either to the code or to the practice which already exists.
The noble Lord referred to the period of time, but I anticipate that once the Bill is passed and once the date of the referendum is known and published, the period will have begun and broadcasters will then be under an obligation to ensure that due impartiality is observed. In all the circumstances, I cannot accept the amendment and I urge the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I rise to speak because of experience of the only three referendums to have taken place in the United Kingdom. I played a fairly prominent part in the referendum in 1975 on whether

421
we should stay in the EEC, as it then was, and in 1979 I took part in the referendum in Scotland—not in Wales—but both were held on the same day on that occasion.
As I have said, both in 1979 in this House and more recently, there were quite a number of complaints about what happened and about whether there were proper rules governing the Scottish referendum. I even had a debate in this House nine days after polling day, when a number of noble Lords raised points about that referendum.
Since 1979 there has been a feeling that a referendum is likely to be a rare event in this country, but as my noble friend has pointed out it appears that we are in for a rash of referendums in future. Therefore, it seems sensible to try to draw up some general rules. Of course, each referendum will deal with a different subject. However, in 1979 in Scotland there was three months' notice. The polling day of 1st March was announced at the end of November. Even with all that time there were many complaints about the running of it because in those days a referendum was something quite new. I believe that it would be worth while drawing up some rules. Recommendations have been made by a body that has looked at the whole of this matter.
I can understand why the Government say that perhaps there is not time to do all of this before September, but I believe that, in the light of the experience of the only three referendums that have ever been held in this country, in principle my noble friend's suggestion that something should be set up to deal with referendums in general in future is very sensible.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: This is a serious problem and another manifestation of the absence in this Bill of any means of implementation. One merely has the broad principle but no means of implementing it. A referendum should have some ground rules. It may be that one cannot have general rules because each referendum has its own quality, but surely the Government can accept that there should be ground rules as a safeguard for the authenticity of the result. I took this point, albeit in another form, on Second Reading. This amendment is in a much better form. I cannot see any objection to it. It cannot delay matters. If the noble and learned Lord questions this, can he kindly say why there should be any delay?
If one incorporates in the Bill some ground rules to deal with these subjects—one does not waste time by referring to them because all noble Lords are familiar with them—can there be any conceivable objection to them? My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish has not challenged the principle but merely seeks to perfect it and achieve a reasonable result. If the situation is as the noble and learned Lord has stated, what on earth is the object of Orders in Council in the Bill? I invite the noble and learned Lord to look at Clause 3(1). What are these Orders in Council for if everything is perfectly satisfactory? If it is said that they provide a measure of safeguard one replies that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of
422
Ardbrecknish, provides a measure of safeguard—and, one suggests, a much better one. I ask that the Government think again about this. Delay is not the answer. I suggest that there is no real objection to it.
Earl Russell: On Saturday I was struck by a slightly unfamiliar moment of sympathy for the Prime Minister. In the course of driving to Oxford along the M.40—I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, knows what I am about to say next—I saw an enormous notice which announced that delays would be possible until 1999. That must be the advice that the noble and learned Lord is receiving from every quarter.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has made out a very interesting case for a general referendums Act. I am extremely pleased to hear him say that he does not propose to introduce such legislation before the passage of this Bill, which means that a good deal of what he has said is slightly wide of the purposes of this Bill. As to his amendments on the Marshalled List, as far as I understand them they simply say that he is against sin. I hope that the noble Lord who moved the amendment was not in any doubt of it.
Lord Renton: I rise to emphasise the difference between an Order in Council and an independent commission's report. An Order in Council is bound to be party politically motivated because it is formulated by the Government of the day and will very often arouse controversy in both Houses. But if one had an independent commission that advised all concerned on how referendums should be conducted it would be above political suspicion and would be impartial. When it is realised that referendums can have tremendous consequences, and are likely to have in future if they deal with constitutional matters, we should make that big distinction clear in our minds.
Lord Beloff: As always, I rise merely for illumination. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to explain how it is possible to transfer the responsibilities of the broadcasting authorities for impartiality in general elections to impartiality without further definition in the case of a referendum. One understands that in general elections various conventions have developed over the years that proper weight should be given to all the contesting parties. As has been pointed out, in the proposed referendums there are no contesting parties but simply persons for and persons against. But are the broadcasting authorities required to give some voice also to those who approach the question from neither side? There are those who are neither in favour of the proposed devolution nor against it. Is the Scottish National Party, for whose ideals I retain great admiration, to be allowed a voice during the campaign to put a point of view that is neither "Yes" nor "No" in the ordinary sense? Is there not here a problem of impartiality that should be looked at again?
Lord Hardie: I deal first with the last point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. Noble Lords will appreciate that I do not speak for the Scottish National

423
Party. I do not understand what position it will adopt when the referendum takes place. The issue is not one of favouring or otherwise particular political parties. The obligation on the broadcasters is to provide a balance of different points of view. To answer the noble Lord shortly, the whole question of transposing the rules of broadcasting from general elections to referendums has already been decided by the courts in Scotland. In 1979 during the previous referendum that issue was addressed in Wilson v. IBC. In that case the courts held that it was important to ensure that due impartiality was achieved and that due weight was given to each of the various people who supported or opposed the proposal. The noble Lord can be assured that the courts will preserve and enforce the independence of broadcasters but equally will ensure that they act with due impartiality.
As far as concerns the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I accept that Orders in Council are quite different from legislation. I also accept that on occasions Orders in Council can be in favour of one party. However, as the noble Lord may have failed to appreciate, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, alluded to that in his speech this afternoon. An amendment was accepted by the Government that Orders in Council would be incorporated into legislation. I can assure the noble Lord that there is no question of partiality, because my noble friend has already approached noble Members opposite to discuss with them the terms of the appropriate—
Lord Renton: With great respect to the noble and learned Lord, perhaps I did not make myself clear. There is a big difference between an Order in Council being incorporated in primary legislation and an Order in Council being the alternative to the report of an independent commission. They are different situations.
Lord Hardie: I should have thought that it would have been much stronger were it incorporated in private legislation, because it would be not only achieved following discussion with the party opposite, but it would be subject to the scrutiny of this place.
I turn now to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. The procedure to be adopted will be covered by the Act. I adopt the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to the effect that if the Committee wishes an independent commission then this is not the appropriate time or place to be considering such a course. It is not necessary or relevant to the Bill, if as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, indicated, it is not designed to delay the Bill's passage, or, for that matter, to delay the referendum.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to those Members of the Committee who have spoken on the amendment and supported it. I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for his response. Of course I appreciate the difficulty of setting up a commission, as I propose, in the short time we have available. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, with whom I have crossed swords on a fair number of occasions, reminded me of certain things that I should avoid doing.
424
I think that he was saying that I should avoid trying to encourage this place to sit between now and the September date to pass the legislation necessary to set up such a commission.
What I wanted to do, and I am pleased that I did it, although I rather wish that I had received a better response from the Government, was to raise the general question raised by the Commission on the Conduct of Referendums regarding setting up a statutory commission to look after referendums and doing it on the basis of a referendums Act. I do not want to detain the Committee. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate was being a little general when he thought that we could scrutinise the draft orders now that they are incorporated into legislation. Indeed we could, but it would require a good deal of time spent in the Library. Of course the other place will have an opportunity to scrutinise the proposal when the Bill returns to it with the amendment that the Government have promised to bring forward.
I should give the Committee a flavour of what goes on with draft orders. I do it at random, I suppose. The amendment refers to Section 102 of the Representation of the People Act which relates to no payment for the conveyance of voters. It states:
"For 'the election of a candidate' substitute 'a particular result at the poll'".
We go through section after section of the Representation of the People Act either amending them or saying that they do not apply or that they do apply. The Committee will therefore appreciate that it is not clear; it is reasonably well done if one sits with the Acts.
If we are to have a number of referendums, we should have an Act at which one could look to see how the systems will run and we should not have to do this toing and froing. I appreciate that that was the way that the 1975 referendum was done. Those of us who were around politics at the time, although not in either House, will remember that it was very much a novel idea. It was not thought to be something that was going to be part and parcel of our constitution. The same is true of the 1979 referendum.
The difference this time is that we have a government promising a number of referendums. That is why I believe that it would have been good if we could have had some information from the noble and learned Lord that the Government understood the point being made this afternoon; understood the point being made by the commission, and were prepared to say, "Yes, we will come forward with a referendums Bill which will do for referendums what the Representations of the People Act does for parliamentary and local government elections". In other words, this is not in any way a batty idea of one of the Members of the Opposition Front Bench in this place.
That is in fact the considered view of a commission set up by the Constitution Unit and the Electoral Reform Society, chaired by no less a person than Sir Patrick Nairne who was responsible for the work done to bring the 1975 referendum to the polling station. The deputy chairman was Dr. David Butler, someone we have all watched on television and read pontificating on

425
elections and electoral matters. The commission had on it no less a person than the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham. I had rather hoped that I might have recruited a Liberal or two to support the idea in principle, but I have long since learnt that to recruit a Liberal or two to say anything mildly critical of the Government is expecting latter-day miracles.
3.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: I do not think that the noble Lord is listening. I did say something sympathetic in principle, but not relevant to the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I heard the noble Earl say that, and I am looking forward to him giving support to the Government for the various proposals on social security about which I was reading in the Sunday newspapers. That may be an interesting debate when it happens.
As I said, the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, was on the commission. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, was on it. She is now a Government Whip so it was not even a conspiracy between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Party. Just to show that it was balanced, my honourable friend Mr. John Whittingdale MP was also on it. The people I have mentioned, and other equally impressive names who were on the commission, gave the matter a great deal of thought and came to that conclusion.
I was disappointed that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate did not give us even a hint that the Government might, after the referendums are out of the way in September, return to the issue and look seriously at the proposition that we should have an Act and a commission for the proper conduct of future referendums.
We shall come to broadcasting in a minute, but just to give the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate a bit of notice, I thought that he said the proper balance in broadcasting should be from when we know the date until when the referendum takes place. Every indication is that in this case that will not be very long. In 1979, it was a whole three months. I am not entirely sure that we could have three months of operating the broadcasting rules on the basis of a referendum which is to come. That might be difficult. We will return to that point.
Perhaps I may help my noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate who did not seem to know what position the SNP will adopt. He seemed to give the impression to my noble friend that he did not really care. That is not how I read the Scottish press. It seems to me that the Government care a great deal. They are absolutely desperate to recruit the SNP in the "Yes, yes" campaign. Perhaps I should call it the "Yes, yes chorus". I think that we will find later this afternoon that the last thing they want to give the SNP is the option to show how many or how few of my fellow Scots want independence. The reason is simple. The Government know that they need to bolster the numbers wanting devolution with the numbers wanting independence. As I told the Government at an earlier stage, it will mean that in future the Scottish National Party will be able to say, "You would not have won this referendum if it had not
426
been for the votes of those who want independence". If that is a recipe for stability in our constitution, then it is Tuesday today!
I believe that the Government should think seriously about that problem when we deal with it later. I hope that I have helped the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate by telling him what his party is doing in the political sense as opposed to the legal sense in which he operates. With a certain disappointment that we have not had a more sympathetic response to the general proposition, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 48:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
NO PUBLIC MONEY TO BE USED FOR REFERENDUM CAMPAIGNS
(" . No public money shall be paid to any organisation established to campaign for either side on any of the questions in these referendums; nor shall any civil servant engage in political or public debate.").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment to put the Government's intention on record. It relates to the question of whether public money should be paid to any organisation established to campaign on either side or on any of the questions in the referendums. Furthermore, it puts on the face of the Bill the fact that no civil servant shall engage in political or public debate.
I shall address the two parts of the amendment briefly. It is clear that the Government will not stop their activity for the duration of the referendum. It is fair to say that the Government will be campaigning hard in order to obtain a "Yes, yes", vote. Therefore, one can put no constraints on the Government in expressing those views. However, they must be careful, first, about taxpayers' money going into, in this case, the "Yes, yes" side. I understand that there may be a position in which the Government will wish to fund both sides. However, that may be a good deal easier in Wales where there is a "both sides" argument. In Scotland there appears to be a quadrilateral argument—
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to the former Minister for allowing us to discuss the referendum. Will he tell us which are the two sides in Wales that are so transparently obvious to him?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The two sides are those for and those against. I understand that they are even represented within the governing party in Wales where, if they are allowed to have their say, there are some for and some against. I understand that the suggestion that they will not be allowed to have their say is totally unjustified. They will be allowed to campaign against the "Yes" vote. Therefore, there are two sides in Wales.
Theoretically, there are four sides in Scotland. It is a quadrilateral argument because of the two questions. Therefore, if the Government were funding one campaign

427
they might have to fund all four, which shows how ridiculous it is to ask two questions in the form in which they are to be asked in the referendum in Scotland.
I wish to establish whether the Government intend to give public funding to any of the groups campaigning in the referendum. If they do not intend to do so will they give the Committee an assurance that no public money will be used to fund the campaign supported by the Government. It is always difficult to create a Chinese wall between what Government Ministers do and do not do, but in Whitehall there is a well exercised way of dealing with that. All of us who have been Ministers know the distinction between operating as a Minister and when wearing one's party political hat. Putting it at its simplest, the government car disappears in the latter. That is the outward manifestation. I trust that people from the press office, who mind the words of every Minister as they drop from their lips, usually recording them in case they are misconstrued or have made a mistake and must be corrected, will not be present. They are never present when a Minister undertakes party political activities.
We must be clear about the funding, the government machine and the position of civil servants. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will give us an assurance about them, but it is right that we should ask for that. If money is to be disbursed to any organisation's established campaign will it be disbursed to all organisations? I beg to move.
Lord Sewel: The effect of the proposed new clause is to prohibit the public funding of campaigning organisations and civil servants engaging in related political or public debate. I accept it as a probing amendment and on this occasion it is right and proper that the Opposition should seek to probe the Government in order to ensure the proprieties of the whole referendum process. I have no quibble with the Opposition probing on this matter and can say unequivocally that we are sympathetic, understanding and positive in our response.
However, we cannot accept the amendment because the new clause is unnecessary. During the Second Reading in another place, the Secretary of State made it clear that it would be for the political parties to decide how to campaign and that the Government did not propose to provide any state aid to any party to campaign either for or against our proposal. In our view, public funds should not be used to fund campaigning organisations in these referendums. It was not done in 1979 and we have no intention of changing the practice. The campaigning bodies will be independent of government and it would not be appropriate to use public funds to fund their activities. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, as regards the first point.
As regards civil servants, the noble Lord referred to the well-known practices which exist in Whitehall and the relationship between civil servants and Ministers when acting both as Ministers and party politicians. We expect that practice to continue. I am sure that the noble Lord was not implying that the Civil Service is less than impartial in any of these matters. He is fully aware of the detailed rules governing political activities by civil servants. It is not the Government's intention to change those rules or
428
in any way to seek to persuade civil servants to behave improperly in any context. We believe in a politically neutral, impartial Civil Service. We have no intention of asking civil servants to behave in anything other than a proper manner and I reject entirely any suggestions that we are doing anything other than that.
Therefore, I confirm that we have no intention of funding campaigning organisations. I hope that the Committee will accept my assurance that civil servants will, as in all campaigns, act with due propriety during the referendum campaign in accordance with their traditional role. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord to reflect on the fact that there is no need for the new clause and to withdraw it.
4 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: Perhaps the Minister will help me with one matter. It appears that the Government's policy is that there should be a "Yes, yes" answer to the referendum. That is perfectly reasonable. I do not agree with that but that is what they want. Does that mean that if a Minister campaigns in favour of the referendum, which is government policy, he then receives help from civil servants in that campaign? I cannot see anything wrong with that even though I disagree with it because that is government policy and civil servants are there to carry out government policy. I hope the noble Lord understands my dilemma.
Lord Sewel: In that situation, the Minister would be in the role of the party politician. The shorthand phrase is the one that I take from the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: the Ministerial car disappears.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: And that is the greatest punishment of all, I must say. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, for his assurances. They were no less than I would expect. I often wonder how civil servants manage to divine the differences but the Civil Service has a keen awareness of the need to keep apart the political and governmental roles of Ministers. I had no doubt that that would continue but I am pleased to have the Minister's assurance.
On the first proposition about funding, it would have been possible for the Government to have funded the campaigns. I gather that that happened to some extent in 1975, although I may be wrong about that. It did not happen in 1979. However, there was therefore a precedent for that question and raising the issue as to whether public funding would be available. The noble Lord has made it perfectly clear that it will not be available and I am satisfied with his assurances. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 49:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
BROADCASTING: IMPARTIALITY
(" .—(1) Every broadcasting authority and all persons employed by or through any such authority shall take all necessary steps up to and during the referendum campaign to ensure that full impartiality and relevance is observed in the conduct of all interviews, current affairs programmes, editing and reporting as between those arguing for and against the questions required to be answered under sections 1 and 2.
(2) No party political broadcast referring to the referendums or to the affairs of Scotland or Wales shall be transmitted between the enactment of this legislation and the date of the referendums.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with broadcasting and party political broadcasts during the time of the campaign. I referred earlier to the duration of the campaign. I suspect that because this campaign will take place in August, its nature will be considerably different from the campaign fought on the last occasion in late January and February.
I believe also that, 20 years on, the way we fight elections has changed quite dramatically. In 1979 parliamentary elections were still being fought in constituencies with two or three meetings per night. The political meeting was still going strong. The referendum campaign was fought in exactly the same way. I am sure that was true also in Wales. There were meetings up and down the country in village halls and schools which were both for and against the propositions being put to the Scottish and Welsh people.
Nowadays, the number of public meetings at election time has reduced considerably. Sometimes I wonder what parliamentary candidates do these days in the evenings if they do not address public meetings. But there it is.
Therefore, I cannot see the referendum campaign being fought in the same manner as it was the last time, with meetings up and down the country. Therefore, I shall be deprived of the pleasure of sharing platforms with some very interesting people. However, I should be deprived of that pleasure in any event because one or two of them have changed their minds. I certainly remember sharing a platform with Mr. Brian Wilson, who is now a Minister of State. I mean that we shared a platform in the sense that we were not on opposing sides of it. We were both advocating the same "No" result in the campaign. Mr. Wilson has changed.
Viscount Cranborne: He has been "Mandelsoned".
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: No, I said Wilson not Mandelson! Mr. Wilson has changed his mind and I shall not have the pleasure of sharing a platform with him unless I find myself on opposing sides of it. I still live in hope that I may be able to share a platform with Mr. Tam Dalyell.
Those of my noble and honourable friends campaigning in Wales will certainly be able to share platforms with Labour MPs if they wish to do so. On
430
the other hand, they may have to campaign in their own campaign, "untainted" so to speak by any Conservatives in it. But that is another issue.
Lord Elis-Thomas: Did the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, refer to Welsh Labour MPs in the plural?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My understanding is that there is a plural of Welsh MPs. However, I learnt that from the newspapers in which I believe it was said that up to four Labour MPs in Wales—and perhaps more—have been noted as being opposed to the measure, but perhaps I am doing three of them a disservice. One MP is certainly opposed to the measure and he is reported to have had a dispute with his Chief Whip and the Secretary of State for Wales on the issue.
However, I return to the point that I wish to make. It seems to me that as campaigning will not be conducted in the same way as it was in 1979, and meetings throughout Scotland and Wales will not be the chosen vehicle for campaigning, the importance of the media will be far greater this time than last time. Indeed, in general elections we have seen that the importance of the media has increased hugely. Therefore, it seems to me important that we should ask seriously what will be the rules in relation to broadcasting.
On my feet, I cannot find my way through the draft orders. But my recollection is that the draft order on broadcasting in the Representation of the People Act is not to be included in the draft orders. I am not surprised by that because it would be very difficult to change the wording in the statute—in the Representation of the People Act on broadcasting—to accommodate a referendum.
But that means that we must still ask questions about the impartiality of the broadcasters. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said that they should be impartial. But we must ask quite clearly what we are looking for. In the 1979 election the ITC programme code provided that justice should be done to the full range of significant views and perspectives during which the issue is active. In Wales, that may be a very simple proposition because there is either a "Yes" vote or a "No" vote. I believe that that is correct, although the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, seems to doubt that. Therefore, I presume—and this is where I seek guidance—that the broadcasters will have a 50/50 balance on that.
In Scotland, of course the position is rather different because there are four potential sides. It is rather more of a quadrilateral campaign in Scotland. There is the "Yes, yes", the "Yes, no", the "No, yes" and "No, no". Therefore, there are four propositions. I suspect that the "No, yes" and the "No, no" campaigns will not be very easy to tell apart. It seems to me that if you are against the proposition of having an assembly, you campaign to vote against that and you do not sub-divide into those who say that they are against it but think that it should have tax-raising powers and those who think it should not have tax-raising powers. It is possible to interpret the two questions differently. Even if you are against it and have voted "No", when it comes to the second

431
question, there may still be two different votes. I am not sure how many campaigns that gives me but it may give me even more than four.
There is a difficulty in defining balance in broadcasting when it comes to this particular referendum in Scotland. The Government may suggest that there will be a broad interpretation and, essentially, it is the first question which will tell. The first question will be the really important question: either "Yes", you are in favour of an assembly, or "No", you are not in favour. The broad balance will be between those two propositions. As we know from the debate last week, those who are in favour are divided between those who think it should be tax raising and those who think it should not be. That merely complicates the issue. Do the Government think that in Scottish terms the balance in broadcasting will be between those in favour and those against on the first question? When the second question comes into play, will that be set aside by the broadcasters? That is a difficult question for the Government to answer. However, it deserves an answer because many people who run the current affairs and news programmes and, indeed, the discussion programmes in Scotland are a little concerned as to exactly how their responsibilities will play when the campaign gets under way.
Before I move on to the second part of my amendment, perhaps I should conclude the first part by saying that I hope that, in both Scotland and Wales, the intention is now to allow the political parties to make up the balance. In that case, in any discussion in Scotland for example— that is, the usual four-way discussions that we have in Scotland—there would only be one representative of the Conservative Party who would be advocating a "No" vote, while the other three would be advocating a "Yes" vote in one form or another. That would make the situation very complicated, although perhaps all three would not be advocating an unqualified yes as I suppose the third one would be advocating a "Yes" vote but only as the first step to independence. However, that takes us back to the previous debate.
I want to know whether the impartiality is to be based on the referendum question and not on the parties in Scotland or in Wales which also has a four-way system. I should imagine that exactly the same thing happens on Welsh television programmes. The second part of the amendment is related to that; namely, the question of party political broadcasts. I understand that such broadcasts were cancelled during the period running up to the 1979 referendum. I would appreciate advice from the Government if, in this case—I would guess from perhaps the passage of this Act or whatever date the Minister will tell me—the party political broadcasts are to be cancelled. I do not expect that there are many party political broadcasts scheduled in August, but just in case there are some then, or indeed early in September, we ought to be clear about the situation. In other words, there should be no party political broadcasts during that time.
The related question is: will there be party political broadcasts given to both sides in the referendum campaign? For example, in Wales will one or two broadcasts be given to those advocating yes and one or two to the noes? The same question applies to Scotland on
432
the assumption that we are just going to look at the first question when it comes to working out the different sides. It is important for us to know where we are when it comes to party political broadcasts.
I have raised a number of important questions regarding the broadcasting media. I am sure that none of us has any doubt about the importance of radio and television in our modern political scene. Therefore, just as we think that there ought to be balance when it comes to the play of the parties, so, too, there ought to be balance when it comes to the play of the campaign. At the risk of being shot down in flames again, I should like to conclude my remarks by reading out Guideline 17 from the Commission on the Conduct of Referendums which says:
"A balance should be maintained between the 'Yes' and 'No' viewpoints rather than between the different political parties. Broadcasters should be encouraged to provide a limited amount of airtime for setting out the arguments for each option in the referendum. The content of such broadcasts would be the responsibility of any formally recognised campaign organisations. In the absence of such organisations the Independent Commission should appoint production companies to produce such broadcasts. Party political broadcasts should not normally be transmitted during the referendum campaign".
I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: When speaking on broadcasting issues, I should declare an interest as chair of Sgrin, the media agency for Wales and also as a director of Marcher Sound. Although the first does not have any direct relevance to current affairs broadcasts, the second does. I should like, first, to express my opposition to both parts of the amendment. I wish to take up the reference to the potential "No" campaign in Wales. I have known Llewellyn Smith MP over many years; I am sure that he would agree to being described as an international socialist. I could call him a few other things, but I shall not do so in this Chamber. I cannot imagine him sharing a platform in a "No" campaign with any Conservative in Wales. That should therefore put an end to that argument. Indeed, I cannot imagine him sharing a platform with any of his Welsh colleagues and the noble Lord should not rely on the Western Mail as regards political reporting. No doubt the Western Mail is absolutely correct when it quotes opinion polls. I am certain that it is not correct when it gets into the realms of political reportage. Let us leave the Welsh Labour Party to sort out its own arguments in the pleasant way that it has always done.
I turn now to the content of the amendment. In a sense, the noble Lord has already received a response from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate when he replied to a previous amendment. It is very dangerous ground when the Opposition lead on trying to include broadcasting clauses in either referendum or election legislation which is not specifically related to Acts regarding representation of the people. Those Acts exist on the statute book in order to ensure that the due impartiality exercised by the broadcasting authorities is continued throughout election periods.
On the phrasing of impartiality, it occurs to me that there may be a printing error in the amendment, although I am sure that there are never any such errors in this Chamber. I believe that there may be an error on the part

433
of the mover of the amendment. I say that because the amendment refers to "full impartiality". But what is full impartiality? If there is full impartiality, then clearly there must be something called "partial impartiality". I am merely a simple bilingual, but it seems to me that there are problems here with interpretation. I believe that the noble Lord probably means to refer to due impartiality which means quite something else.
The existing broadcasting authorities are there to ensure on behalf of Parliament that the broadcasters operate in a way which ensures such due impartiality. Reference has already been made to the ITC codes, the BBC producer guidelines and those of the Radio Authority. Equally, S4C has a very detailed compliance policy which includes monitoring and a careful study of the responsible activity of the broadcasters. Therefore, there already exists a whole series of safeguards to ensure that the debate in the referendum will be an impartial one, reflecting all viewpoints.
It is also important to emphasise that the broadcasters have no problem about exercising their statutory function. Indeed, it would be very strange if the governors of the BBC, the members of the national broadcasting councils in the various countries, members of the ITC with their experienced staff—and, indeed, S4C and its monitoring panel—had not already begun to sort out how they will approach the referendum. My private understanding is that they have already done so.
The broadcasters are familiar with the conduct of previous referendums and of course they are aware of the simple differences between an election, which is about electing candidates and therefore requires a balance between parties, and a referendum, which requires a balance between points of view. Indeed, as we approach the referendum, it seems to me that the traditional mission to inform of broadcasters is more appropriate than the notion of due impartiality. When we are dealing with proposals for constitutional change, which the electorate will be asked to take a view on, the mission to inform seems to me a more appropriate way of presenting responsibility than the traditional impartiality of elections.
Therefore, whatever traditional formulation of the objectivity of broadcasting we want to construe in this Chamber, we should understand that there are already ways of doing so. The amendment is completely unnecessary. It seeks to ban party political broadcasts. As someone who once represented Plaid Cymru on the secret broadcasting committee which took decisions on party political broadcasts, I would be very pleased to see them all removed from the television screen. I do not regard them as being very informative or entertaining, which seems to me to be an essential part of broadcasting. However, to suggest that there should be no party political broadcasts at all during the referendum and yet to be able to refer to all those other issues of public policy apart from the conduct of the referendums which will be of interest to the electorate or the parties seems to me a completely unnecessary requirement. Therefore on both those counts I am pleased to oppose the amendment and to try to assure the Opposition that they do no service to their own cause and the cause of democracy in Wales or Scotland—where
434
they currently have no representation—in putting forward the amendment. It seems to me that they still have not caught up with the reality of the general election.
Lord Parry: I, too, am opposed to the amendment in principle and in detail. I need underline only one or two of the points made by my noble friend who does not sit on our Benches but who is nevertheless my noble friend from Wales. There has been some concern expressed here— some of it real and some of it imaginary—as to the level of disagreement that exists within my own party in Wales on this issue. I refer to a conversation that took place in this Chamber during the passage of the Wales Bill in the small hours of the morning when two noble Lords from Wales had clashed strongly over an issue. Presiding over us that evening was the former Lord Chancellor, the much missed Lord Elwyn-Jones. When the arguments had echoed and re-echoed through the Chamber he asked what one could usefully add except to quote another noble Lord from Wales, Lord Lloyd George of Dwyfor, who referred to the Welsh as a nation of quarrelsome nightingales. We in Wales argue about this issue, we conduct those arguments melodiously and in the end we shall win a victory.
The Earl of Onslow: Am I alone in being slightly suspicious that those who are in favour of devolution for Wales do not want this amendment?
Earl Russell: The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, made a rather powerful point about full impartiality. Full impartiality is something which we as party politicians are not particularly well equipped to achieve, however hard we try. We might do much better to leave this to the broadcasting authorities.
Lord Hardie: I dealt previously with the position of the broadcasting authorities and the obligations imposed upon them to reflect different viewpoints and to exercise proper care to ensure impartiality and balance in their programmes. This matter is best left to the broadcasters, as the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, has said. The tradition has been for government not to interfere with the position of broadcasters. I urge the Committee not to take a different approach. Should the broadcasters fall short of their obligations, they are subject to review by the courts. The courts will ensure that where broadcasters step over the line they are brought back into line as happened with the referendum in 1979 and as happened more recently when a "Panorama" programme featuring the former Prime Minister was not shown in Scotland because the BBC had overstepped the mark.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I invite the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to address himself for a few minutes to the question of party political broadcasts during the referendum campaign.
Lord Hardie: This has already been dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas.
Noble Lords: He is not the Government!
Lord Hardie: The noble Lord may not be a member of the Government but I do not wish to delay the Committee

435
on this matter. Party political broadcasts are a matter for broadcasters to determine at the end of the day. In considering whether they are observing due impartiality they will have to have regard to whether any party political broadcast ought to be allowed. This matter was addressed in the case of Wilson v. The IBC in 1979.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, is well taken. As there may be more parties in favour of a yes vote than there are against it, it would not be appropriate to allocate broadcasting time on a party political basis. That was the decision in Wilson. However, it would not be inappropriate for the broadcasting authorities to allow party political broadcasting, assuming that the time allocated to those in favour of a Scottish parliament is in balance with the time allocated to those who are against a Scottish parliament. The question of balance is ultimately a matter for the broadcasters to achieve. It is not for the Government or for me to provide answers to the interesting questions raised by the noble Lord as to how time should be allocated as between those who vote yes, yes; those who vote yes, no; those who vote no, no; and those who vote no, yes. Ultimately the broadcasters must determine that issue and ensure that they observe the code which is imposed upon them. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We have had an interesting and short debate. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, thought that the amendment was unnecessary. As I listened to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, it seemed to me that the amendment was becoming increasingly necessary and my confusion increased. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, for confusing me with a Government Minister. Perhaps he did so because I explain the situation rather more clearly than do Government Ministers, but no doubt they will learn! The noble Lord said that the Representation of the People Act contained measures on elections and broadcasting. That is absolutely right. Am I not right in thinking that the section in the 1993 Act referring to broadcasting is not carried into the draft orders? I refer to that Act from memory. As I am not absolutely sure that I have the correct reference I do not require an answer today, but we do need an answer at some stage. When I read the relevant part of the Act I recall that I understood that that was the case because the matter is based on candidates for election and the balance between candidates and parties.
We all know that one is not allowed to appear on television wearing one's constituency label while one is a candidate during an election period. However, I believe that we therefore need some legislation to govern broadcasting during referendums. At the risk of harking back to the previous debate, this matter perhaps underlines the need for a general referendums Act to address these points.
I do not know who cancelled the party political broadcasts in 1979 but I am assured that they were cancelled. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, is indicating to me that the broadcasting authorities cancelled them. I am happy that they have that power and I hope that they will cancel any such broadcasts
436
on this occasion. I do not wish to be described as a quarrelsome nightingale. I shall leave that description to the Welsh in case the Committee wishes to describe quarrelsome Scots as birds other than nightingales!
This is an important amendment, not in terms of pressing it to a Division or incorporating it in the Bill, but because it allows us to explore the issue of broadcasting in this context. I think I welcomed the comment of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that it would not be appropriate to allocate broadcasting time on a party political basis. If that is what he said, I welcome that comment because that was the point I was trying to establish; namely, that broadcasters ought to allocate time according to the sides in the argument—the proposition and the opposition sides of the argument. To that extent I am grateful.
However, this is an important point. As I said in introducing this short debate, broadcasting—television and radio—will be very important in these referendums and will be increasingly important in all future referendums. I therefore believe that we must have the rules on broadcasting very clearly laid down. While I shall withdraw the amendment, I shall read with some care what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said and may return to the issue at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg leave to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

School Standards White Paper
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the Government's proposals in the White Paper Excellence in Schools which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. The Statement is as follows:
"The Prime Minister has made it clear that education is the number one priority of this Government. This consultation document and the Budget announcement of an almost £2.5 billion increase in revenue and capital investment in education demonstrates that commitment and our priority. We will publish a separate consultation paper on special educational needs.
"Our proposals focus clearly on the central task of raising standards. We are establishing a new partnership for schools: a new partnership with teachers and the profession. Self-improvement is at the core of success. Schools must take responsibility for accepting that challenge. Good schools will flourish. Under our proposals we will offer increased

437
support through the new standards and effectiveness unit to those schools in need of improvement. We will build on best practice from around the world.
"We have set up the standards task force to spearhead our crusade to raise standards throughout the education service.
"The new role for local education authorities will reflect our priorities by focusing on raising standards and not controlling schools. Intervention by LEAs will be in inverse proportion to success.
"All schools and education authorities will establish challenging targets as part of their development plans on which they will be judged. What we propose today will make a difference for everyone involved in the education of our children—parents, teachers and non-teaching staff, governors and the wider community. Our early years plans will lay the ground work, but to provide a firm foundation the best teaching methods must be available in every classroom in the land. Our national literacy and numeracy strategy will ensure that all primary teachers are trained to use the most effective teaching methods. There will be a structured hour devoted each day to both literacy and numeracy in all primary schools.
"Parents are a child's first teacher. They deserve better information and advice in order to increase their involvement in their own child's learning. Home-school agreements will set out rights and responsibilities for home and school. They will explain clearly what is expected of the school, the parent and the pupil. Such agreements will make clear the need for regular and punctual attendance, for good discipline and for the vital role which homework can play in supporting learning in and out of school.
"Parent participation in the life of the school is also vital. Additional parent governors will be complemented by their direct representation on the education committee of their local authority.
"We are offering a new deal for teachers; a new partnership between government and all those involved in education. This Government value teachers and will celebrate good practice. We will introduce a general teaching council, develop advanced-skills teacher posts and provide comprehensive in-service training. There will be a new curriculum for initial teacher training, focusing on literacy and numeracy. A probationary year for all newly qualified teachers will continue their professional development. We will introduce scholarships for the most outstanding teachers, encouraging them to spend a term sharing their knowledge and skills with others. A new awards scheme will recognise the success of individual schools.
"This Government recognise that strong and committed leadership at every level is crucial. The role of the headteacher is critical to the success of the school. We will therefore strengthen headship by introducing a mandatory qualification for all
438
newly appointed heads. We will introduce a national training scheme for all existing heads and overhaul the appraisal process for both heads and teachers.
"Last week I set out to the House how we will give young people hope through a new deal for under 25s. Today's White Paper outlines a new approach in order to support areas of greatest disadvantage. Education action zones will draw together a range of initiatives in a partnership approach to raising standards. We will develop the specialist schools programme so that their innovative approach to teaching and learning can benefit the wider family of schools in their area.
"The proposals I am laying out today will make failure less likely. But we know that problems still exist. Where teachers, schools or LEAs are failing we will take decisive action. Children do not get a second chance in school. This White Paper is a vital step in our crusade to raise standards and offer opportunity to all of them. Expectations and aspirations must be raised if we are to succeed. Fair funding, fair admissions and co-operation will reunite the education service. It is time to set aside the cynicism and the culture of complacency. This is a can-do government working with a can—do service. Our children are our future. We owe it to them to give them the best possible start in life.
"There is no more important task today than putting good intentions into practice. This Government will do just that".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, there is much in this Statement that we welcome. In particular, I should like to underline the massive change of philosophy which the White Paper exemplifies. It is a philosophy in many parts that I have advocated most of my educational life. Perhaps I can point to the issues in the paper which we on this side of the House find very encouraging and contrast them with what the present Government said in the past.
On page 7:
"Schools setting pupils according to ability and further development of innovative approaches to pupil grouping".
On page 11:
"The pursuit of excellence was too often equated with elitism. It was right in the 1980s to introduce the National Curriculum—albeit that it was 20 or 30 years too late."
Who was in power in the 1960s?
"It was right to set up more effective management systems; to develop a more effective inspection system: and to provide more systematic information to parents".
That is very encouraging. It was the policy of the previous government and was attacked by those on the Benches opposite. But I am not criticising. There is more joy in heaven over a sinner that repenteth than over anything else.
I am delighted to see on page 31 Ofsted given such a favourable welcome. Even in my short time in this

439
House Ofsted has seemed at times like an invention of the devil. But this repentance is total and complete:
"We arc firmly committed to regular inspection of all schools by OFSTED".
All that is delightful to those of us on this side of the House. An educational philosophy has undergone a certain change. But, as we all know, the devil is in the detail. The problem that the Government will face is the ideology that they are tentatively abandoning and replacing with setting by ability and changes in teacher training colleges in the way of teaching literacy and numeracy are deeply embedded in the education system. I have doubts whether the methods that they will use to transform the education system in a way that I welcome will be adequate. I am also worried that they may require many layers of bureaucracy. For example, the White Paper says on page 27:
"The LEA's task is to challenge schools to raise standards continuously and to apply pressure where they do not. That role is not one of control".
I recognise that. The fact is that in many parts of the country the LEAs have failed to do that. The Government will require those LEAs to insist on setting by ability and new methods of teaching literacy and numeracy. The question I put to the Minister is: does she rely on them doing it?
On page 28 the Government give details of what they will do if the LEAs do not do so:
"a discussion with the chair of governors and the headteacher, including an offer of help … a formal warning, requesting a plan of action from the school … OFSTED to inspect the school".
That is very heavy bureaucracy, especially against a profession which is very reluctant to respond to outside pressure. Will the LEAs do it? That is my first question.
Secondly, the Government say that they are more interested in standards and that they matter more than structure. I take that directly from the report.
As I have often said in the House, I am worried about the English education system providing adequate specialised teaching post-16. The White Paper pays attention to specialist schools; but in no sense—it is possible that the noble Baroness will say that she will come back to the House some months from now to reply to this point—does it give attention to the Dearing Report on post-16 education and on the structures of education that Dearing will require. I should have liked, for example, to have seen the White Paper declare that, in the efforts to improve standards and skills, concentration would be on a better vocational examination, with better vocational technological provision than is at present provided.
The Government say that they will have a new comprehensive system. Does the new comprehensive system still require post-16 schools to cover the whole range of education? They pay respect to France and Germany early in the report, which they say were much better than us historically. Are they prepared to learn a little more from them?
I am also worried about whether the ideals will translate into reality. The proposals for admissions could mean that children will not get to the school that they
440
want. They begin, as does the whole of the report, with a delightful ideal. It is the kind of report which says that one must not kick little kittens.
The Government say that they want as many parents as possible to send their children to their preferred school. But—here comes the devil in the detail—
"where demand exceeds supply and one school is more popular than another, some parents will be disappointed".
There is talk about the Audit Commission drawing attention to the level of unfilled school places: 800,000. Most of those 800,000 are in schools which parents do not want their children to attend. Will the Government force people to do so? They say how they intend to do it:
"We will therefore expect to see the development of local forums of head teachers and governors from community, aided and foundation schools, to share information about their schools' admissions arrangements, with administrative support from LEAs".
It will be like a set of ferrets in a sack. Can your Lordships imagine the governors of a declining school advocating sending children to another school? That committee will not achieve choice. There will be problems. I shall be interested to hear what the noble Baroness says about that.
As your Lordships will expect—I shall not dwell on this matter because it will arise much more in other debates—I am concerned about foundation schools and the end of the grant-maintained schools. In effect, the Government have withdrawn their control of capital development. The foundation governors do not have a majority. Although it is true that there are only two LEA governors—I assume that the others are co-opted or parents—the grant-maintained schools will be emasculated.
On page 72 a nice compliment is paid to the independent schools. The noble Baroness can be assured that I shall not talk for too long about this point. The White Paper says that independent schools can give,
"specialist teaching in subjects such as the less common foreign languages",
and certain other things. By the abolition of the assisted places scheme, the Government have stopped pupils from going to them to learn those languages.
This is a curate's egg. It is good in parts. I am delighted with the change of philosophy and interested to see how it will work out. I am worried, however, about the implementation of the proposals. There is a lot of local education authority power and a lot of old state bureaucracy, together with a bit too much rhetoric. "Can do" and "will do"—we shall see.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Like the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, I give a general welcome to it, although I suspect for rather different reasons.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the White Paper and the Statement that has been made. Perhaps, again for similar reasons as given by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, perversely, because much of what is in the White Paper has also been in our policy documents. I am tempted to wonder why, if all three parties are so much in agreement on all this, it is still necessary after all these years.

441
We welcome particularly the proposals for the general teaching council, a body I have advocated previously in your Lordships' House. I am sure that the Minister can reassure us that the Government will consult widely and will try to reach as wide agreement as possible on the establishment of the council. Much is at stake and the wider the agreement that can be reached when it is established, the more likely it is to be successful.
We also welcome the proposals for target setting for individual schools. We welcome particularly the proposals for teacher training, the return of the probationary year and especially the qualification for head teachers. My regret—I should perhaps mention once again that I am married to a teacher—is that, so far as I understand, there are few proposals for continuing training for teachers throughout their career once they are qualified, apart from the relatively small number of them who will have a scholarship. That is a matter of some concern.
I am sure that we all share the overall aim that the Government have stated: to drive up standards and try to achieve a situation where no child should fail. That is absolutely right. A child has only one chance during his school career. But once again I must agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington: the devil is in the detail. I have not yet had an opportunity to read the White Paper and I shall do so with considerable interest.
We know where we want to go but maybe the route will sometimes be a little different. I worry about the tendency to be over-prescriptive and control more than is necessary and desirable, whether it is by the LEA—a concern of the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, although not one I share, but then I am also the leader of a local education authority—or by the Government. My worries were not allayed, reading the Guardian this morning, by its reference to,
"the unprecedented control given to ministers over what goes on in the classroom".
It is not Ministers who will drive up the standards, nor Members of your Lordships' House. Teachers will drive up the standards and we must give them the space, the opportunity and, above all, the resources to do the job.
That takes me on to my next points of concern. The Statement refers to "fair funding" and "fair admissions". Fair funding is a very desirable aim. I wish the Minister and her colleagues every success in seeking to achieve it. If they can achieve a system whereby both Lancashire and London feel that they have a fair funding system, she will truly have achieved a miracle. It is inevitable that what will be fair for some will be seen as unfair for those whose share of the cake is a little smaller. That is inevitable. The cake is already too small. The issue is not so much how it is to be divided up, but how big the total cake will be. The concerns about fair funding will be less if greater resources are provided.
As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the White Paper or comments made around it to suggest that there will be in real terms additional new resources to meet the additional new requirements. The Budget Statement last week, though welcome in the sense that it would have been unwelcome if it had not been made, still means in real terms a cut of £200 million in the level of education
442
spending for LEAs in the next financial year. If we had not had the Statement it would have been worse. It is still a cut in real terms and does not indicate where the resources are to come from to meet the new requirements.
Related to that, I have considerable worries about how the "payment for results" system will be implemented. That is something I shall certainly want to examine in detail. One of my anxieties, which I suspect will be shared by many schools, is what the position is to be of those schools which have already taken action to drive up standards and therefore start from a higher point than perhaps those that are of more concern. Can the Minister assure us that there will be an equitable scheme to take account of that, particularly for those schools that have improved significantly but can go no further without additional resources which will certainly be financial and may also be space?
I turn now to fair admissions—I suspect an area with which it will be almost as difficult to deal as fair funding. I have not had an opportunity to read the White Paper; I do not know what it says specifically in relation to admission arrangements. Can the Minister tell us how the Government propose to tackle what is, in many areas, a nightmare situation? In some LEAs, my own included, there are a significant number of grant-maintained schools. So there are a large number of different admission authorities, each operating a different system where some parents gain but many, and many children, actually lose. What plans do the Government have to tackle that problem? Do they envisage a role for the LEA in co-ordinating admission arrangements?
Another of my anxieties concerns the consultation period. As I understand it, it is a three-month consultation period ending in early October. At most times of the year a three-month consultation period would be more than adequate. I share and understand the Government's desire to get on with this, but in two weeks the schools in England will be going on holiday; the governors will not be meeting; and the local education authorities will not be meeting. Effectively, the consultation period for schools, for governing bodies, for local education authorities and local authorities has been hard. It is actually no more than six weeks and a fairly difficult six weeks coming, first, at the end of the term and then at the start of the following term. I understand the reasons. It is unfortunate. I hope the Minister can reassure us that if there are late submissions from governing bodies, LEAs and so forth, they will be treated with as much value as those who are perhaps better able to meet what is, under the circumstances, a particularly tight timetable.
In conclusion, the Liberal Democrats welcome the White Paper. We certainly welcome its intentions. Where we are able to support the proposals we will do so; where we are not able to support them, then our criticisms will be constructive.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Pilkington and Lord Tope, for welcoming the White Paper. I am also delighted that there seems to be consensus across the political parties

443
in relation to it. I am sure that the electorate will be pleased to hear that there is such consensus. I feel that they sometimes get fed up with hearing politicians of cross parties arguing with each other.
However, if I may say so, I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, was a little cynical at times in regard to our commitment to try to raise standards in schools. This White Paper is a demonstration of our concern and our passionate wish to improve standards in British schools, and that is what we intend to do.
The noble Lord was being a little cynical also when he suggested that we had always been opposed to a national curriculum. Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff—who is unfortunately no longer in his place— in a famous speech made way back when he was Prime Minister, was the first leading politician to raise the whole issue of the curriculum and whether it could continue to be a secret garden for the teaching profession. We have always felt that there is a strong case for involvement in the curriculum from government, local education authorities and parents as well as the teachers. Of course, we did not necessarily support the exact form of the national curriculum as it was originally introduced.
Perhaps I can say also that in answering questions this afternoon I shall not go back to the issues raised on the assisted places scheme and languages. There will be plenty of time to do that later this week during the Committee stage of the relevant Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, raised the question of consultation in two respects. First, more specifically, it is our intention to consult widely on how the general teaching council will operate and on its membership. That will include consultation with the teacher's unions.
The noble Lord also raised the question of the time for consultation generally on the White Paper. We are sensitive to the fact that the schools go on holiday at the end of July. However, I hope that in the next two or three weeks there will be time for people to read the White Paper and start the process of discussion. Schools come back early in September and will be able to take up the matter again. They will have another two months after the holidays. That ought to be ample. However, we are sensitive to the issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, made some points in relation to grant-maintained schools. He suggested that we intended to emasculate them. Talk of emasculation of those schools is absolute nonsense. Grant-maintained schools will become part of a new framework. Like other schools, they will be able to choose to become a foundation, community or aided school. They will continue to serve their local communities and flourish in a new environment. Foundation status will give grant-maintained schools many of the powers that they currently value. For example, foundation schools will employ their own staff and own their premises, much as GM schools do now.
We are not turning the clock back; we are simply looking for a new framework which incorporates the best of the past and allows all good schools to prosper,
444
including grant-maintained schools. But that framework will also reflect the need for all state schools to be part of a local partnership based on fairness and co-operation.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, raised questions about parental choice and admission proposals. I can assure your Lordships that we have no intention of reducing parental choice. Quite the reverse. One of the things the last government introduced was partial selection which seriously loaded the dice against certain pupils and created harmful and unnecessary uncertainty for all parents in an area. Recent Audit Commission figures show that around one in five parents did not obtain their genuine first preference of school, even though there were around 800,000 surplus places in the system. We want genuine opportunities for parents to decide between good local specialist and church schools, not a senseless scramble which ends up with massively over-subscribed schools and many disappointed parents.
Finally, in responding to noble Lords speaking for the Opposition parties, perhaps I can pick up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, on the question of finance. Of course it is true that fair funding is extremely important—I cannot guarantee the miracle the noble Lord is asking for in making both Lancashire and London happy—but I think he is quite wrong in suggesting that the Budget last week did not provide a substantial real terms increase in funding for our schools. The cash increase will be 5.7 per cent. and the real terms increase will be 2.9 per cent. That is a lot better than our predecessors have done for many years.
5 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Baroness's welcome words about an ambition to have the best teaching methods available in every classroom appeared, to a careful listener, to fall in that part of the Statement which referred to an early years plan and to the teaching of literacy and numeracy. I hope she can assure the House that it is the Government's intention to see the best teaching methods available in every classroom at all age ranges and that the need extends beyond literacy and numeracy to all other subjects. Many of us have been anxious about teaching methods for many years. I am reassured from what I have heard, not having seen the White Paper, that the turn appears to be away from mixed ability and child-centered teaching. That is reassuring. But even if the teacher training colleges now all adopt this with enthusiasm at once, which is not likely—I wish her every success in changing traditions there—it will still be 40 years before the new intake has worked through the profession. There is therefore a heroic task to be done with in-service training with existing teachers. I hope she can tell us a little more about that.
A lot of not very old dogs cannot learn new tricks. Honest people have been taught difficult methods and cannot adopt new ones. There must be an escape hatch. It is not only children who do not get a second chance in schools; it is also teachers. If a teacher has failed in one school, he or she ought to have an opportunity in another. You can never retrieve a seriously damaged

445
reputation with children in a school in which you have lost it. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something therefore about the possibility of giving teachers a second chance before they are put out of the profession. Nothing is more desperate than seeing someone with another 15 years before they draw their pension being ridiculed by children they cannot control. That is a serious problem.
The very welcome news that headteachers will now be trained for their business and management job appeared to announce that the training would be after they had taken post. That being the case, it will be very superficial or it will be some time after responsibility has been taken in the long holiday; or—in my view this is the better solution—anyone who applies for a job as headteacher should in the reasonably distant future have the qualifications to enable him or her to take the job. That is a task to be undertaken by the new General Teaching Council.
Those are the three issues about which I wanted to ask the noble Baroness. I hope that she can help us.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. He has raised three rather large areas. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not cover all of them in full.
The noble Lord asked about early years education. It is vital that young children should have a balanced curriculum and a curriculum that is broad enough to engage their interest in many things besides literacy and numeracy, whether it be discovering nature or learning how to be good on the trampoline. We have to give young children the opportunity to enjoy themselves— not that that means that teaching about literacy and numeracy need not be enjoyable. We are seeking to redress the balance a little where we feel that insufficient attention has been given to those subjects. But it does not mean that we want our teachers to become Gradgrinds and our children to be falling asleep as they sit in rows reciting, as perhaps happened at the turn of the century.
The noble Lord asked about teachers. Teachers are at the centre of this programme. Without good teachers, without teachers who are enthusiastic and committed to their jobs, we will never raise standards in our schools. It is our intention to try to support those teachers who are in difficulty. We shall do so by a variety of different methods. At the same time we are clear that, if we are to have more rigorous and higher standards for the teaching profession and to build on a clear framework for the professional development of teachers throughout their careers, we need better initial teacher training arrangements, better systems of induction—that is very important as well—and in-service training, which in the first instance will be specially focused on literacy and numeracy. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, also asked about in-service training. It is certainly our intention to continue, and indeed to develop, in-service training as the stock of teachers is as important as the flow of new teachers.
Finally, on the question of headteachers, the Government's view is clear. Without good leadership in all of our schools, however good the assistant teachers
446
are, we will not succeed. It is our intention to introduce a qualification for headteachers to be taken before they are appointed to the post of running a school.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, may I press my noble friend on the question of those teachers who, for one reason or another, good or bad, do not come up to the standard which she and we and all parents would expect from those teachers? Is she aware that at the present moment it takes almost two years to remove an incompetent teacher from post? What plans do the Government have to introduce a fair but quick way of dealing with those who are clearly identified as unsatisfactory or under-performing teachers? Will there be what I have heard referred to by the vulgar as a "fast sack" procedure?
Baroness Blackstone: No, my Lords, nothing so vulgar as a fast sack procedure but, I hope, a much better system of appraising teachers so that it is possible to identify as early as possible difficulties that some teachers may be getting into. Better systems of induction, which I mentioned earlier, are also very important. In other words, before we worry about incompetent teachers, we should try to prevent incompetent teachers ever happening. We can do that with better in-service training, better induction and then better appraisal. When all those things fail, and when support offered by headteachers does not lead to an improvement, we will then, after consultation, try to introduce much faster procedures for getting rid of incompetent teachers. It is only fair to them as well as to their pupils.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I ask the noble Baroness to consider whether she was perhaps a little cavalier with what my noble friend Lord Tope had to say about funding. The point is that the Chancellor has revised his inflation forecasts upwards, has corrected his revenue plan projections accordingly, but not his spending projections. According to Mr. Andrew Dilnot of the Institute of Fiscal Studies, this means that the amount of extra money going into education is not, as the noble Baroness suggested, £2.5 billion but £410 million, so she is asking us to be thankful for a rather small mercy.
I also want to take up what she had to say about the best teaching methods. Can she tell us what gives Governments the competence to decide what those are? I was a little alarmed to hear her quoting the phrase "secret garden". That is a phrase I remember very well for it originates from a speech by Mr. Robert Jackson in 1988 which began the Conservative assault on academic freedom which was the subject of my maiden speech. I am a little uncomfortable to see it in this context.
I listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington of Oxenford, had to say about a very heavy bureaucracy. I wonder whether he is beginning to realise that this policy is perhaps a little too conservative for the Conservatives.
Finally, I should like to take up a phrase which was perhaps prudently not in the Statement but it is in the Government press release on the tapes outside the

447
Chamber. I refer to the phrase "zero tolerance of failure". Is that a standard by which the Government are willing to be judged?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, as regards the last question from the noble Earl, the answer is yes, that is the standard by which we wish to be judged. Perhaps I may pick up first his point about finance. I believe that the noble Earl has got it wrong. The figure that I quoted earlier, which is a real-terms increase of 2.9 per cent., takes account of higher GDP deflators.
I now turn to the noble Earl's question about the "secret garden". I was rather surprised by what he said on that, particularly since he is an eminent historian. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, will agree with me when I say that the term the "secret garden" goes back many years before Mr. Robert Jackson introduced it in a debate on higher education. It was a term that was used in the 1950s and 1960s to describe the way in which the curriculum was then treated by the teaching profession. I am sorry to be a little didactic on this matter, but the noble Earl's history is wrong.
As regards the teaching profession, there will be many difficulties in defining what constitutes good standards. I am not pretending that it is an easy task, but it is fairly easy for us to recognise when serious failure is taking place and teaching is not being practised properly in the classroom.
Lord Parry: My Lords, I welcome the general thrust of the White Paper and the attempt to reunify the education services of Britain after a long period of division and sub-division and at a time when teachers feel that most of the attacks have been mounted at them rather than the system. I am particularly glad that the special education system will be reviewed in a separate White Paper. I look forward to that as I do debating again the issues raised in this White Paper.
I believe that there has been a very heavy consensus of agreement on some of its main thrusts. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, and I have debated education many times over the years. I follow him in everything that he said, particularly about in-service education and the requalification of headteachers for their specific role. We introduced managerial change on a great scale without contemplating requalifying headmasters for the managerial role that they had to take on.
In my own service as a warden at an in-service education centre, I was conscious that many of our attempts to re-educate teachers were perhaps lightweight and not what teachers themselves wanted. It is absolutely essential that in introducing new impetus into the in-service teaching section, the Government are careful to see that they produce a national scale of in-service education with qualification at the end of it that will give the teachers a new confidence in their role which they gladly take up in this revitalisation of our education system.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am very grateful for what my noble friend has just said. We see the White Paper as a new deal for teachers as well as for parents
448
and pupils. It is very important that we support them. We recognise how important is the job that they do. That recognition of their value and vital role in our society is balanced by the pressure to raise their game where it is necessary. As I have already said, the factor of key importance is effective leadership. That is the really critical factor in the success of schools. Once again, I endorse what my noble friend has just said about the importance of training for head teachers.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I was able to get a copy of the White Paper just before the Statement. I have had a quick look through it. Can the noble Baroness confirm that it does not apply to Scotland and contains nothing about Scottish education? If that is so, is there to be a White Paper on education in Scotland and, if so, when? As the noble Baroness will know, the system of education in Scotland is separate and different. For example, a general teaching council was set up in Scotland some years ago. A Scottish curriculum was being put in place when what is called the national curriculum was first being thought out for England and Wales. Those are examples of the considerable differences in the subjects mentioned in the White Paper. Can the noble Baroness answer those questions?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I can confirm that the White Paper is not about education in Scotland. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has just said, the Scottish education system is different. It is one which many Members of your Lordships' House no doubt admire, as I certainly do. We can learn a great deal from the Scottish education system. One factor is that it introduced a general teaching council quite a long time ago. If only it had happened earlier in England and Wales!
I am unable to answer the more specific question that the noble Lord asked about a White Paper on education in Scotland and when it might be published. I shall certainly write to the noble Lord.
Baroness David: My Lords, can my noble friend enlighten me a little about the phrase,
"Intervention by LEAs will be in inverse proportion to success",
which appears in the Statement? I hope that the LEAs are going to have a larger role than they had before they were diminished by the last government. I remember very well one way in which LEAs could help schools in some difficulty. It may be that one department was in difficulty whereas the rest of the school was not. Advisory teachers would go to the school and help to get the department right without the whole school having to go downhill. I hope that the LEAs will have a bigger role in helping schools and not have to wait until a school has failed before taking action.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for her question. Our proposals mean a new role for LEAs focused on challenging and supporting schools rather than controlling them. Every LEA will be asked to draw up an education development plan showing the target that it has agreed with its

449
schools and how it proposes to support them so that the targets are achieved. The plans will be approved by the Secretary of State. Every LEA will be asked to have such a plan in place by April 1999. The LEAs will also have a very important role in advising and, where necessary, challenging schools in the setting of targets. I believe that we have provided a very clear job description for local education authorities. In return we want them to become fully accountable.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I warmly welcome this White Paper and the consensus that it represents. I have one question for the noble Baroness. There were three years in the 1980s when there was a national pilot scheme for induction. It fell apart at the end of three very good years with some very good experimentation, because there was not enough money to continue to give new teachers the one thing they most needed, which was some time in their timetables to reflect on their experience, to be given help and not to have a full timetable. That is expensive and it takes resources. Will that kind of time and the resources it represents be available?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I accept entirely what the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, has just said about the importance of providing adequate time for teachers during an induction period. I cannot answer specifically how much additional time we shall be able to provide. However, it is something on which we shall be consulting the schools, the local education authorities and those in the teacher-training establishments who will be involved to some extent in the support of the initial training of teachers, induction and in-service training.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I too very much welcome the White Paper. Can my noble friend say something about the role of parents, as she sees it, through this White Paper? The noble Lord, Lord Tope, spoke about teachers driving up standards, but parents will also have a crucial role in doing that. Can we believe any of the rumours we read in the newspapers about homework targets and things of that kind?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I speak as a parent myself—I know that my noble friend Lord Ponsonby is a parent of school-age children—when I say that we believe strongly in the role of parents in supporting their children at school and in working with teachers. We want to see them involved as much as possible. We intend to introduce more family learning schemes to encourage parents to become involved, and to help them. All schools will be required to develop written home/school contracts which parents will be expected to sign. We also want to see greater representation of parents on governing bodies and LEAs. National guidelines will, for the first time, set out the amount and type of homework that pupils of different ages should be expected to do if homework is to play a full part in
450
pupils' education. They are meant to be guidelines and they are meant to be helpful to parents as well as to teachers.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am sorry to say that the 20 minutes for Back-Bench discussion have now elapsed and that we must now move on to other business.

Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill
5.21 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 50:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
PROPORTION OF ELECTORS REQUIRED TO SECURE A MAJORITY
(" . A majority in favour of each of the propositions will be certified by the Chief Counting Officer if the proportion of those actually voting in the referendum for the proposition is equal to, or greater than, the proportion given in Schedule (Proportion of electors required to secure a majority) for the relevant percentage of the eligible electorate certified as having voted.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 50 seeks to insert a new clause into the Bill while Amendment No. 83, which is grouped with it, seeks, more importantly, to insert a new schedule. We come now to the question of what forms a majority in a referendum. I am speaking of any referendum, not necessarily of this referendum only. I hope, as I hoped earlier, that we can discuss this matter in a slightly wider context—the context of all the referendums which the Government are promising us over the lifetime of this Parliament.
With regard to the question of what forms a majority, the question is whether or not a proposition has received sufficient assent in order to be taken as the "settled will of the people", as is the usual phrase with regard to Scotland. The Commission on the Conduct of Referendums, to which I have referred on a number of occasions, has not come down on any particular side with regard to thresholds. Paragraph 92 of its report points out that,
"General elections in the UK are decided by simple majorities in each constituency. Simple majorities were required province-wide in the 1973 Northern Ireland referendum and nationwide in the 1975 European referendum. The 40% rule applied in the Scottish and Welsh referendums in 1979 involved a double test: a majority for change and a substantial turnout".
Paragraph 93 states:
"The application of a threshold in future referendums is likely to be one of the most difficult issues to resolve. There are three main options: a simple majority of one; a proportion of those voting; a proportion of those entitled to vote".
At the risk of introducing a fourth main option, I believe that my proposal gives us an opportunity to discuss a combination of the number of those who vote and the majority achieved in that vote.
Various different systems are used around the world. Australia requires a majority of voters nationally and in at least four of the six member states. In the past, New Zealand required a 60 per cent. "Yes" vote and in Italy

451
referendums can succeed only if the turnout exceeds 50 per cent. In 1975 the White Paper which introduced the referendum on the then European Community stated the following in relation to a specified majority:
"The Government are concerned that the size of the poll should be adequate, and they are confident it will be so. They also consider it to be of great importance that the verdict of the poll should be clear and conclusive. In the circumstance, they believe that it will be best to follow the normal electoral practice and accept that the referendum result should rest on a simple majority—without qualifications or conditions of any kind".
Interestingly, some qualifications are made in that sentence—they are,
"that the size of the poll should be adequate"
and,
"that the verdict of the poll should be clear and conclusive".
However, the White Paper did not address the issue of how those qualifications are measured. The qualifications were made, but were left to one side.
It seems to me that the proposition that I put at Second Reading deserves a better answer today than it received then. Perhaps I may summarise it like this: I can understand—I can agree with—the argument that in a general election-type of turnout a majority of one is sufficient. That is how we operate in this country and I am perfectly happy to operate in that way although it was not to my party's favour in Scotland or in Wales at the recent general election. Nevertheless, I am content to play by the rules and do not want to shout "foul" when the rules bounce against me.
The problem occurs at the other end of the spectrum. One must look at some local election turnouts and ask whether a majority of one in a referendum which had a local election turnout would be regarded as, to quote the words of the 1975 White Paper, having a poll of "adequate" size and giving a "clear and conclusive" verdict. I doubt it.
The Swiss are into referendums in a big way. I have done a little research—in fact, the Library did it for me and I am grateful—into the turnout at some recent referendums in Switzerland. I have a list of referendums going back to 1995. Perhaps I may give the Committee the turnouts for the various referendums. They were 40.4 per cent.; 40.3 per cent.; 40.3 per cent.; 31 per cent.; 31 per cent.; 31 per cent.; three propositions were put on the one day—30.9 per cent. and 31 per cent.—again, those propositions were put on the same day and some people clearly voted in one but not in the other—and 31.4 per cent. Those do not seem to me to be very big turnouts. Indeed, they are reducing turnouts. Lest any noble Lord should think that referendum turnouts in Switzerland are always at that level, I should say that in 1989 in a referendum which proposed the abolition of the Armed Forces in Switzerland by the year 2000 the turnout was, in the words of the quote that I received, unusually high with almost 70 per cent. of the electorate turning out.
I suspect that the turnout depends on the issue that is being tested. If, as I hope, we are looking not only at the issue to be tested in September, but at those to be
452
tested in the future, it is right to ask ourselves what we should do if the turnout begins to drop away to 30 per cent.
Amendment No. 83 is a new schedule in the form of a table. It links turnout to majority and answers the question that I have posed to the Committee both today and previously: would a majority of one on a wet day's turnout be sufficient for the kind of changes that are being presented not only in this referendum, but in referendums in the future? In the table in Amendment No. 83, I have attempted to mesh turnout with majority so that if a turnout is at a general election level of over 60 per cent.—I believe that I am right in saying that almost every general election (if not every general election) has had a turnout well in excess of 60 per cent.—a simple majority will do. However, as the turnout drops by two percentage points, so the number required to vote for the proposition increases by one percentage point until on a turnout of less than 30 per cent., the support of 66 per cent. of those voting would be needed.
I decided not to carry on with the table because it seemed to me to be unlikely that the turnout would drop below 30 per cent. I am happy to leave it at two-thirds. I decided not to leave it at exactly two-thirds; otherwise, it would have involved fractions. I decided that we did not need them. Some of your Lordships may say that this represents a series of cliff edges. I could easily translate this into a formula, but the last time that I had to defend a formula in legislation, albeit from the other Dispatch Box, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, took me to task for its complexities. The formula on that occasion was fairly complex. The formula here is very simple. If m is the vote that "Yes" requires and t is the turnout, then the formula is: m equals 80 minus half of t. That gives one this table and the gradations in each group. (I hope that I am impressing the Government by my argument, if not my mathematics.) The table illustrates the point better than the formula, which is why I have used the table. It addresses some of the points that people have put about basing the whole matter on turnout or the vote obtained by the proposition and meshes the two. Therefore, there is a huge incentive on both sides to achieve a good turnout.
I have no doubt that the accusation will be laid at my door that I want to repeat what happened in Scotland in 1979. I do want to repeat what happened in Wales in 1979 where this table would have had to be continued quite considerably for the government of the day to have achieved a majority in the Welsh referendum in a quite different way. However, in Scottish terms one does not argue as to which side encouraged the "No" vote to abstain. My firm recollection is that those who campaigned for an assembly said that if one voted "No" one did not have to turn out. However, history being rewritten in Scotland as elsewhere, as it often is, people claim that the "Noes" did that. If your Lordships study the proposition that I have put forward, if some of the "Noes" do not vote because they believe that it is the same as voting "No", that is not the case. Every "No" who abstains and therefore drops the percentage of the poll will at the same time increase the numbers voting

453
"Yes" by not voting. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Desai. nods in agreement. Therefore, the usual accusation that is made about thresholds in Scotland does not hold water.
I shall not bore your Lordships with some simple examples of what happens. However, to take the result last time, if even more of the "Noes" abstain than abstained last time the position will become even more favourable to the "Yeses", on the assumption that all of them vote. If the "Yeses" also abstain the proposition is in some difficulty, but on the assumption that all of the "Yeses" vote this proposition will ensure that neither side can influence the result by not voting. I accept that it is complicated and that this country tends to like simple electoral rules. However, I believe that if we are to have a number of referendums we should address this particular problem.
I do not pretend for a minute that my solution is the only one. I am sure that there are others. Certainly, one could vary the arithmetic of the timetable. One could go above 60 per cent. before one started the 50 per cent. majority. I have not done that. Before any noble Lord jumps up and makes a mistake about it, anyone who has done the arithmetic will realise that last time the "Yeses" would have won. Some of my noble friends believe that I have not done my arithmetic correctly. That is not the case. I am attempting to answer what I believe to be a legitimate, almost philosophical, point about referendums. The Government may say that if there is a referendum in which the turnout is badly down the result is only advisory and Parliament will be able to ignore it. Once we go down the road of referendums it will be extremely difficult for Parliament to ignore the outcome.
As I believe I said on one of the previous days in Committee, noble Lords who have ever stood for parliamentary seats—and won them occasionally—will know that often the electorate feels that Members of Parliament ignore its views on certain key emotional issues. I believe that if a majority even of a minority of the electorate vote for a proposition and Parliament decides to ignore it because there has been a low turnout that will be very bad for the trust between the people and Parliament. I believe that something along the lines of what I propose for all referendums, not particular ones, means that everyone will know the rules of the game. They will know against what the result will be measured. I believe that that is a sensible way in which to proceed if there are to be lots of referendums.
I hope I will not be told that I am being disruptive of the referendum that is about to take place. I am not attempting to do so. I hope that we can have a debate in which the general proposition about majorities in referendums is addressed and that we do not hark back to the 1979 rule. It is because of the 1979 rule and the undoubted difficulty that it created that I have devised this system to get round it. In my view, if some of the "Noes" had not stayed at home the majority would have voted against the proposition in 1979 and we might not today be discussing this issue. That is just my view and no doubt other noble Lords, especially those opposite and some beside me, may have a different view. However, I believe that if we are to go down the road
454
of referendums we must address the problem of turnout against majority. I commend my humble effort for dealing with this problem to the Committee. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: I seek to oppose the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, because, unlike those that he moved earlier this afternoon, this has the capacity to cause real mischief in the referendum process. I believe that his earlier amendments were relatively benign.
I should like to apologise to your Lordships' House for the fact that, although I spoke at Second Reading on the Bill, I have been unable to attend any of the Committee stage up until today. I am still fulfilling diary commitments entered into before I was appointed to your Lordships' House. I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, that I will think fondly of him during Report stage when he will no doubt make more amendments and I shall be in South Africa. In the meantime, while I am here I feel that this amendment is one that should be resisted.
I listened with fascination to the tail end of his speech about the difference between his sliding quota and the fixed quota last time—I take the arithmetical point that he makes, which had not occurred to me until he made it. However, any quota system is an interference with the principle of the simple majority and is open to confusion. Despite his warning, I shall hark back to what happened in 1979. In my view, the introduction of the 40 per cent. quota during the passage of the legislation left Scotland in the most profoundly unsatisfactory state of all; namely, a majority in favour of the proposition but a failure to meet the qualifying quota. That left a sense of real bitterness and frustration which one does not want to see repeated in any form on a future occasion.
There are serious objections to any form of percentage quota. I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the referendum is likely to take place in September, even though there is not so far an accurate date. Of course, the electoral roll is made up in October each year and comes into effect in February. Therefore, one is talking of conducting a referendum on a roll which will be almost a year old. It means that the quota will include people who are deceased as well as those who decide to exercise their right not to vote. Unless it becomes Conservative Party policy to make the vote compulsory, I do not believe that it is possible to have any kind of quota system.
One should look at the recommendations of the commission which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, prayed in aid. During Second Reading the noble Lord quoted the section of the report which said that the use of thresholds was a political decision. However, the commission went on to say that if a threshold was used it should be a set percentage of the votes cast and not a percentage of the eligible electorate. If thresholds were set a clear explanation of the meaning of the thresholds should be included.

455
I challenge the noble Lord to suggest how we are to give a clear explanation of that sliding formula which he has invented for the purpose of this afternoon's debate. He took us on a world tour. We went to Italy, Australia, New Zealand, and Switzerland. We failed to visit Patagonia or Outer Mongolia, but nowhere have we found the sliding formula. It is an Ardbrecknish invention. It will not work. It might work in Ardbrecknish, but nowhere else. Ingenious though the noble Lord has been, it is open to severe difficulties.
I shall make use of the useful statistics supplied by the Library. If one looks, for example, at the local government elections in Westminster—the Conservative Party flagship—of May 1994, one sees that the turnout was 46.1 per cent. of the electorate. If one then goes down the table of the Mackay sliding scale, one finds that the percentage required to support the proposition, according to his scale, is 57 per cent., whereas the percentage of the electorate which supported the Conservative administration was only 24.1 per cent. Are we going to suggest that all of its actions were illegitimate? In the case of Westminster, some of them of course were. Are we to suggest that the entire thing was void from the beginning? According to the Mackay scale, it would have been.
Let me take another Conservative Party flagship. In 1993, Buckinghamshire County Council was the only county council controlled by the Conservative Party. The turnout in the election there was 34.6 per cent. Scanning the Mackay sliding scale, I find that 63 per cent. of the electorate would have been required to support the proposition. In fact the percentage of the total which supported the Conservative Party was only 14 per cent. Is it going to be ruled out? I know that the noble Lord will tell me that he is not talking about local elections but about the referendum. Therefore I can save him an intervention. But the principle is the same.
Once we depart from a simple majority, we run into real trouble. If one takes the 40 per cent. rule from 1979, one of the irritations we had in Scotland was that the Conservative government in the general elections of 1979, 1983 and 1987 failed to get anywhere near the 40 per cent. of the electorate voting for them. It was 33 per cent., 30 per cent., and 31 per cent. Will the noble Lord see the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, to tell her that none of her administrations was legitimate because of that? If he is, I should like him to tell me the date so that I can sell tickets for the encounter.
This is a nonsensical proposition. The noble Lord has been ingenious; he is always ingenious. However, yesterday Mr. Arthur Bell, in an article in Scotland on Sunday where he is described as chairman of the Scottish Tory Reform Group—a contradiction in terms if ever there was one—is reported as saying that the party was disillusioned with the failure to face up to its current position. It has no MPs, no MEPs, a handful of councillors and no councils under its control. It is in more than a sorry state; its condition is pitiful. That would be the right description of the amendment. It is as though, having lost the argument on devolution as a
456
principle, the Conservative Party is now going to rely on those who are dead or those who could not care less, to see through their arguments.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I have two points. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, said, quite correctly, that we shall be working on a voters' roll that is approximately a year out of date and that therefore in the interval a number of people on it will have died. Equally, he did not mention that a number of people, very possibly approximately the same number, will, during that period, have become eligible to vote who are not on it.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I am grateful to the noble Lady for giving way. When the electoral register is made up in October each year, anyone who becomes eligible to vote during the whole currency of that register is included on the register with the date from which they are eligible to vote appended at the side of their name.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. I apologise for being so ill informed. Perhaps I may return to what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, said. It is not just bad weather that stops people coming out to vote. If you are unhappy and discontented, the chances are that you will come out to vote, but if you are happy with the status quo you are generally politically lazy, and you are very much less likely to come out to vote.
5.45 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: The figures produced by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, are interesting. Yes, 40 per cent. in Westminster voted. But the people who voted in Westminster could have chucked the brutes out, as happened on 1st May. The brutes were chucked out. What we are talking about with the referendums for Scotland and Wales is the total upheaval of the British constitution with all the dangers that that implies.
As I have said before, it seems to be something that is not allowed to concern the English much. But it does concern the English. A minority of a minority will be able to vote. Let us say we are down to a 30 per cent. turnout in Scotland. The population of Scotland is 5.5. million or thereabouts; and 30 per cent. of the electorate, which I presume is 4 million, is about 1.2 million.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Plus or minus.
The Earl of Onslow: I suspect that it is something like 1.2 million. If only half of those people were to vote yes, and 49 per cent. no, it means that a very small number in a very small part of the UK has changed the UK constitution. That is a recipe for disaster. If this thing is going to go ahead, and we are going to have devolution, with all the effects that it will have on England, which no one seems to be addressing, at least let us have a substantial majority of the Scots who say, "We are prepared to risk the difficulties with England. We are prepared to go ahead with this arrangement". Let us do it that way.

457
Let us remember when Abraham bargained with God over Sodom and Gomorrah. He said:
"Peradventure, Lord, there be 99 just men in all of Sodom and Gomorrah".
Being a good Jewish businessman he argued God right down, I think, to five. God was prepared to concede that there was another point. I wish that we would have a proper and substantial turnout and a proper and substantial amount of both the Scots and the Welsh who, if they are determined to wreck the British constitution, do it in spades and not in one club.
Lord Renton: This surely is the most important issue that we have to decide on the Bill. The idea that a mere, simple majority is good enough to make a great constitutional change which may be permanent is surely wrong. My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish put forward the case for the amendments in a careful and moderate way. I would go much further than the amendments. I would say that there needs to be half the electorate supporting a change of this kind. We must not overlook the cause of abstentions.
Abstentions are the result not merely of people not knowing how to make up their minds or believing that it does not matter, but often of people saying, "The only thing that matters in this vote on a referendum, which is quite different from a parliamentary election, is whether or not one is in favour of change. If one is not in favour of change what is the point of voting?".
Furthermore, in Scotland and Wales there are sometimes considerable distances to be travelled in order to vote. Many people who may have difficulty in travelling to vote might say, "I'm not going to vote because I believe that we do not want this change. I do not see the point of going to vote when it really won't matter". As was pointed out last week by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, that is a relevant factor in deciding the matter.
I do not know whether a decision will be made today, but we must consider the matter very carefully. It would be tragic if the people of Scotland were thought to have approved of such a major change—of a new parliament perhaps with tax-raising powers—when only 36 per cent. approved, as happened in 1979. Thank goodness that was not accepted by the Government of the day. This is an important matter and I hope that ultimately we shall reach the right decision. I should have been prepared to table an amendment providing that no change shall be made unless 51 per cent. of the people approve.
Lord Monson: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that this is one of the most important matters, if not the most important, that we shall discuss. I agree with it wholeheartedly in principle. It is wrong that a majority of 50.001 per cent. of a low turnout should suffice to push through constitutional change. Few would deny that devolution equals constitutional change and that, moreover, it is likely to lead sooner or later to greater constitutional change than is perhaps now envisaged.
458
When constitutional change is contemplated, it is normal to require a more convincing and solid majority than 50.001 per cent. of the entire electorate, whether or not they turn out to vote. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, gave a number of examples. He might also have instanced the March 1950 plebiscite in Belgium over the return from exile of King Leopold III. However, nearer to home, what better example can we have than the Church of England. A majority of two-thirds in each house of the Synod is required for any major change to take place. The Committee will remember that the Anglican/Methodist unity proposals foundered in May 1972 because although 85 per cent. of the bishops were in favour, the overall majority was only 65.81 per cent. It may be that 66 per cent. is too large a majority in this instance, but certainly 50 per cent. on a low turnout is much too small.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: As regards satisfaction with the outcome of the referendum, the straight majority that is suggested is worrying. If I may say without sounding too pompous, this is a House of Lords matter. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, laughed at the amendment with merry glee. It is complicated and the algebraic formula may not be plain to all voters. However, if the Government could stop laughing at every suggestion that a straight majority is a fancy threshold, as they have up to date, they would obtain a formula which would make the referendum satisfying to the people of Scotland and Wales. It will not he very satisfying if there is a 60 per cent. turn out and 31 per cent. of those who might vote say, "Yes", and we have a parliament, or the other way around.
The relating of the two columns is a clue to the amendment. I believe that the Government should take the issue seriously. I do not know whether we will vote on it or what the outcome will be, but whatever happens Members of the Government should take the issue seriously and should not just sit there smiling away. There was an article in today's edition of The Times warning about that. I feel strongly that on such issues the House of Lords should say to the House of Commons, "Please, think of a better way". I say to the Government and I say to the Commons, "Please, take this seriously".
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I, too, take the issue seriously. Before the Bill came to this House, Members opposite made much of statements that unlike their party colleagues in another place they would not introduce amendments that were frivolous or juvenile, a word used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, who is not in his place. That was to their credit.
This amendment is certainly not juvenile. I hope that it is not juvenile because I do not understand it. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, is overestimating the mathematical abilities of other people. They are abilities which he undoubtedly has but which I cannot match because I do not understand the amendment. It is certainly not frivolous, but I cannot help believing that it is what the French would call "not serious". I have heard many threshold proposals, but of all I have heard anywhere this is the most bizarre.

459
As I said on Second Reading and during the debate on the humble Address, I am against thresholds in principle. I can see no logic in allowing people who do not participate in voting in democracies to affect the results. In democracies such as Britain where everyone can vote, where everyone has the opportunity to do so, do not see how one can possibly defend the choice not to do so as a result of apathy or whatever, which will affect the result. The British tradition of not having thresholds is correct. It is not helpfulߞ
The Earl of Onslow: I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. There is no British tradition of referendums. We are treading uncharted waters. That is the difference.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: They are not that uncharted; we have been here before. There certainly is no tradition of having any thresholds except in 1979 and we all know that that was motivated by those who were opposed to devolution. If we introduce fancy franchises—with respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, it is a fancy franchise to play around with something that is completely alien to the British tradition of elections of any kind—people will rightly suspect that those who are making suggestions are motivated in exactly the same way as were the people in the 1970s; they are trying unfairly to weight the ballot against a result which they fear.
6 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, must be talking about an entirely different situation from the one I am talking about. I am talking about a referendum in Scotland which has been talked about and voted on; and there is not a single MP of the party which opposes some form of constitutional change in Scotland. Arguments have been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. He said that people will not go a long way to vote. People in Sutherland used to go miles to vote. In the end, they came miles to vote for my opponent but they also came miles to vote for me. Distance certainly does not deter them.
Lord Renton: It is very kind of the noble Lord to give way. People may travel a long way to vote for him but they may not trouble to travel any distance at all just to vote "No" when they think that that vote can be achieved by not voting at all.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: That is why we do not believe that not voting should have an effect. That is the whole point. The views of people who vote are valid; the views of people who do not vote should not be valid.
In Scotland, there is an immense interest in this matter. There will be a decent turnout. I would bet money with anybody that that will be the case. We have two simple questions and a simple majority is what is required. We shall have a good turnout. We are voting on a simple referendum in Scotland. A simple majority
460
of the people who vote for what they believe in is what we require. We do not require a formula such as has been put forward in this amendment.
If we were discussing referendums on many different issues, as there are in Switzerland, then there may need to be a formula. But any government who produce referendums in this country which have a 30 per cent. turnout would be turned out themselves shortly afterwards.
Viscount Bledisloe: We all know that you can prove anything by the misuse of figures. But I was still surprised by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, using analogies with general elections and county council elections. I should have thought that a Liberal Democrat, of all persons, would know that in such elections there are normally more than two candidates. If you take proportions when there are a lot of candidates, you obviously get a very different figure from this situation in which there are merely two questions and only two runners in each race.
Some Members of the Committee have said that they find the formula very difficult to understand. If they do, that seems to demonstrate perhaps that the Statement that we heard this afternoon about numeracy in primary schools came none too soon. For those who find it very difficult, perhaps I may point out that if 30 per cent. of the people vote, on the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, only 20 per cent. of the electorate is needed to achieve a majority. If 60 per cent. of the electorate vote, only 30 per cent. is needed to achieve a majority. If it is really being said that the entire constitution of this country should be changed, and if it is too much to ask that between 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. of the people in Scotland should turn out and vote in favour before there is a change in the constitution, then those in favour of devolution seem to have little confidence in their case.
Lord Rees: I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, in particular and to the Committee for not having heard the noble Lord's opening remarks. I hope that I shall not cover ground that he will no doubt have covered more eloquently and ably than I could do.
I move to intervene in the debate because various Members of the Committee have attempted to equate this referendum with a general election. As I understand it, that is not the purpose of this referendum. I shall not weary the Committee with my views of whether a referendum is a well-established constitutional parliamentary device in this country. I do not believe it is, but let us leave that aside. There are precedents. I agree that there was a precedent 20 years ago on this very issue. On that occasion, the threshold for a referendum was introduced not by those who opposed that particular piece of legislation from the Conservative Benches; it was Mr. Cunningham from the Labour Benches who introduced the threshold. I thought that that was very proper and that it gave a certain gravity and more sense to the substance of the debates and what was proposed in the legislation itself.

461
This is not a measure for a legislative referendum. What is decided in this Parliament on the referendum does not establish a Scottish parliament or a Welsh assembly. As I understand it, it has merely been invoked by this Government to give a certain legitimacy to what they propose in relation to amending our constitution. Perhaps I may say to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that I agree that this is an extremely important measure. If a referendum is introduced and it goes in a certain direction with no threshold, it will be a very important constitutional measure. The Minister will perhaps confirm that the Government have proposed a referendum to give legitimacy to the proposed Scottish parliament or Welsh assembly which they might not otherwise have.
We all proceed on the fiction that what has been mentioned in the election manifesto of the party which won that particular election, as the Labour Party has done perfectly properly in this case, must be treated as having the support of the electorate. We all know that that is a fiction. It may or may not be true. I do not believe that the question of devolution featured very largely in the debates up and down the country prior to 1st May, but let that pass. As I understand it, the Government are very properly saying, "To ensure that we have a proper test of public opinion, there shall be a referendum". That is the purpose of this piece of legislation.
Therefore, it cannot be equated with an election. It is not the same as an election. It is to test the views of the electorate on a particular measure which will or may be introduced because as we understand it—and we covered this ground on the first day or so of our debates—it is an advisory, and not a legislative, referendum.
The Government can say, "Right, we will have nothing to do with thresholds. It is true that when we last essayed this 20 years ago, we got the wrong answer and we shall not be troubled with thresholds on this particular occasion". It may be that, with the overwhelming predominance which the Government have in the Commons, they can eventually force it through. That may be at a certain price in terms of the time which can be devoted to all those matters, but let that be so.
But the noble Lord who speaks for the Government, with great persuasiveness and balance, must recognise that if there is not explicitly or tacitly some kind of threshold, the outcome of the referendum, if it were to be in favour of what is proposed in subsequent legislation, would not have anything like the same force or legitimacy. Therefore, the Government would not have achieved what they seek to achieve. They could not say that an overwhelming majority in the country as a whole is in support of a Scottish parliament or a Welsh assembly. We do not know exactly what may be proposed but let us hope that that will emerge before too long.
Therefore, if the noble Lord and his colleagues on the Government Front Bench are minded to sweep aside the very cogent points that have been made in favour of this particular measure, and if they proceed with a very small
462
majority in favour under the referendum, then they will be exposed to the criticism that the country as a whole is not in favour of this particular measure.
Before I sit down, I shall leave one question with the Minister which I hope he will answer. Let us suppose that there is no threshold formally embodied in this legislation. Is there any kind of minimum figure that the Government have in mind if, for example, only 10 per cent. of the electorate in Scotland and Wales voted in the referendums? Further, if the majority in favour of the measure covered by the referendums was, say, 100 in each country—and that is a hypothetical figure—would the Minister then say that the Government had secured the legitimacy and the support that they require to proceed with a further measure for the introduction of a parliament in Scotland and an assembly in Wales?
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, said the issue as to whether there should be a threshold is essentially a matter for this Chamber. That reminded me of the position in the Parliament Act 1911. Unfortunately, we have no written constitution. As a result, amendments to the constitution are not passed by any known written machinery and we must look to the past for precedent.
In the January 1910 general election the Liberal manifesto said:
"The limitation of the [House of Lords'] veto is the first and most urgent step to be taken".
Then, in the December 1910 general election, the Prime Minister wrote in the Liberal manifesto:
"As lately as January in the present year, I expounded to you in detail, and you approved by a decisive majority at the poll, the present aims of Liberal policy… I ask you to repeat. with still greater emphasis, the approval which only eleven months ago you gave to the proposals of His Majesty's Government".
The Parliament Act 1911 made perhaps the most profound change to the constitutional arrangements of this country. There was no referendum. The mandate that the Liberal Government had received from the people in two succeeding general elections was put into effect. Surely it is that which provides the legitimacy to which the noble Lord, Lord Rees, referred. There is a legitimacy for the Government's proposals because they have a mandate from the people of Wales and of Scotland—and, indeed, with the greatest respect to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, from the people of England—who voted them in to carry out such proposals.
Lord Rees: My Lords, as the noble Lord has just referred to me, can he please explain for my benefit the purpose behind the referendum or, indeed, this measure?
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Speaking from these Benches and devoted to devolution as we are, we are of the mind that the purpose of the referendum was to hold the Labour Party together in the run-up to the last election.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Indeed, that is something which they achieved.

463
However, there is a distinction between this advisory referendum and the referendums which were held in 1979 under the Wales and Scotland Acts. Members of the Committee will recall that the amendment to introduce a threshold to those pieces of legislation was introduced not as a matter of principle by the Labour Government of that day; it was forced upon them. It was put into the legislation and provided that devolution in Scotland and Wales could not happen post the legislative process unless it was confirmed by the referendums that were carried out at that time. That compromise resulted in the most unhappy situation where a majority of people in Scotland—that is, 50.6 per cent.—voted for Scottish devolution; but that amounted to only 32.6 per cent. of the entire Scottish electorate.
We must avoid such a situation occurring again, not just in Scotland but also in Wales. The two referendums have been put forward for pre-legislative consideration by the people to give legitimacy to the discussions that we are having but not, at the end of the day, in any way to take away from the Government's mandate to introduce a parliament for Wales and a parliament for Scotland.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Hughes: Many figures have been quoted in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, pointed out that at the last referendum 64 per cent. of the people voted. As has just been pointed out, it was a very bare majority; indeed, less than 51 per cent. in favour and slightly more than 49 per cent. against. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, said, if his formula had been adopted it would have been carried at the time. However, it was not carried because Mr. Cunningham inserted the amendment and persuaded Parliament to accept it. In other words, it had to achieve 40 per cent. of the electorate, not 40 per cent. of the people voting, but 40 per cent. of the electorate. We have already heard what that meant in real figures.
Argument has been based on the possibility of a low turn-out. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and my noble friend sitting behind me spoke of the position if only 30 per cent. of the electorate turned out. The noble Lord, Lord Rees, went much further. He talked about the position if only 10 per cent. of the electorate voted. An organisation to campaign vigorously for a "no" vote has just been established in Scotland. It has been set up under the chairmanship of a distinguished Scottish Queen's Counsel, Mr. Findlay. Moreover, its principal organiser is the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Hughes: Well, that was stated in press reports. Anyway, Mr. Findlay is definitely genuine. If a vigorous campaign is to be carried out, is anyone seriously—
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: If Mr. Findlay were to offer me season tickets to Ibrox, I might reconsider
464
my position. However, I believe that it is my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie who is taking an active part in that process.
Lord Hughes: I stand corrected. However, the fact is that a distinguished Member of the Opposition Front Bench is taking an active part in working for the "no" campaign. As I was about to say, do they or anyone else taking part in that campaign believe for one moment that a 30 per cent. or a 10 per cent. turnout is a possibility? I would suggest that it is much more likely to be between 60 per cent. and 70 per cent. The last one fell as stated because 40 per cent. of the electorate was required.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, wants to go yet further. He referred to 50 per cent. of the electorate. In a 70 per cent. poll, 70 per cent. of the people voting would have to be in favour. Under no circumstances would that figure have ever been accomplished in the table put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I come back to what we all hope will take place; namely, that the campaign of those we are voting "yes" and the campaign of those voting "no" will result in a big turnout. It is almost certain that there will be a substantial majority of that 70 per cent. But that is guesswork at this stage. Nevertheless, that is likely to be the position. On that basis a simple majority is the obvious solution.
Lord Beloff: The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, surprised me once again by the depth and inconsequence of his historical allusions. He referred to the fact that the Liberal Government claimed a mandate as the result of winning two successive general elections on their pledge for House of Lords' reform. I believe that many noble Lords would be perfectly content if the Government said, "We are going to the country again. There will be another general election and, after that, we will feel that we have a mandate". They seem disinclined to follow the noble Lord's advice. But I have a much simpler suggestion. I always like to come to the rescue of Her Majesty's Ministers. My suggestion is based on the practice of a number of countries recognised as democratic in their institutions; namely, that for this purpose there should be compulsory voting in both Scotland and Wales. Compulsory voting exists in Australia, Belgium and other countries. We would not need to talk about thresholds if there was compulsory voting. If there were fines for non-voters—as I believe is the case in countries which have compulsory voting—I dare say the problem of distance would be overcome. There would be no need to talk about thresholds and we could see what the result was.
Lord Hooson: Does the noble Lord agree that in this country we have never had compulsory voting for the

465
simple reason that we do not allow those who could not care less and do not vote to determine the result of our elections?
Lord Beloff: I do not know why we have never had compulsory voting; all I say is that countries which are recognised as democratic, including our cousins in Australia, have had it for a long time.
Lord Sewel: Finally we have it. Ever since Second Reading we have been waiting expectantly for the noble Lord's sliding scale—Mackay's tartan threshold. The former principal teacher of mathematics at Oban High School, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has laboured long and hard to produce his sliding scale. At the end of the day, however, his report must state, "Could have done better, could have done a lot better— perhaps should not have tried at all".
Now that we have seen it in all its full glory—even its algebraic formula—we are more convinced than ever that rigged ballots and fancy franchises are not acceptable. Indeed, they do not get much fancier than this one. However, the whole idea of a threshold misses the basic point. The referendums we shall be holding will seek the electorate's views on the Government's proposals. We have made clear from the beginning that the referendums will be advisory and are intended to establish the level of support for our proposed settlement. We are committed to abiding by the views of the people of Scotland and Wales. Parliament, of course, will be free to take its own view on the significance of the referendum results.
At Second Reading and throughout much of our deliberations in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has quoted approvingly and at length from the Commission on the Conduct of Referendums. However, as regards the matter we are discussing he has quoted somewhat selectively. Paragraph 94 of the report states,
"A simple majority of those who cast their votes carries a natural authority".
Paragraph 100 refers to exactly the situation that we advocate and propose. It states.
"If referendums are to be advisory—
which this one will be—
"the issue of thresholds becomes in itself less significant. For example, pre-legislative referendums based on, say, proposals in a White Paper—
and there will be White Papers—
"would provide a measure of public support for a proposed piece of legislation. The legislation would still have to go before Parliament. Parliament would certainly take the referendums result and the margin of support into account, but will have the last word on whether and in what form the legislation is passed".
That is the considered view of the Commission on the Conduct of Referendums. The tone is slightly different from that which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, asks us to adopt.
The manifesto on which the Government were elected made it clear that the only threshold in the referendums would be the requirement for a simple majority to vote in favour of our proposals. We shall have nothing to do
466
with rigged ballots. Any threshold other than a simple majority vote would be arbitrary and unfair on the people of Scotland and Wales. Its only purpose would be to frustrate the expressed democratic will of the people. The notion of a sliding scale, as supported by some noble Lords, whatever spurious rigour it may seem to have, is really no different. Instead of setting one arbitrary threshold, the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, sets 17 arbitrary thresholds. If he is concerned about a small majority on a small turnout, I have one clear word of advice for him; namely, he should go out, campaign and convince the people to vote no. That is the clear, obvious answer. If there is a danger of a small turnout and a small majority in favour, surely the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, and his friends should have confidence in their own case, namely; that they can persuade a big majority to say no. That is what the democratic process is all about.
We have had discussions today about high principles and about mathematics and statistics. As regards those who have spoken in favour of thresholds and those who have expressed opposition to the concept of devolution, there is a high R2 value; in other words, there is a remarkably high correlation between those who want a threshold and those who are opposed to devolution.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Does the noble Lord accept that the converse is true also?
Lord Sewel: The only thing I have said is that there is a high correlation between those who want to introduce the totally anti-democratic principle of a threshold and those who oppose the idea of devolution itself. The noble Lord has been trying to blind us with science. I refer to a sliding—
Lord Campbell of Croy: Can the noble Lord explain why the Labour government in 1978 accepted, upon the recommendation of a Labour Member of Parliament, the 40 per cent. threshold that went into the Bill?
Lord Sewel: On this occasion I am incredibly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for indicating that at that time the Labour government were totally opposed to it. It may have been put into the Bill but not with the enthusiastic support of the government of the day. We want simply to hear the views of the people of Scotland and Wales. A simple majority vote will send a clear enough message to us and to Parliament.
I refer to a few more figures. Let us assume, for example, using the formula of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, that with an electorate of 1 million there is a 60 per cent, turnout; that is, 600,000 votes. The vote required is 51 per cent.; that is, 306,000. However, the turnout was not 600,000 but 600,001. The vote required was 300,001. What happens if there is a turnout of 600,000 and the vote in favour is 305,999? There would be a great feeling of being cheated because if one more person had taken part the measure could have been approved and would have passed the so-called threshold. To act on such a figure would be regarded not only as cheating the people of

467
Scotland but as a cheap way of dealing with the people of Scotland. It would in itself contain a recipe for instability which would mean that the people of Scotland would return to this issue, I suspect with some degree of bitterness. It is important to avoid that. They would feel that they had been denied.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: Is the noble Lord stating that on 3,001 as opposed to 2,999—on two votes—he would accept the ruination of the constitution of the United Kingdom? I find that hard to stomach.
Lord Sewel: They were not my figures; I was using the figures in the formula produced by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. The nonsense is the nonsense created by the noble Lord and not of my making.
The threshold, as we have demonstrated, is one of the most dangerous introductions into the democratic process that has been engineered. We should not allow a repeat of the 1979 situation when those who sat at home and did not vote had a significant influence on the outcome of that referendum. Quite simply, we will not have a backside referendum. It is surely right that those whose views should count are those who express their views through the time-honoured process, and that those views should not be modified by those whose interest is so little that they stay away from the poll.
I cannot understand the logic of allowing those who are either too apathetic to vote or who abstain for other reasons to affect the decision taken in any ballot. The referendum should not be about people sitting on their backsides but about people exercising their democratic entitlement. If the people of Scotland and Wales want to vote for our proposals, they will go to the ballot boxes and do so. If they want to vote against our proposals, they will do that. We should not allow the non-votes of the uninterested or even the deceased to count automatically against the requirement. The views of the people of Scotland will be clear without a threshold.
There is one other important argument. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has been utterly scrupulous in his contribution at Second Reading and in the points that he has made during Committee in recognising that the Government have the endorsement of their manifesto. He has not sought to oppose the principle of the Bill. In that context, it is important to read what the manifesto says on this issue:
"A simple majority of those voting in each referendum will be the majority required".
I weigh my words very carefully in this Chamber but Members should reflect upon the point that the question of threshold and majority was put to the people in the general election and overwhelming endorsed in the
468
United Kingdom as a whole and in Scotland specifically. I hope that the noble Lord will therefore withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble Lord sits down, can he remind me whether the Labour Party said in its manifesto that it would be an advisory referendum?
Lord Sewel: It says:
"Popular endorsement will strengthen the legitimacy of our proposals and speed their passage through Parliament".
We have never claimed other than that this is an advisory referendum. That is why it is a pre-legislative referendum.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this interesting debate. I must say that the best argument of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel—indeed, perhaps almost his only argument—was his last one. I was well aware of the sentence in the Labour Party manifesto to the effect that a simple majority of those voting in each referendum would be the majority required. That is his best argument; I do not think his other arguments were very good.
I was a little disappointed that Members could not get away from this referendum to the point of principle which I was trying to establish about all referendums. That particularly applies to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel. I shall check his complicated arithmetic over the 600,000 voting and the suggestion that, if one or two do not vote because they are "no" voters, that could mean on this table that the majority might fall. I think he is probably right because of the steps; but I offered him as an alternative to that a formula which gets around that problem. If that is his only objection—in addition to the manifesto—I can easily get round that with an amendment about the formula.
I appreciate the comments that he made about the Commission's report. It highlighted the point about thresholds being difficult to ascertain, and I quoted the beginning of the chapter on that matter. I still find difficult to understand that, if the Government are saying that the referendums are to establish the level of support in Scotland and Wales, they do not seem to be able to answer the question what an inadequate level of support would be. Is it conceivable that there will be an inadequate level of support based not on the fact that the "yes" proposition obtained a majority but that the majority was very low? The noble Lord did not address that point; he homed in on the hope that the referendum in Scotland and Wales would have a high turnout and he assumed that they would have no trouble. If he is right about that, he could happily accept my amendment because above a 60 per cent. turnout a simple majority works. I begin to think that Members on the Benches opposite may be protesting a bit too much and perhaps they are not nearly as confident as I read in the press they are about the result. We shall see what happens.
I am trying to get behind the matter. What happens if we have a number of referendums as the years roll on and the vote begins to go down to the kind of level

469
I read out earlier in the Committee, the kind of turnout that they have in Switzerland? Are we happy about that? I return to the point which was surprisingly not addressed by any Member who spoke. Even if the referendum is advisory, imagine the situation where a majority on a low turnout assent to the proposition and then Parliament says, "No, we are not going to bother with that because we do not think enough of you turned out to vote". I think that that would be unstable. I commend to the Government the proposition that before we move on to the next referendum, and the next one and the next one, they should give some serious thought to this issue.
Although I believe that what my noble friend Lord Beloff said about having compulsory voting gets round the problem, I am not entirely sure that that is part of our tradition. But neither am I entirely sure that referendums are part of our tradition. One national referendum in 1975 to get the then Labour Government out of deep trouble and divisions on the European Community does not seem to me to be a great British tradition. The argument that thresholds are not a great British tradition can be added to by saying that neither are referendums. But, if we are going into referendums, then we are in a new game and I suggest that we ought to look at some new rules.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, went back to 1910 and 1911. I suppose that was one better than the only Liberal Democrat amendment we had, which took us back to the pre-1707 Parliament. I was grateful for the fact that, with perhaps the exception of one or two comments from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, he said about the first mildly critical thing I have heard from his Benches about the Labour Party. That, I suppose, is a step forward and I look forward to his saying some more.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, and to others that my "fancy" formula does take care of people saying that not voting is the same as "no" voting. That is why I formulated it in this way. Nobody has argued against that, and I was grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, for underlining the point that I was not imposing huge thresholds on a popular opinion if that were a proposition in a future referendum.
Lord Desai: I did not want to speak because I thought I would only add to the confusion by mentioning formulae. Would the noble Lord not agree that his formula—and I am talking about the mathematical formula, not the threshold numbers—still gives a weight of one-half to everyone who abstains? So it is not true. If you put T=100-a, where a=abstentions, he will get a result which leads to 30+½a and ½a means that everybody who abstains has a weight of a half. So it is not true that he has taken care of the problem.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I knew that it was a mistake to give way to the noble Lord, Lord Desai. He is not for nothing one of the leading economics professors in the country. We have debated on a number of occasions. I think I should invite his noble friend the Minister to write to him.
470
I was interested in the very first contribution, which was from the noble Lord, Lord Steel, who said that quota systems were an interference in democracy. I found that somewhat hard coming from a party that favours, I understand, the single transferable vote, which involves quota systems. There is nothing too alien in quota systems so far as concerns the Liberal Democrats. But in fact I thought his arguments were very poor. I was not addressing parliamentary or local government elections, as one of my noble friends pointed out. In those circumstances, there is a multiplicity of perhaps three or four parties. If the electorate does not like what the party does in government, it can turf that government out next time.
Referendums lead to decisions which inevitably will be much more stable and likely to last and not be susceptible to the will of the electorate at the next turnout on a general election. So I do not think that he has a very fair point. I was not in the least impressed with that part of the noble Lord's argument, any more, frankly, than I was impressed with his argument earlier when he was discussing the abolition of the Scottish Parliament of 1707 and the resentment caused by it and when he prayed in aid the '15 and the '45 rebellions. There were many more issues involved then, if my memory serves me rightly. Being a Mackay, my memory does in these matters, serve me rightly, as we and the Campbells, whose crest I see around your Lordships' House quite commonly, were on the right side of that dispute. I believe that there were more Scots fighting on the Hanoverian side at Culloden than were fighting on the Jacobite side. So one has to be somewhat cautious in drawing lessons from history.
I am sorry that the Government do not consider this a matter that they have to take seriously into account if we are to go into a new situation in our politics, where referendums will be—not two-a-penny; I do not suppose they will be that—not so infrequent. At least we are seeing something like five or six maybe in this Parliament already. I believe that, if we do not lay down now the kind of ground rules that I am suggesting to the Committee, we shall inevitably have to do it one day in the future. Otherwise, we shall end up with the situation in which a government decide that they will not accept the majority in a referendum because there has not been a big enough turnout. I believe that that would cause very considerable tension between the electorate and the Government and between the people outside Parliament and the Members of Parliament, including the Members of this Chamber.
But, as I said, I have read the Labour Party's manifesto. I have been invited to read it so many times that I could not avoid reading it. I have made it perfectly clear in everything that I have said in the Committee on this Bill, that I have no intention of breaking the convention about manifesto commitments. I regret to say that it is the best argument that the Government can put forward and it is rather sad, given the importance of referendums, this one and others to come.
In the light of the very clear undertaking that the Government gave in their manifesto and in view of their majority, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 51:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
PUBLICLY-FUNDED INFORMATION
(" .—(1) Every household in Scotland and Wales shall receive a publicly funded leaflet giving general information on the holding of the referendums, and statements of the "Yes" and "No" cases relating to the referendum question.
(2) The Independent Statutory Commission shall have a duty to facilitate, on an equitable basis, the preparation, publication and distribution of campaign material provided by umbrella campaign organisations; and if no umbrella organisations exist, the Independent Statutory Commission shall produce the leaflets after appropriate consultation.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in my name and the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who cannot, unfortunately, be present. The important point about this new clause is that it suggests that:
"Every household in Scotland and Wales shall receive a publicly funded leaflet giving general information on the holding of the referendums, and statement of the 'Yes' and 'No' cases relating to the referendum question".
I apologise to the Committee in that I should have set down an amendment suggesting that the "yes" voters and the "no" voters should have the availability of the Freepost, as in a general election, under Section 91 of the 1983 Representation of the People Act. That has not been translated forward into the draft regulations.
I want to explore with the Government whether they believe that some provision should be made for every elector to receive in their hands a proper discussion of the issues, pro and con. The amendment simply asks for a general leaflet indicating what the referendum is about. I am relaxed about how that is done. Perhaps on one side of the paper is put the case for the yes vote and on the other side the case for the no vote. It will be a piece of paper that everyone receives, publicly funded. The public will then be able to judge on a précis of the White Paper the case for and the case against it and what they should do.
The importance of the Freepost was underlined to me this afternoon when I heard from the Benches opposite the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, suggest to his noble friend Lady Blackstone that having consultations including during the month of August was quite wrong. He hoped that there would be enough time for consultation on the Government's White Paper on education to allow proper responses and that August was not good enough. I thought I had heard myself using that argument a little earlier and making no headway with the Benches opposite. I was rather surprised, therefore, that the noble Baroness agreed with her noble friend and said that there would be plenty of time other than August. Of course, we know that there will not be plenty of time other than August for this particular issue. We shall be addressing it during August, leading to a referendum on, let us say—just because we cannot find out the date—4th September.
Because it is in August and because it is an important question—we all agree on that; people who are in favour of this constitutional change believe it is very important,
472
as do people who are against it—I believe that there is a big argument for each member of the public in Scotland and in Wales to receive a piece of paper at public expense which clearly states the pros and the cons of the issues that they are being invited to address. That means that in Wales there would be a leaflet explaining it in favour of the Government's proposition in the White Paper and comments in the same leaflet giving the opposite point of view. In Scotland there would have to be a slightly more complicated discussion, explaining the pros and cons of the first question and then explaining the pros and cons of the second question. As an aside, I might be slightly amused to see the Government's argument in favour of the pros for the second question, considering that they have gone to all the trouble of a referendum on the second question. But that is another matter.
This is a matter which I take very seriously. I believe that it is right and proper that people should be properly informed. All along the line, the Government have said that. Therefore, I believe in having some form of publicly-funded leaflet. It would be better if an independent statutory commission were there to hold the ring in such matters; but in our democratic society, where the usual channels can work rather well, an agreement can easily be reached between the pros and the antis as to the contents of each side of the leaflet, if that is the way it is to go. The public can thus be properly informed and we can have the kind of turnout that noble Lords opposite are so keen to have in order to establish the settled will of the Scottish people.
This is an important amendment. At risk of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, finding another court, I just quote again the Commission on the Conduct of Referendums. In guideline 12, it says:
"Every household should receive a publicly funded leaflet giving general information on the holding of the referendum and statements of the 'Yes' and 'No' cases relating to the referendum question".
I believe that it is a pretty convincing argument in that case. The eminent people who sat on that committee thought that we should have something of that nature for referendums in general. I believe that it is important for referendums in general and for this one in particular. But, if the Minister wants to tell me that there will be Freepost available to both the "yes" voters and the "no" voters, it would put my amendment in a slightly different light and I would look at it from a slightly different point of view. But if that is not forthcoming, the Government ought to accept this amendment. If it is not properly drafted, and I fully accept it may not be, in the second part of the proposed new clause, as I know from long experience it is a very simple thing for the Government to put right. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, pointed out, this is a question of principle and a question of mechanics. The noble Lord virtually conceded that the second part of his amendment is defective. How does one define an umbrella campaign organisation? There are difficulties, but there is no purpose in my spending time on the deficiencies of the second part of the amendment because he concedes those. Finding more holes in the amendments on a drafting basis is not fruitful at this time of the evening.

473
The real question is the question of principle which the noble Lord identified; that is, that the public should be properly informed. The media will have their part to play along with political parties, political figures and everyone who has an interest. That is one of the reasons we felt it was important in Wales that there should be a period of decent, calm reflection of two weeks or so, so that the public are fully informed on the specifically Welsh complexion and aspects of the situation.
There is a good case for ensuring that those who will vote in the referendums are well informed about the proposals on which they are being asked to vote. Therefore other persons and bodies have their part to play. I take the thrust of what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, said; it is something with which I agree. And I can tell him that we are currently considering how best to achieve that. I do not believe that one needs yet another layer of bureaucracy with an independent commission. The umbrella organisation's description, even as a floated proposition, is not likely to work.
I take up the offer of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, when he says that he is perfectly happy to put his proposals forward in a little more detail. All I can say, with the usual caveat now tattooed upon my head, is that there are no guarantees. I am perfectly happy to see whether or not we can come to a conclusion which is satisfactory to him. If not, we shall have to make up our own minds. But I stress again to the Committee that we believe in the validity and virtue of the case that those who are to vote ought to be well informed. On that basis, which I hope he finds helpful—I have not overlooked the second part; I have simply not dealt with it because nitpicking has diminishing returns—I ask him to respond in the way that I approached his point.
Lord Sempill: Perhaps I may quickly intervene. What I find interesting about the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is that one issue of which we are well aware, especially in Scotland and I am certain that it applies to other parts of the United Kingdom, is that there is substantial apathy among our youth towards voting—it was shown in the last election—and in their general attitude towards politics as a subject. It is important therefore that due consideration is given to the proposal and that the tone of the leaflet inspires young people. After all, they are voting on an issue which will affect their future much more than ours. They must be clearly made aware that the destiny of the way they want the constitution of this country to be taken forward sits in their hands. If the money can be found for some form of publicly-funded leaflet, clarifying exactly what is the status they are considering, it should be funded and the leaflet subsequently circulated.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: Perhaps I may briefly support the thrust of the agreement between the two Front Benches on this issue and make one suggestion. It is important that the Government, in coming to their final conclusions on this issue, look at the experience of both the 1975 and 1979 referendums. There were differences.
My recollection is that in the 1975 European referendum a printed leaflet of the kind described in the amendment of the noble Lord. Lord Mackay, was
474
available for the "Yes" campaign and the "No" campaign. The difference between the two referendums, as I recall, was that in 1975 there were properly established and recognised umbrella bodies on both sides who gave approval to the statements that were issued. That was not the case in the Scottish referendum. It will pay to look at what happened in the previous referendums in coming to what I believe both Front Benches agree should be done on this occasion; namely, that every voter should receive the case for each side of the argument free of charge.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I do not want to mislead the noble Lord, Lord Steel. I did not say that. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, would not have taken my remarks in that way. I said that we are currently considering how best to achieve public information and that I shall be grateful—I am sorry for any discourtesy—to all sources who wish to put forward their views. However, I stress that I have done nothing more than that.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: I understand that. I hope that I was not putting words into the Minister's mouth. I am urging him to look at the experience of the 1975 referendum, which I felt was the best procedure and better than that adopted in 1979. If he does that, he will end up doing that which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is pressing him to do.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Again, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his courtesy and clarity. We of course will take that advice on board.
The Earl of Lauderdale: The noble Lord, Lord Sempill, referred to the atmosphere among young voters. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that the public must be properly informed. Perhaps I may remind the Committee that we in this Chamber are here because we take a great interest in politics. On the whole the public outside do not do so and the last general election was overshadowed by a year of media coverage of events which had not yet happened. Of course, the public were bored stiff.
I remind the Committee that it is easy to get bored with politics and perhaps I may give by example a personal reminiscence. When I used to stand for the other place and go night after night to three or four villages and address an almost empty school hall with around three people in the audience, it was often said to my wife, "Why do you not sit on the platform with your husband?" Her answer was, "I do not want him to see me wince".
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not entirely sure what I am being offered. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Steel, for his support and in fact for his questioning which brought the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, to the Dispatch Box again. I then took a note of what he said. He said, "Public consider"; something about "public information".
Going back to a debate we had earlier, I can see that someone may construe the "public information" as being information about the Government's White Paper;

475
in other words, information entirely in relation to the "Yes" case, the Government's case in Scotland and Wales. To be honest, that would go no way towards satisfying the amendment which I tabled. I must therefore look carefully at the matter, unless the noble Lord, Lord Williams, wants to intervene and assure me that any public information that was distributed would not be information only on behalf of the "Yes" campaign and nothing on behalf of the "No" campaign. That would contravene the assurances I received in a debate earlier this afternoon from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, can help me in that regard.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I do not believe I can help the noble Lord. I want simply to be as clear as possible so that no one is misled. What I have said, and I have said it twice but I repeat it, is that we are currently considering how best to achieve that; that is, that those who are to vote or to consider voting in the referendums are well informed. I said that any sensible proposal, from whatever source, will be part of that consideration. However, I stress that I am doing nothing further than that.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful for that clarification as far as it went. Perhaps I can make it clear to the noble Lord that I would certainly recommend that my noble friends vote against any proposition brought at Report or Third Reading which envisaged an information campaign which gave only one side of the argument. I would certainly recommend that my noble friends voted against that. I hope that the Cross-Bench Peers may see the force of that argument and even, in this case, the Liberal Democrats also.
I hope that that is not what the Government have in mind. They ought to give consideration to this proposal in relation to public information. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, as far as it goes. I shall take refuge in the usual phrase that I shall read carefully what he said—and I certainly shall have to read it carefully. I shall also probably have to write to the noble Lord about it. However, I hope that whatever the Government are considering on this issue, they will be in a position to respond at Report stage when, if they do not table an amendment to allow us to discuss the issue again— either an amendment which they mean to put into practice or just one to allow us to debate it and allow them to say what conclusion they have reached—I shall certainly table an amendment, perhaps better worded than this one, in order to bring the issue to your Lordships' attention. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I seek to oppose the Question that Clause 4 should stand part of the Bill. The
476
clause seeks to prevent any court entertaining any form of legal proceedings questioning either the number of ballot papers counted or votes cast as certified after a referendum by a chief counting officer or one of the counting officers.
This matter was dealt with at Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel. He explained (at col. 1115 of the Official Report) that the purpose of the clause was to provide a safeguard against the opponents of devolution trying to delay implementation of the Government's proposals following a "Yes/yes" vote by calling into question the mandate provided by the referendum through spurious, but lengthy, litigation. He explained to the House that the clause had precedent in the legislation dealing with both the 1975 referendum and the 1979 referendums.
I shall deal, first, with the issue of precedent. I am aware of the statutory provisions that lie behind what the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said at Second Reading. However, the situation is different as far as concerns those previous referendums. The question that arose in the 1975 referendum was whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Economic Community. The Government would have been required to withdraw the United Kingdom from the Community had the vote gone against them on that occasion. The 1979 referendums were to deal with bringing into force two Acts of Parliament that had already been passed. The provisions of those Acts required that before any orders bringing individual sections into force were implemented the necessary votes had to be achieved in the Scottish and Welsh referendums.
The situation is different here because, as noble Lords on the Front Bench have stressed on more than one occasion, the referendums are to be of an advisory nature and there will be nothing to prevent the Government presenting a Bill or two Bills to Parliament, assuming they receive votes in support at the referendums, even if some form of legal proceedings were forthcoming. The existence of legal proceedings would not require the Bills to be delayed or indeed any part of the parliamentary process to be delayed.
Those noble Lords who have considered the terms of the draft orders for the holding of the referendums which are now to be incorporated into the Bill in the light of the concession made on an earlier Committee day will appreciate that only certain of the provisions are to be included. Some are not. Perhaps I may take, as an example, the position as to the counting of votes. The draft orders provide that rule 44 dealing with the attendance of people at the counting of votes will allow observers to be present. But they will be in a different position from the candidates, the election agents and the counting agents who attend at the count of a parliamentary or local election in that they will have a right only to observe. They will have no right to challenge what is going on in the sense of objecting to the rejection of a spoilt ballot paper and, in particular, will have no right to seek a recount. As there have been amendments dealing with the declaration of specific results for specific areas and constituencies, the need for

477
a recount may arise. It is just as likely to do so in a referendum as it is in a parliamentary election if those provisions are given effect to.
What the orders do not do is to incorporate into the procedures for running the referendums—one assumes therefore that it is the Government's proposal that they should not come into a new schedule—the proceedings which allow election petitions to be presented to the court seeking to challenge the manner in which a count has been conducted and, in particular, seeking to challenge the rejection of individual ballot papers. In addition, there is a possibility that people will seek to vote in the referendums, having got their names registered on the electoral roll, when they were not entitled to do so. There is the possibility that they may be subjected to some form of illegal pressure, whether financial or otherwise, to vote or not to vote; and, if they are to vote, to vote in a particular way. That is why Sections 113, 114 and 115 of the Representation of the People Act are incorporated into the proceedings that are to be followed by the draft orders as we now have them. Accordingly, there is a possibility that grounds will exist for challenging either the fact that individual voters have voted when they were not entitled to do so or the validity or otherwise of the decision to reject a particular vote as amounting to a spoilt vote.
At the present time the clause would exclude any possibility of challenging these matters in court. It would be difficult—I fully accept this—to incorporate into the proposed schedule a new procedure for such court proceedings but it would not be impossible to do so. In so far as the Government seek to obtain from the referendums some support which will provide greater legitimacy for their proposals on devolution, I would invite them to consider why court proceedings should be excluded altogether. In the absence of a provision for challenging the rejection of individual ballot papers and in the absence of the possibility of people being prosecuted for the offences we discussed on a previous occasion, there are grounds for suggesting that the clause should not stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Strange: I should like to support this amendment, having already spoken on this particular point at Second Reading. I will be brief, and spare your Lordships, particularly as it is important to get this Bill through our House in time to get our buckets and spades for our Summer Recess, whenever that may be.
I am certainly in favour of a referendum as I feel it is important that everyone in Scotland has a say in how much government they are prepared to pay for. And, of course, if we have a parliament in Edinburgh and a parliament in London with two lots of Scottish Members of Parliament, we will certainly be paying twice—and twice for the same thing. And I am certainly Scottish enough not to want that.
However, the point here is perfectly clear and perfectly straightforward, and nothing to do with the idea of devolution as such at all. It is simply concerned with the fairness of the referendum. Of course no one wants niggling court cases going on for ever about nothing. But if the counting officer is appointed by the Secretary of State, and is answerable only to the
478
Secretary of State and to no other court of justice in the land, it seems to me to carry more than a whiff of dictatorship. It is the type of election one might possibly expect, and would kick against, in a third world country. But not in Britain, which is a democracy and an example to all. The Scots voted overwhelmingly for a Labour government, although a lot of them voted for Conservatives and some also for the Liberal Democrats and for Scottish nationalists. That is perfectly plain. What is not plain is whether the Scots people really want an extra parliament. That is what the referendum is to find out. That is why it is so important for both the Opposition and the Government, and for everyone in Scotland, that the procedure is fair and just and is seen to be fair and just. That is why I support the amendment.
Lord Hardie: As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, observed, this clause has a basis in precedent, first, in 1975 and then in 1978. In the Referendum Act 1975, the Scotland Act 1978 and the Wales Act of the same year, there are provisions which are of similar effect although not identical in terms.
I took the trouble to go back to look at the Committee stages of each of those Acts to see whether Members of this House had raised the question of the appropriateness of having such a provision in the Acts. My research indicates that as regards what became the Referendum Act 1975, at Committee stage there were only minor drafting amendments to the clause provided on behalf of the Government. No further amendments were provided. As the Scotland Bill was going through your Lordships' House, at Committee stage general amendments were proposed but no one challenged the appropriateness of the exclusion clause. Similarly, as regards the Wales Bill, there were two amendments, one of which was agreed and the other withdrawn. Neither related to this issue.
I also went back to the Second Reading debate on the Referendum Bill in this House. In dealing with Clause 4, the same number as we are considering, the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Elwyn-Jones, said:
"I come now to Clause 4. Since its introduction this has been amended so as to restrict the original rather sweeping exemptions from proceedings in a court of law. The Bill now provides only that the results of the referendum may not be challenged in the courts to force a recount, which will be a matter for the Counting Officer, or obtain a fresh poll. We believe this clause is vital to prevent frivolous challenges which would delay reaching a decision on membership, a delay which could have serious economic disadvantages. We consider the proposed limited exclusion of challenge through the courts to be essential. Your Lordships will know that any allegations against the Government about the handling of the poll can be pursued in Parliament. The clause does not, of course, exempt anyone accused of an offence under the relevant Representation of the People Act, or under the Order made under this Act, from the normal legal processes".—[Official Report, 29/4/75; cols. 1194–5.]
That was observed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, in his speech tonight. He accepted that clearly anyone who voted who was not entitled to do so would be liable to prosecution. The purpose of the clause is the same as that behind the equivalent clauses in the Referendum Act 1975 and the Scotland and Wales Acts of 1978. It was to prevent any

479
challenges relating to the counting of votes or ballot papers. But it does not exclude any legal proceedings in relation to the referendum. As I have observed, people may be liable to criminal prosecution if they vote when they are not entitled to.
Furthermore, the courts, as Members of the Committee will be aware, are very jealous of their jurisdiction over clauses which seek to oust their powers. There is a substantial body of case law concerning the proper interpretation of such statutory provisions. Should any legal proceedings be brought challenging the legitimacy of the actings of the chief counting officer or of a local counting officer, it would be for the court, in accordance with that case law and in the circumstances of the particular case, to decide whether that challenge could be entertained in the light of Clause 4. For example, if it can be shown that a counting officer failed to carry out his statutory duties or had acted in any other way which was seen to be ultra vires, then the courts would intervene despite the terms of this clause.
With those assurances, I trust that Members of the Committee will agree that Clause 4 does no more than provide a valuable protection to ensure that we can act quickly in response to the results of the referendum. Perhaps I may take the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. I will be very surprised if the existence of proceedings in the courts challenging the referendum would have no effect on the introduction of the devolution Bill in either House. I would be astonished if in this House your Lordships did not raise the point that the whole question of the referendum and its outcome was being challenged. I am not giving any undertaking, but that is clearly a point that would be raised in debate. I am sure that the Committee would not fail to notice the existence of such proceedings.
In short, I invite the Committee to follow the precedent of the previous legislation that this House has not seen fit to challenge the appropriateness of similar provisions in the past. There have been referendums following on legislation containing such provisions and they appear to have worked well. I do not believe the fact that this is a pre-legislative referendum as opposed to a post-legislative referendum makes any difference. I urge Members of the Committee to withdraw their opposition to Clause 4.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, can he confirm that Clause 4 does not seek in any way to exclude the principles of judicial review? I believe that follows from what he said. All that it does is immunise findings of fact by the chief counting officer so that if he or a counting officer were to act illegally beyond the four corners of statute or were to take leave of his or her senses by acting in an irrational way, then judicial review would be fully preserved and the courts would be likely to construe Clause 4 narrowly and not in any way seek to oust the
480
jurisdiction of courts. If the noble and learned Lord agrees, does it follow that any suggestion of a whiff of dictatorship is entirely inappropriate and unjustified?
Lord Hardie: I thought I had made clear that that was my position about judicial review, that it would be open to someone to challenge the actings of a counting officer. I do not wish to comment about the use of the word "dictatorship".
Lord Burnham: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, he may be aware of a very recent case in the general election. The result at Winchester may be challenged in the courts on the grounds that a block of votes was not counted. Obviously, I make no comment on the result of that. But is such an occurrence, which may have happened recently, not to be allowed to be handled by the courts?
Lord Hardie: If the returning officer failed or refused to count a block of votes, on one view that may be a failure to exercise his duties, but I do not want to speculate about such situations in this Committee.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I begin by thanking the noble and learned Lord for his very full reply. I was interested to hear that he has had enough time to carry out his own research in response to this amendment. My experience of holding that office is that I was happy to leave such research to others.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for dealing with what lay behind the two precedents. I am not entirely persuaded that they are exactly in point with the present Bill, which deals with advisory referendums. However, I take his point that no challenge was forthcoming when the relevant legislation was before your Lordships' House.
I was interested to hear what the noble and learned Lord said about how Clause 4 would fall to be construed by a court. He placed a relatively narrow construction on it, which was assisted by the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. I am happy to say that the noble Lord is restoring the Liberal Democrat Benches to full support for the Government on this Bill. There was a brief hiccup in that position earlier today.
I shall read carefully what the noble and learned Lord has said because, contrary to some suggestions that have been made, we are not in the business of seeking to frustrate the Government's intention of holding the referendum some time in September. Indeed, if the Government get the vote that they seek, we are not in the business of seeking to frustrate them from placing the principal legislation before Parliament so that Parliament can then discuss in detail the major issues that arise from it. In the circumstances, I give notice to the Committee that I shall not insist on my opposition to the Question that Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: This appears to be a convenient moment at which to break the Committee stage of this Bill. I therefore beg to move

481
that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begins again not before 8.25 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Special Immigration Appeals Commission Bill [H.L.]
7.22 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Appeals]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, leave out lines 18 to 20.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if it is convenient for your Lordships, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 together. These three amendments relate to a point to which I referred previously—that is, the need to take account of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in establishing the new appeal rights to the special immigration appeals commission. I have been greatly assisted in my consideration of these matters by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who is constantly astute (and rightly so) to any lacunae that may appear in the legislation in this rather—I almost said "arcane" area; the noble Lord will take that in the best sense because he is a practitioner in this arcane area.
As I said previously, the main intention in providing appeal rights in the Bill has been to ensure that there is no risk of a breach of Article 3 of the ECHR in cases where there is presently no right of appeal on national security grounds. As I have explained, the aim has not been to give a right of appeal in all cases where an appeal is currently prohibited. We wish to ensure that there is a proper review in those cases where detention may be an issue. For the most part, this means that a right of appeal is required in those cases where there is an in-country right of appeal which is precluded only by the existing provisions restricting rights of appeal in national security cases.
The Bill does not therefore presently give a right of appeal in cases where entry clearance is refused because the Secretary of State has decided that the person's exclusion would be conducive to the public good. There is no question of detention or an Article 3 risk in those cases—and there is therefore no need to provide a general right of appeal.
We have, however, considered whether any other articles of the ECHR might require a right of appeal in some circumstances. As can be seen from my amendments, we have given particular thought to Article 8, which deals, among other things, with the right to respect for family life.
Article 8 allows that national security considerations can justify interference with this right, but there is nevertheless a need to provide for an effective review of any decision to ensure that any interference is in accordance with the law and is necessary.
For the ECHR rights arising from Article 8 considerations to be properly dealt with, the national security case underlying the refusal of entry clearance would need to be examined. If we do not provide a right of appeal to the new commission there would be a strong likelihood, following incorporation of the convention at least, that a court of judicial review would insist on seeing the national security details. For the reasons that I set out, which I believe found favour with your Lordships on the last occasion that we debated this, we would not want that to happen. We believe—I hope that your Lordships will assent to this—that it would clearly be preferable for any consideration of the national security case to be dealt with by a commission which has been set up especially to deal with any such cases which arise.
Our amendments limit the new right of appeal in refusal of entry clearance cases to those cases where the right to family life is truly at issue. That means there will be a right of appeal in cases where people seek entry to the United Kingdom under the immigration rules to exercise rights of access to a child resident here (paragraph (b)(i)); as the spouse or fiancé of a person present and settled here (paragraph (b)(ii)); and as the parent, grandparent or other dependent relative of a person present and settled here (paragraph (b)(iii)). We do not envisage that there will be many cases where this extended right of appeal will be needed. However, there may be some. In the circumstances, it is clearly preferable to provide a right of appeal to prevent potential difficulties which we have identified.
The structure is simple. Amendment No. 2 restructures Clause 2(2) and inserts the new rights of appeal. Amendment No. 1 is simply consequential to this restructuring. Amendment No. 3 defines the term immigration rules which is inserted by Amendment No. 2. I commend the amendments to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I must be careful not to be too complimentary to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. I say that because when my wife read the Official Report of the Committee stage of this Bill she said that she had never seen so much flattery or so many compliments paid by each of us to the other. Indeed, it reminded her of the situation at the end of the 19th century when there were two constitutional legal historians, one called Freeman and the other called Stubbs, who always wrote favourable book reviews of each other's work until a wag wrote a piece of doggerel in which he said something like:
"Ladling butter from alternate tubs;
Stubbs butters Freeman;
Freeman butters Stubbs".
The trouble is that I greatly admire the work that has been done by the Government and their advisers on this Bill to make it legislation of which we can all be proud.
I strongly support the amendment because it gives proper effect to the right to respect for family life in Article 8 of the convention. It also gives proper respect to European Community law. It also does something very important: it makes the special immigration appeals commission a one-stop shop. If one is setting up a

483
commission of such repute and expertise, I am very much in favour of ensuring that the problems are tackled by that body and not by a splintering of the jurisdiction. I agree with the Minister that it would be undesirable for a judicial review court to be involved in this area and that it would be better to have it within the jurisdiction of the special immigration appeals commission. This is a generous provision. It is hardly likely ever to be exercised in practice, but it seems to me to be clear and right. I support it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful for those remarks. I do not believe that there is any other contribution to be made. Accordingly, I ask that your Lordships approve the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 2 and 3:
Page 2, line 23, at end insert ("and—

(a) he seeks to rely on an enforceable Community right or any provision made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, or

(b) he seeks to enter the United Kingdom under immigration rules making provision about entry—

(i) to exercise rights of access to a child resident there,

(ii) as the spouse or fiancé of a person present and settled there, or

(iii) as the parent, grandparent or other dependent relative of a person present and settled there.").

Page 2, line 25, at end insert—
("(4) In this section, "immigration rules" has the same meaning as in the Immigration Act 1971.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
7.30 p.m.
Clause 4 [Determination of Appeals]:
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns Baroness Anelay of St. Johns moved Amendment No. 4:
Leave out Clause 4 and insert the following new clause—
DETERMINATION OF APPEALS
(" .—(1) The Special Immigration Appeals Commission on an appeal to it under this Act—

(a) shall determine only the issue relating to the contention that the appellant's admission to or stay in the United Kingdom is not conducive to the public good as being in the interests of national security or of the relations between the United Kingdom and any other country or for reasons of a political nature; and

(b) if it allows the appeal?—

(i) shall remit it to an adjudicator or special adjudicator as appropriate to determine the remaining issues under the applicable provisions of Part II of the Immigration Act 1971 or the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 as appropriate; or

(ii) depending on the circumstances of the appellant may, after allowing the appeal, remit the matter to the Secretary of State to consider the appellant's immigration status.

(2) For the purposes of section 1(a) above the Commission shall allow the appeal if it considers that the decision or action by the Secretary of State or an officer (in the interests of national security
484
or of the relations between the United Kingdom and any other country or for reasons of a political nature) is not justified viewed in the context of the facts existing at the date of hearing of the appeal.
(3) For the purposes of section 1(b)(ii) above there shall be a right of appeal under Part II of the Immigration Act 1971 against any further refusal of the appellant's application by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have tabled this amendment to try to resolve a problem created by the wording of the amendment tabled by the Minister in Committee which now forms Clause 4. Having studied the Minister's speech carefully in Hansard, I believe that there are problems not previously identified which follow upon the application of Clause 4 to immigration appeals which fall within the scope of the Bill. In their efforts to prevent the Home Secretary from having a right of appeal from the decision of the commission, the Government seem to have cut away at the existing avenues of appeal available to those who seek to remain here. I hope that this is an unintended result of the new Clause 4 and that the Minister will be able to reassure me on the matter.
I do not in any way impugn the ability of members of the commission to make decisions which may properly fall within its scope of decision. I question what that scope of decision should be. I am aware that at Committee stage the Minister went further than the remarks that I have just made about the commission. He said:
"We have absolute confidence in the independent review".—[Official Report, 23/6/97; col. 1435],
Strong words indeed. I wonder whether the appellants will endorse that view in times to come.
The objective of my amendment is to provide that in all cases, including asylum appeals, once the national security issue is determined in the appellant's favour, the matter should be referred to the appropriate appellate authority to proceed to hear the case on the remaining immigration/asylum issues in the normal way under the scheme of appeal contained within the Immigration Act 1971 and the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993.
The amendment which now forms Clause 4 of the Bill reproduces the whole of Section 19 of the 1971 Act. The essence of my objection is that to empower the commission to allow an appeal if the decision of the Secretary of State appears not to be in accordance with the law is a far wider remit than for the commission to consider the validity and cogency of the facts upon which the Secretary of State has decided that the appellant's presence is not in the interests of national security, etcetera. Was this really the outcome intended by the Government? In any event, what points of law are envisaged when the decision of the Secretary of State will have been taken on the facts and evidence known to him at the time and his judgment is as to whether they justified the exclusion of the appellant on the grounds of national security?
At the moment there is no provision for the commission to remit other outstanding immigration issues, that is, non-national security matters, to an adjudicator or back to the Secretary of State. Does that mean that the commission would be expected to

485
determine such other issues as well as that of the exercise of the discretion of the Secretary of State on the grounds of national security? If so, the appellant is at a disadvantage because there is no right of appeal beyond the commission, unlike to the Immigration Appeals Tribunal and Court of Appeal under the Immigration Act 1971 and the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 for other applicants. Even a right of appeal from the commission would not be as satisfactory as the power to remit the issues back to an adjudicator or to the Secretary of State. Is it the Government's intention that the commission should remit such matters? If so, why is that provision not in their new Clause 4?
My amendment seeks to find a possible way to resolve the problem that I have outlined. The amendment provides that when the commission determines appeals under Clause 2 it should deal only with the issue of national security or the relations between the United Kingdom and any other country or reasons of a political nature and whether the Secretary of State's discretion should have been exercised differently in the light of the facts at the date of the hearing. It is my intention that it is only in appeals under Clause 2(1)(g)—cases involving asylum—that the commission should balance the considerations of national security with those of the fear of persecution or torture if the appellant were to be returned to the country of origin, along with any compassionate circumstances relating to the claim for asylum, and allow the appeal if the considerations of fear or persecution or torture override the threat to national security.
Where an appeal is allowed on an appeal which falls within the definitions of Clause 2(1)(a) to (f) the remaining issues should be remitted to an adjudicator to determine the remaining non-asylum issues in the usual way under the provisions of Part II of the Immigration Act 1971. Where an appeal is allowed on a Clause 2(1)(g) appeal the commission should give directions and/or make recommendations as it sees fit in order to give effect to the determination.
I am aware that the Minister may find my drafting wanting in giving effect to my intentions, but I hope that I have made my intentions clear. I hope that this amendment will be seen as opening up a way forward that may be adopted by the Government at Third Reading or when the Bill reaches the Commons. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the proposed amendment would frustrate the central aim and object of the Bill which I take to be to secure compliance with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Chahal and the European Convention by a method that is orderly and efficient and respects the need not only to secure convention rights but to protect the public interest in national security. The category of appellants whom we are considering is those who fall within Clause 2. I hope that I shall not cause offence if I define them simply as suspected terrorists for short because there will be others, but it makes it clear that we are dealing here with a very exceptional class of people.
486
The question that we are considering is: what should be the scope of the jurisdiction of the special immigration appeals commission in relation to that exceptional and special class of cases? We are told that it will involve probably no more than two or three a year. Under Clause 4 as it stands, without the amendment the commission has the jurisdiction to determine all of the relevant issues of law and fact and to give a binding decision upon them on the merits. In my view, that is what is required by Article 13 of the convention—the requirement that there be an effective domestic remedy and that it has been implemented sensitively with a special procedure. I would have thought that the noble Baroness would have been pleased with it because it does not treat the matter as an ordinary criminal trial. Given that we are dealing with suspected terrorists, it seeks to balance the rights of the appellant against the need for national security.
The amendment of the noble Baroness would fracture the commission's jurisdiction into splinters. The commission would be confined to addressing only the "non-conducive to public good" grounds—national security. The matter would then have to be remitted to the adjudicator to deal with the other legal issues or the Home Secretary to make a discretionary decision about the appellant's immigration status. That would be an unnecessarily complicated and fractured procedural framework. I see no good reason why the jurisdiction should be fractured, especially when the commission will be composed of someone with great judicial experience and the chief immigration adjudicator himself—the person at the hierarchy of the immigration appeal system. Moreover, under the amendment as I read it, the commission's decision would not be legally binding on the Home Secretary. By knocking out Clause 4 and substituting this amendment that too would not comply with the convention. Further, the commission would have to consider the appeal wearing blinkers. Because under the amendment it could consider only the facts existing at the date of the hearing of the appeal, which is a defect. I cannot for the life of me understand why this complexity should be regarded as somehow necessary or giving greater rights to the individual in a way that would meet the requirements of the Bill as a whole. For those reasons, I should be sorry to see this clause replace Clause 4 in its present form.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation. I have to say at once that I am unable to support Amendment No. 4. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, observed, Amendment No. 4 would replace Clause 4 which was introduced unopposed as a government amendment in Committee. It would replace it with new provisions governing the determination of appeals heard by the special immigration appeals commission. The new clause would have a significant effect in some important respects. It is true that there would be few cases per year, but those cases are of extreme importance.
The most significant change which the amendment offers is that under its terms the commission would deal only with the issue of whether the appellant should be excluded from, or be required to leave, the UK for

487
reasons of national security, international relations, or for other reasons of a political nature. The felicitous phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Lester—I shall be in trouble with Lady Lester—was the "fractured jurisdiction". I believe that to be accurate as well as felicitous. As the Bill is currently drafted—this is its virtue—the commission would deal with all aspects of an appeal which fall within its jurisdiction, including, most important, any application for asylum.
If the amendment became law, it would provide that the commission would refer appeals which it had allowed to an adjudicator, a special adjudicator, or to the Home Secretary, for further decisions on outstanding matters. That is not an efficient use of resources or an efficient way of coming to these difficult decisions. We do not believe that jurisdiction should be divided in that way. It would be inefficient and unnecessary.
The tribunal of the quality and nature of the one which is to be created by the Bill will be able to deal with all aspects of the case and to conduct a full merits review on all points. There is only a single appeal. I respectfully dissent from the noble Baroness's proposition that that represents any unfairness to appellants. As a general rule, if the national security case is not accepted by the commission, it is likely that the appellant will be found to meet the requirements of the immigration rules and be allowed to come to, or remain in, the UK.
Even if we did accept that the proposed division of jurisdiction was a sensible way to approach these matters, the amendment does not allow for any consideration of the merits of a claim for asylum or any associated Article 3 considerations in any case where the national security case has been upheld by the commission. It is important to remember what was said by me on behalf of the Government on the last occasion. One very important outcome of the judgment in Chahal's case is that it is clear that there can be no question of a balancing act between the risk to an individual and national security considerations. If there are good grounds for believing that a person will be an Article 3 risk then the national security case for his or her removal is effectively—I put this bluntly—irrelevant.
I know from our previous discussions that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is concerned that in the sort of cases which will come before the commission damage may be done to the interests of the nation or the state. However, as I have said, and as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has emphasised more than once, Article 3 of the convention is an absolute obligation. If there is an Article 3 risk, then that concludes the matter.
That is why we envisage that the commission will resolve any claim for asylum before it considers the national security case. There is no benefit to be gained from considering the national security case for removal if the commission reaches the view that asylum or wider Article 3 considerations apply.
The existing Clause 4 establishes that the commission will undertake a merits review of the cases which come before it. That was warmly welcomed by the noble
488
Lord, Lord Lester, on the earlier occasion. The commission will be able to consider whether the Home Secretary was right to reach a decision on matters where he exercises his discretion—such as to deport on national security grounds—on the basis of a consideration of the evidence. It will be able to consider matters relevant to the law and to the immigration rules in respect of its wider jurisdiction. Clause 4(1)(a)(i) makes that plain: the decision or action against which the appeal is brought was not in accordance with the law or with any immigration rules applicable to the case.
In bringing forward the original amendment, we used the relevant aspects of Section 19 of the 1971 Act which we found of assistance. I do not think that there is any doubt that the current Clause 4 achieves what is wanted. If the commission takes a different view of the national security case from that taken by the Home Secretary, it will be able to overturn that decision; that is to say, the Bill, if it becomes law, puts into existence a machinery which involves a senior judicial figure, the senior adjudication officer, and one other person. That is the conclusion to which we came—I believe rightly—in those small number of cases. If the explanation I have been able to give assists the noble Baroness, I would ask her to withdraw the amendment.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. He has been of some assistance, but I still have some reservations. I shall want to read Hansard carefully and reflect upon what he has said. I cannot rule out returning to the issue on Third Reading.
We on these Benches may also wish to return on Third Reading to two central issues identified by my noble friend Lady Blatch in Committee. They are issues which we believe the Minister failed adequately to address at that stage. In fairness to him, I shall refer briefly to those two issues.
I heard what the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, said about the Chahal case. We on these Benches have concerns that the Bill goes significantly beyond what was required by that case, and we are concerned for the reasons involved in it.
As the Bill is currently drafted, there is nothing to stop the commission from taking a compassionate view of the appellant's circumstances and deciding that those outweigh the national security aspects, and that the appeal should be allowed on that ground. That, in itself, would appear to go beyond Chahal. There could be bizarre reasons for overturning perfectly rational arguments made by the Secretary of State as to why a person should be excluded or deported for reasons of national security, only to find that the commission, whose decision would be binding on the Secretary of State, took a view that his discretion should have been exercised differently because of personal circumstances.
That could compromise considerably the interests of national security. That possibility emphasises the need for there to be a right of appeal by the appellant and the Secretary of State to the Court of Appeal on a point of law. It means also that the only way in which to deal

489
effectively with that is for the commission's task to be restricted to considering the national security aspects, and whether the Secretary of State exercised his discretion correctly in that regard, and for it not to be able to take into account any other matter, such as the compassionate circumstances of the appellant, provided that there would be no failure to comply with Article 3 of the ECHR or other international obligations, in reaching its decision on whether the Secretary of State exercised his decision correctly.
I should also like to remind the Minister that in Committee he gave no answer to the point made by my noble friend Lady Blatch about whether both directions and recommendations of the commission are to be binding on the Secretary of State or merely directions and, if the latter, what might be the status of any recommendation.
Moreover, there appears to be no limit whatever on what directions or recommendations can be made. Could it, for example, include a direction that the appellant should be given indefinite leave to remain or that entry clearance should be granted to other members of the appellant's family who are outside the United Kingdom?
We on these Benches may wish to return to these matters in some detail at Third Reading. Today, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.25 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.51 to 8.25 p.m.]

Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill
House to be again in Committee.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 52:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT: WHITE PAPER TO BE PUBLISHED AND DISTRIBUTED BEFORE REFERENDUM
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State for Scotland shall publish a White Paper detailing his proposals for the establishment and powers of a Scottish Parliament and indicating the potential constitutional implications of the establishment of such a Parliament.
(2) The Secretary of State for Scotland shall publish a summary of the White Paper.
(3) No referendum on the establishment of a Scottish Parliament shall be held less than two weeks after the summary has been published and distributed to every elector in Scotland.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 which seek to incorporate some new clauses into the Bill. They follow largely the same track, although with some differences.
The amendments can best be described as being in three parts. The first part insists that the Secretary of State shall publish a White Paper detailing his proposals
490
for the establishment and powers of a Scottish parliament and a Welsh assembly in the case of Amendments Nos. 53 and 54.
We have been along this road before. I do not suppose that I shall be told this evening when the White Papers are to be published. I understand—and it would be nice if government Ministers could confirm or deny this— that the Welsh White Paper was ready and could be published. In the interests of open government, I am quite sure that the Minister will tell me whether or not that is true. Obviously, it is either true or it is not true that the Welsh White Paper is ready. I can understand that because it is a simpler proposition.
The Scottish White Paper is not ready but I have been assured that the date on which it is to be published will be announced on Report. As Report stage will be a fortnight today, I wonder whether that means that we shall not receive the White Paper until after a fortnight today; or are we to receive it a little earlier? Monday seems an odd day on which to launch a White Paper and I wonder whether Friday, 18th July, might be a better day. Perhaps I may tempt the Minister to tell me on which of those days the White Paper is to be produced. Perhaps I may be told also whether it is intended to produce the Welsh and Scottish White Papers on the same day. If the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, as regards the referendum dates is compelling, I should have thought that the Welsh White Paper should be published a week before the Scottish one so that the Welsh people will have a whole week before the Scots in order to consider the matter untrammelled by the Scottish situation. The media will be able to give their whole attention to that issue. Indeed, if I had thought about the matter earlier, I might have tabled an amendment to that effect. If the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is to answer this debate, he may wish to turn his attention to that proposition; namely, that the Welsh White Paper should be published next week to give the Welsh people an opportunity to have a week free from the distractions of the Scottish White Paper. If that were to happen, I should find the noble Lord's argument about the referendum dates just a little—and only "just a little"—more convincing.
Amendment No. 52 wants the White Paper to indicate the potential constitutional implications. I am not sure whether it will do that, but I hope it will. The Welsh amendment, to which my noble friend Lord Lucas will speak, invites the Government to tell the Welsh people why they are not to have tax-varying powers which the Scots are to have. The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell invites the Welsh White Paper to indicate the functions and responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Wales, the Welsh Office, Welsh Members of Parliament and Welsh local government. That is fairly straightforward.
The second paragraph of all three amendments—that is, Amendments Nos. 52, 53 and 54—suggests that the Secretaries of State should publish a summary of the White Papers. I believe that there is considerable merit in that suggestion. Indeed, it actually links back to the amendment that we discussed before the dinner break, when we discussed how we collectively can get over

491
the message about the referendum, and the pluses and minuses, to the public in Scotland and Wales. For example, do we send out a paper or a leaflet within which both sides would advance their arguments?
I was going to say that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, gave me some assurances in that respect, but I do not believe that he even did that. Nevertheless, he said that he would think about it on a very "maybe" basis. It was on that basis that I withdrew the amendment. However, that does not actually address the question of a summary of the White Paper. That seems to me to be reasonably politically neutral in the sense that it neither advocates the "Yes" campaign or the "No" campaign. I do not know what the White Paper will be like, but I have not yet seen one which would not have merited a summary. I believe that the same will apply to these White Papers. I would never go as far as someone who suggested that everyone in Scotland and Wales should receive a White Paper. I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said that it was not on anyone's summer reading list. That certainly is true. It may have to be on mine, but I would not inflict that upon the majority of my fellow countrymen or Welshmen. I believe that a summary is important and I seriously wonder whether the Government propose to produce a summary of the White Papers for Scotland and Wales.
My third point is that that summary ought to be published and distributed to every elector at least two weeks before the referendum date. I believe that to be self-evident. Interestingly enough—and I alluded to this earlier—in 1975 there was a popular version of the White Paper. In fact, I am not sure quite how "popular" it was because that was what it was called—the popular version of the White Paper. That related to the continuing membership of the United Kingdom in the European Community. However, at the same time, "Yes" and "No.' leaflets were produced and distributed at public expense. So, if I can put it in shorthand fashion, the public received in the Freepost a popular version of the White Paper, together with a "Yes" and a "No" leaflet. Although it harks back to a previous amendment, I would submit that that is a fair way to present the arguments to the electorate. I hope that we may be able to consider doing just that at this time.
In 1979 none of those things happened, partly because the campaign groups could not agree and partly because the Government, under the Prime Ministership of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, could not agree. Their own Back-Benchers could not agree on the proposition that it should be a popular version because, clearly, who writes the popular version becomes quite important as, indeed, does who writes the accompanying commentary. Therefore, if we have to look back at 1975 and 1979, the precedents are pretty inconclusive: one points in one direction while the other points in another. That is why I wonder what direction we are to follow this time.
In summary, what we are asking for in the proposed new clause is, first, that the White Paper should be produced in plenty of time. Of course, I accept that we have now had the commitment from the Government that it will be announced or else be available by the time
492
we reach Report stage. Secondly, we will have six weeks, plus or minus a week or two, in order to debate the White Papers before we vote. Thirdly, the second part of the amendments asks for a summary of the White Papers so that the electorate can actually have a brief look at the position, and the third part of the amendments asks that the summary should be,
"published and distributed to every elector",
in Scotland and Wales at least two weeks before the referendum. As I said, I have been speaking to Amendments Nos. 52, 53 and 54. I believe that they are all important and sensible amendments which I am sure the Government will accept. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Perhaps I may deal with one of the points which is consistently made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. He complains about our referring to the differences in the campaigns in Wales and Scotland in 1979. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, who I am pleased to see is now in his place, described such references as "patronising" during the last Committee stage.
In a Report, An Assembly for Wales, published by The Constitution Unit, which is an independent inquiry into the implementation of constitutional reform under the auspices of the Faculty of Laws, University College London, published in 1996, the following was said:
"The Government's policy [in 1979] on devolution, as transmitted by the media and as perceived by the general public, was largely that concerned with Scotland. The issues of the Welsh devolution debate were given very little coverage outside Wales (despite the differences, the two debates appeared repetitive so the second was deemed not newsworthy). Furthermore, even within Wales, the dominance of the London press with total morning daily sales of 700,000 compared with less than 150,000 for the Welsh morning dailies meant that the Welsh debate failed to reach most Welsh electors. Nor was this deficiency overcome by the broadcasting media. While both BBC Wales and HTV Wales scheduled a wide range of devolution and referendum programmes, the national news programmes reflected the dominance of Scottish devolution in the referendum debate. The different provisions for Welsh devolution, including its limited character compared to Scotland were not fully explained or appreciated".
The references that refer to that research were from a publication by Messrs. Foulkes, Jones and Wilford, the Welsh Veto, in 1983.
When the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, deals with the issue with some hilarity and suggests that perhaps the Welsh White Paper should be published first, he totally ignores what is really a very serious issue; namely, that there is a difference between what is happening in Scotland and Wales and there is a need for it to be fully explained. It is with that in mind that I support the tenor of what the noble Lord said—that is, that the White Paper should be published and distributed before the referendums take place—but the terms in which he expresses it reflect, as I said, some hilarity as regards the Welsh situation and are not something that I can accept.
Lord Lucas: I think perhaps that the need to treat the matter with some hilarity comes from the Government's position which is so obviously unbending on the issue. As my noble friend Lord Mackay has accurately pointed out, if the Government were really interested in giving the Welsh time to think about the issues on their own,

493
they would publish the Welsh White Paper now and that would indeed give them the full attention of the media for a period of some weeks.
I do not want to repeat anything said by my noble friend but I do want to pick up the difference between Amendments Nos. 52 and 53; namely, that we seek to ensure that the White Paper satisfies the reasonable curiosity of the Welsh as to why they are being offered less than the Scots. If I were to invite the noble Lords, Lord Sewel and Lord Williams, to supper and tempt them by publishing the menus in advance, I should think that that was a reasonable thing to do. However, if my proposals were to offer the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, a slap-up meal and to stop the noble Lord, Lord Williams, short of the soup course, they might find that a little surprising.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord's last remark is not funny at all, as I spent the dinner hour on other business and did not even have the opportunity to take soup.
Lord Lucas: I believe that it would be a reasonable question for the noble Lord, Lord Williams, to ask as to why I would wish him to stop short of the soup course. I am sure that I would be able to convince him that there was good reason for it. I could not think of it at present but, if I were to do such a thing, I would have a good reason. I think it right that the Welsh should be told.
Lord Sewel: Sooner or later—I suspect it will be sooner—I shall have to deprive the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, of a great deal of harmless fun and tell him when the White Paper will be published. However, that will not happen just yet; he will have to wait a little longer.
The effect of the new clauses as proposed by Members of the Committee opposite would be to require the publication of White Papers which would specifically refer to the,
"potential constitutional implications of the establishment of"
a Scottish parliament and a Welsh assembly. The new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who is not in his place at present, specifies in more detail the subjects which should be covered in the White Paper.
By virtue of these amendments the White Papers would have to be published before this. Bill receives Royal Assent. Indeed there is a ticklish technical question here. These are not so much wrecking amendments as impossible amendments. If they were accepted, they would create a duty by statute which could be fulfilled only before the statute came into force. That is quite a nice logical somersault. There is a little difficulty there. We await no doubt the algebraic formula that springs us from that trap. However, my principal difficulties with the noble Lords' proposals are more than simply technical.
The new clauses would also require the Secretary of State to publish summaries of the White Papers for Scotland and Wales which would be distributed to every elector in Scotland and Wales respectively. The
494
referendums would be held no fewer than two weeks after such distribution. That just goes to show that we try to understand the amendments.
The Government are committed to setting out in the White Paper, to be published shortly, their detailed proposals for the establishment of a Scottish parliament. There is no need to require this in statute; it will happen. It is absolutely clear that that will happen. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, accepts that. There has never been any doubt about our intentions which were set out in our manifesto. I am therefore a little surprised that that aspect has been focused upon in the new clauses. The Government are as concerned as Members of the Committee opposite to ensure that electors are adequately informed about the Government's proposals before they are asked to vote on them. I am sure that when the people of Scotland and Wales vote they will be well aware of what they are being asked to express their views on. I do not think there is the slightest possibility of an uninformed electorate.
The new clauses also propose the publication of summary versions of the Scottish and Welsh White Papers, to be distributed to every elector in Scotland and Wales respectively. There is little between us on this. I assure the Committee that the Government are giving serious consideration to the question of whether and how further information about their proposals should be made available. I give a full and complete assurance that I am happy to express to my ministerial colleagues the view of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, that a summary of the White Paper should be distributed.
We shall publish the White Paper shortly. As we made clear earlier, the date of publication will be made clear by or at Report. We shall ensure that there is an opportunity to debate it in this Chamber and we shall ensure that there is ample opportunity for public debate in advance of the referendums. We shall carefully consider what further information should be provided to voters. In the light of those assurances I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw the amendments.
The Earl of Onslow: Before the noble Lord sits down, he gently skirted the subject of the constitutional implications of devolution. Will they be mentioned in the White Paper?
Lord Sewel: I find it difficult to see how two White Papers dealing with the future government of Scotland and Wales will not deal with constitutional issues.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, for adding to what his noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn said before dinner as regards a similar but slightly different amendment. I welcome the assurance that the Government are considering producing a summary of the White Paper and perhaps providing further information, I hope along the lines of a yes and a no leaflet to be distributed to every elector. I hope they will decide to do that because I believe that

495
will achieve the bigger turnout that they want and it will give us a clear view of what the Scottish and Welsh people want.
It is clear that I shall have some more fun about the date of the White Paper. I am grateful for what I thought was the support of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. If the Welsh White Paper is ready, why not publish it and let it be debated by the UK national newspapers now, in advance of a Scottish White Paper being issued? He and the Government fear that if they are issued together the Welsh White Paper will be subsumed in the Scottish argument. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. The Government might consider that. I notice that they managed to avoid saying whether the Welsh White Paper was ready for publication. However, I suggest that if it is ready for publication they could hold a press conference in Cardiff this Friday. That would give all the weekend papers the necessary Mandelsonian briefing and all of us would be able to read about the Welsh proposals separately from the Scottish proposals. I suspect the latter proposals—as I have not been told anything to the contrary—might be issued the following Friday so that that weekend's papers will be full of the details of the Scottish White Paper. Seriously, there is much to be said for that. It would be a sensible way to deal with this issue.
As regards the proposed new Subsections (2) and (3) of the amendment, I am grateful for the assurances that the noble Lord has given. I am grateful that the Government are considering this matter seriously. I am sure he takes my point that the average Government White Paper is not something that everyone wishes to get hold of, read, mark and inwardly digest. They would prefer a summary. The precedents of 1975 are there for us to follow. While the situation in 1979 did not work like that, we should look at the position in 1975. I hope that the Government will be able to tell us at Report stage what they intend to do about these matters. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Expenditure]:
[Amendments Nos. 55 to 57 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Section 1(2)]:
[Amendments Nos. 58 to 60 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 4, line 9, at end insert ("AS DETAILED IN THE WHITE PAPER").
The noble Lord said: In some ways this amendment takes us back to the issue of whether we should have a pre or a post-legislative referendum. The terms of the post-legislative referendum which was held in 1979 were clear. It asked whether the electorate agreed that the proposals in the Act should be implemented. That seems straightforward and uncomplicated. People knew what the Act contained. It had been debated long and
496
earnestly both in this place and in the other place and was well reported in the Scottish newspapers. There was plenty of detail; nobody was in any doubt. A White Paper does not have quite the same authority. It has no legislative authority, for example. As I have said on a number of occasions, there will not be much opportunity to comment on the White Paper in the course of the month of August, a point drawn to the attention of Members of the Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, and made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, earlier today with regard to an education White Paper which the Government have just announced. There will thus be little chance of comment in the Autumn while the Bill is being prepared. The comments on the White Paper will therefore largely be after the referendum during the progress of the Bill through this House and through the other place and there could be changes.
The point of the amendment is to hear what the Government have to say about this matter. As I understand it, Scottish people will be asked to make a generalised decision about whether or not they want an assembly or parliament. We are told by the Government that details of the assembly or parliament, its powers and the way it will operate, will be set out in a White Paper which we have not seen and that the people will be asked to vote on that White Paper. If that is the case and people in Scotland and Wales are to be asked to vote on the White Paper, why not say so? Why not say. "as detailed in the White Paper"? One wonders whether there might be a bit of sleight of hand and that what we read in the White Paper, if the Scottish and Welsh people decide that that is what they want, might not be what appears at the end of the legislative process.
It is not that Members here or in the other place will make life difficult for the Government, I suspect, but that the Government may, in the light of consultation and observations, decide that they have to change some of the things they said in the White Paper that they would do. It seems to me quite difficult, and perhaps the Minister will say that it is difficult, to decide what is a major amendment and what is a minor amendment to the White Paper between the White Paper and legislation. I believe that that underlines the fact that we would be far better with a post-legislative referendum. I do not myself approve of referendums but, if we have to have them, they ought to take place after the legislation has passed through this House or, let us say, in the case of the single European currency, after the decision has been taken in Parliament.
I assume that the Government will resist this amendment. I am interested to know why they resist it and how closely they will feel themselves bound to the White Paper if they obtain a majority in either or both of these referendums. I believe that the Committee and the world outside might be very interested to know the answer to that question. I beg to move.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I should like to add one point to what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, said. We are being asked to consider this White Paper in the month of August. As I understand it, people will probably be invited to vote in a referendum in

497
September. I believe that it is worth putting on record that between the years 1900 and 1992 there has never been a general election in the months of August or September. The earliest one that I know of took place in the second half of October.
The months of August and September are traditionally months in which a great many people are on holiday, particularly professional people who would be of assistance in helping the people of Scotland to understand the implications of a White Paper. It is important to bear that point in mind and that a longer time should be given to the people of Scotland to understand the implications of what they are being asked to vote on.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I do resist the amendments on the basis that they are not necessary. The questions spell out,
"Parliament has decided to consult people in Scotland on the Government's proposals for a Scottish Parliament",
and similarly,
"Parliament has decided to consult people in Wales on the Government's proposals for a Welsh Assembly".
Those proposals will be contained in the White Papers. My noble friend Lord Sewel and I have undertaken until it is perhaps becoming tediously repetitive that those proposals will be published and Members will have an opportunity to discuss them before the Recess. There is no point having reference to the White Paper, particularly when one remembers that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, said with regard to the previous amendment that he did not suggest that everyone in Scotland and Wales should have a copy of the White Paper.
As regards the question about timing, I hear what the noble Lady says, but we have made plain on a number of occasions what the hoped-for timetable is. I do not think I can usefully repeat the arguments except to say finally, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, that it has been made plain on a number of occasions that it is the Government's position that the referendums are to be advisory and for guidance. The Government's proposals will have been published in the White Papers and, I hope, fully discussed by the people of Scotland and Wales.
If the original purpose of these amendments was to obtain the undertaking that the White Papers will be published before the Recess, I do not think I can say any more often that that will be the case.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I think perhaps the noble Lord is keen to get to his supper, having conducted the dinner-hour business, something I remember doing myself, so I have some sympathy with him.
I hear what he says about not needing to put the White Paper point into the question because he believes that the preamble is sufficient. If he is putting on record that "on the Government's proposals" means "the White Paper", that is certainly progress and we have achieved a little. I would still like to see the White Paper referred to in the Bill.
498
I did suggest that people would not want to read a White Paper but I also suggested that they might want to read a summary, and I believe they should be given the opportunity of doing so. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is not dismissing out of hand the possibility of a summary of the Welsh and Scottish White Papers going to the Welsh and Scottish people. I think it is important that a summary should go to them. As I said earlier, in 1975 a summary was sent out. I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of man, woman or officials to produce a summary. In many White Papers produced by government—I can certainly speak for the previous Government—an attempt is made to produce a summary because we realise that not everyone will have the time, the interest or indeed the funds to purchase and read the original White Papers, but a summary is important.
However, with the noble Lord's assurance that the question means "a Scottish Parliament along the lines of the White Paper", I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 61A to 65 not moved.]
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 65A:
Page 4, leave out lines 18 and 19 and insert ("I AGREE THAT A SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT SHOULD HAVE FULL POWERS OVER ALL AFFAIRS AFFECTING SCOTLAND").
The noble and learned Lord said: I agree with the Liberal Democrats that this referendum, and therefore this Bill, is entirely unnecessary. I, no more than the Liberal Democrats, am impressed by the specious argument put forward in favour of the referendum immediately after the election. Indeed, I go a step further and ask, if the reasons do not stand up to examination, what are the true reasons?
I support devolution and agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, on the question of thresholds. Despite that, I am bound to ask why we are having this referendum and, therefore, this Bill. The only answer I can find is that the Government believe that it is in their short-term and narrow political interest. Indeed, as the Bill has progressed, I have been increasingly feeling with great unease that the Government are playing politics with the constitution.
If we are to have a referendum, we might as well use it to ask useful questions and find out what the people really think and want. That is the purpose of Amendments Nos. 65A and 69A which put the same question, one way positively and the other way negatively. They have to be considered with an earlier amendment; namely, the one that conflated the two questions of a parliament and the powers of a parliament and the revenue raising powers. In effect, the suggested question was: do you want a parliament with powers limited to specifically Scottish affairs and with revenue powers for that purpose? To that, this amendment adds the question: do you alternatively want a Scottish parliament with plenary powers—in other words, plenary legislative powers over every matter that may affect Scotland? I know that the Government do not

499
want that. But, equally, I know, because the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, told me so, that that is precisely what the Scottish National Party wants. The Committee will, I think, want to know the strength and whereabouts of that party. Until then we cannot judge how dangerous to the Union are the Government's proposals; nor can we proceed to a devolution Bill if the two issues are jammed and confused together so that an "I agree" vote embraces both the Scottish unionists, who are represented in this Chamber and whose voice carries great weight, and the Scottish National Party, which is anti-Union.
So this amendment asks two questions. Do you want the kind of parliament that the Government propose? Or do you want to go further? We shall only then know whether a truly significant force will try to drive home the wedge whose thin end is being inserted. Only then will we know the danger to the Union.
If those two questions are both answered in the negative, it is an indication that the electorate prefers the status quo. But the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, want that question put specifically. Indeed, there seems to be a great deal to be said for it. As I said, I shall not press any of my amendments to a Division. They are all probing amendments. The Committee will want to hear whether that third question should be specifically answered. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): I should remind the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, Amendments Nos. 65B to 69 cannot be moved.
9 p.m.
Lord Sempill: With the leave of the Committee, I wonder whether my Amendment No. 74B may be brought forward to be discussed at this point? The subject matter is remarkably similar. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has already, if I may say so, opened the batting on the issue.
The Earl of Onslow: I should like guidance from the Committee. The grouping is of Amendments Nos. 65A, 69A and 74. I do not know whether we should stick to that grouping or take the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, together with it. I agree with whatever the Committee wishes to do.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I am afraid that it is partly my suggestion that we should take the amendments together. It seems to me that they are concerned with exactly the same subject. It may, therefore, be for the convenience of the Committee and save a little time.
The Earl of Onslow: So perhaps we can come to Amendment No. 74, which is very simple. It says:
"I want an independent Scotland".
Lord Sempill: I want to clarify the situation while I feel so strongly about the multi-option referendum.
500
Perhaps I may take a few minutes of the Committee's time to make an overall observation about the proceedings in the past three sessions. Those who are cricket fans will be aware today that the Third Test ended in a win for Australia and it was mainly due to the collapse of England's batting. I cannot help but feel that, if the noble Lords, Lord Sewel and Lord Williams of Mostyn, had been opening the batting, England would still be at the crease. Their performance over the past three sessions has been reminiscent of Geoffrey Boycott at his best.
Earl Russell: Is it England that would still be at the crease?
Lord Sempill: A well taken point. If we follow the British Lions' performance, the more of us who play under the same shirt the better. The point is well made by the noble Earl.
As I said, their performance was reminiscent of Geoffrey Boycott at his best. Questions were either blocked or casually flicked through the covers. More importantly, many were not played at all. I refer especially to the maiden overs bowled by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas—who unfortunately had to go back to Cardiff—in which he addressed preferential voting. I do not believe that his balls were well played and I now wish to try my spin against the Committee.
This spin comes in the form of the multi-option referendum. I was remarkably unsuccessful in tempting either noble Lords in the Second Reading, so I beg the Committee's patience while I try again. In the summation of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, in the Second Reading debate he said that the independence question had been so completely rejected at the election that it would be fatuous to include it in a referendum. But I believe that most of us are aware that if we had a multi-option referendum, between 25 and 30 per cent. of Scots would be likely to vote "Yes" to an independence option. That is a significant number even to those of us with the most basic mathematics.
The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, in opening the debate on the same day, said that the Government seek a broadly-based consensus for change. I have no disagreement with that. He said that the aim is to receive a population-based mandate for the proposals—I still have no disagreement—but then he added the word, "and", to test the settled will of the people of Scotland and Wales. I do not believe that the current referendum does that.
As Mr. Ancrum pointed out in another place, there is a dichotomy in the first question. It is right that a substantial amount of Scots will vote "Yes", but for two different reasons. Some will vote "Yes" to buttress the Union and others will vote "Yes" to break up the Union. He said,
"There are thus two completely different and opposite reasons for voting for the same option. That is a dangerous basis on which to say that there is a mandate to take this matter forward and then to take legislation forward".—[Official Report, Commons, 4/6/97; col. 436.]
It provides a broadly-based consensus, but does not test the settled will.

501
Opinion polls consistently highlight that support for independence is higher than support for the Scottish Nationalist Party. A recent poll in the Sunday Times for Scotland showed that support for devolution and independence was equal at 35 per cent. and that the status quo was 24 per cent. That varied significantly from the electoral support for the parties associated with each of those constitutional positions and therefore suggests that, in the general election of 1st May, different factors influenced supporters of every party.
Either the election settled the constitutional issue or it did not. The Government cannot have it both ways. If they consider it necessary to hold any referendum, especially an advisory referendum which is supposed to guide future legislation, then in the interests of democracy that referendum should place all the options before the people.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: The amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, seem to belong to a referendum asking about the setting up of a federal union or an independent state. That is not what is expected to be on offer in the White Paper, which I expect to be a distinctly unionist measure.
The Committee were not impressed with my amendment seeking to change the word "establish" to "re-establish" in connection with the Scottish parliament. The Committee chose to believe that "re-establishment" meant the reconstitution of the independent parliament of Scotland. It was clearly established in Committee that the proposed Scottish parliament will not have any Scottish powers. We are therefore left with a new conundrum: when is a Scottish parliament not a Scottish parliament? The answer of course is when it has executive rather than sovereign powers.
I have a good deal of sympathy with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sempill. The trouble, as I see it, is that more than three options are being thought about. Those include continuing the status quo, various degrees of devolution, various degrees of federal union, and an independent state. All of those should be thought of in terms of the relationship with the European Union. Clearly, this is becoming more complicated and will be beyond most citizens, with the exception of those whose hobby is constitutional variations.
Earlier, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, spoke about the stance that those seeking independence would take with regard to a yes, yes vote. I presume that most of those will vote yes, yes as a stepping stone. Perhaps the fundamentalists will not. After all, it is their dissatisfaction with the status quo which causes them to come up with independence as an answer in the same way as it causes others to see devolution as the answer to the unsatisfactory status quo.
9.15 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: As my amendment, which seeks to insert the words "I want an independent Scotland", is being discussed at the moment, perhaps
502
I may say a few words. What this whole issue shows is how unsatisfactory it is when we start producing advisory referenda. The Government start saying, "We shall only take advice on this issue, not that". That shows how referenda can be rigged to get the answer that is required.
I find that the issue of Scotland is in a funny way more simple than what is proposed by the Government. In 1707 the Scottish people, in effect, joined an English union. They joined the club. If they do not want to be in that club, I have no difficulty with that. The Scottish people did join an English union. They joined and they subsumed their powers in the British Parliament and it became the UK Parliament. That is an historical fact. It is no use the Minister arguing because that is self-evidently what happened.
Lord Sewel: I thank the noble Earl for giving way. I think he would cause less anguish on these and some other Benches if he recognised the distinction between the United Kingdom and England.
The Earl of Onslow: That is exactly the point I am making. The English union became the United Kingdom. The English make up 87 per cent. of the United Kingdom. The whole difficulty of this is that a very small minority of the United Kingdom want special rules for themselves. The Irish solved this problem by going their own way. That is easy to accept. If the Scots do not want to be part of the United Kingdom, that is easy. We do not have to send the XX Vintrix Legion back to Hadrian's Wall. Unless this option is on offer we shall get ourselves into a terrible and ghastly muddle because without doubt the English will feel aggrieved. Therefore, it would be easier to have an independent Scotland outside the union than to have an unhappy and nationalist England.
That will arise because the West Lothian question is not answerable. If tax is put up the Scots will say that it has to be put up because the Parliament at Westminster is not giving Scotland enough. If tax goes down the English will then say, "If the Scots think they can take the tax down we shall not give them such a large subsidy". We know perfectly well that the block grant for the National Health Service is 12.5 per cent. higher per head of population in Scotland than it is in England.
All of those threats are on the horizon. All of those threats will make the union more and more difficult. Surely it would be better to point this out, have it said and have it in the open. We could do that by asking, "Do I want Scots independence?" Scots independence is much easier to understand than a devolved Scotland with all the hassle that is bound to bring. If I, with five O-levels—the same number as the Princess of Wales—can understand the hassle, surely the Government can understand it.
Earl Russell: I promise not to take up more than a little of the Committee's time, but the noble Earl is profoundly mistaken in describing what happened in 1707 as the English union. I grant his point that England is a much larger country numerically. However, the

503
distinction that has to be made is between the numerical and economic balance on the one hand and the legal relationship on the other. The legal relationship is exactly like the treaty which formed the European Union. It is a relationship between sovereign and equal powers. If the noble Earl cares to read the Act of Union, which is in the Library, he will see that very clearly indeed.
The concern of the Scots has been entirely about the English difficulty in recognising that legal equality. Because they foresaw the difficulty about the inequality of size to which the noble Earl has drawn attention, from the very beginning of the 1707 negotiations they had a preference for a much more federal pattern of union. What we have discovered now is that the Scots in 1707 who wanted that were showing very good political judgment.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: The West Lothian question is very important: it is crucial to the working of any form of devolution. It can be resolved only in a federal context. My noble kinsman Lord Mar and Kellie mentioned the word "federal" a few minutes ago in the context of what is proposed. But what is proposed is not a federal solution. If it were I would not be nearly as unhappy as I am.
I go back to the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, the noble Lord, Lord Sempill and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. As I understand it, the Scottish National Party has indicated to its members that in a referendum they would be expected to vote for devolution and for a devolved parliament, as the Government are proposing, with a view to it being a stepping stone to Scottish independence. That is what I understand.
Lord Rowallan: I am sorry to take up so much time at this hour of the night. The noble Lords, Lord Williams of Mostyn and Lord Sewel, have told us time and again that they look upon the referendum as advisory and for guidance purposes only. Yet the questions they are asking will produce very little advice and very little guidance. As a pro-devolutionist Tory I find it almost impossible to answer the two questions they ask if they do not fit anything that I want.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, was of interest to me, but I do not believe that he has gone far enough. As he correctly said, one option is that there should be no change to the government of Scotland, which I believe is a non-starter because the Scottish people will simply not stand for it. A grand committee having legislative power is the second option. I agree that there should be a devolved Scottish parliament, which is the third option. I agree that we should have a federal system, the fourth option, and I agree that there should be an independent Scottish parliament, the fifth option.
Those are the five options before us. Surely, if you want to find out what the Scots or the Welsh want, they should be asked all those questions and then a White Paper should be produced which answers the questions which the Scots people have provided. It strikes me that
504
we have the worst of both worlds. We are looking for advice, but we are not asking the right questions. We are producing a White Paper before we have the advice we are looking for. I cannot see that we are going to gain a great deal from the referendum. We could end up being in an even bigger muddle than we are to start with.
I hope that the Government will look seriously at this because otherwise we could get into a great muddle. As I said at Second Reading, there is no going back once we have made the decisions, even if they are wrong. This is a vital matter not just for Scotland and for Wales, but for England and Northern Ireland also because we are a "United Kingdom" and long may we be so. However, I believe that there must be some form of devolution and the only way forward that I can see is the federal system which the Liberal Democrats have proposed but which, for some reason, they are not proposing now. I am frightened that, given the questions that we are posing at the moment, we could end up with a hotchpotch that causes more and more problems and leads to the break-up of the United Kingdom. I do not believe that that is what the Government want, but that is what we could end up with if we are not careful.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Before the noble Lord sits down, we do not have a White Paper; we are not producing a White Paper; we are still waiting for it.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Perhaps I may advise the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, and others that if you ask the way somewhere, it is better to ask a simple question such as, "Which is the way?" rather than to ask, "How many ways can I take to get there?"
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: May I ask the Government to confirm that they regard the Union as similar to a marriage which can be renegotiated?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: If the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, wants a simple question, I invite him, as I have done on a number of occasions, to table the same amendment as was tabled by his honourable friend Mr. James Wallace in another place because that was a simple question. Indeed, there is a lot to be said for that simple question. Your Lordships know that I am not greatly in favour of referendums. I have made that clear all along. I am less in favour of pre-legislative referendums and, if I can do this by degrees, I am even less in favour of referendums which ask multiple questions where the answer to one may be entirely dependent on the result of another. That is why I would be very much in favour of considering an amendment such as that tabled in another place by Mr. Wallace. Such an amendment could coalesce the two questions into one question asking the Scots whether they agreed or disagreed with a tax-raising Parliament for Scotland. I am paraphrasing, but the honourable Member for Orkney & Shetland felt strongly

505
enough to put the matter to a vote. Obviously, the Liberal Democrats in this House are not intending to table such an amendment. They are going to leave it—
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My honourable friend tabled his amendment, got his answer but then did not labour the point, as would some Members of this House.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Ah! The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, being a countryman, should know that you have to keep at these issues if you want to win in the end. It is a little like fishing, as his noble friend Lord Steel, who is sitting beside him, will tell him. There is no point in presenting the fly to the fish only once; you must keep on presenting it to the fish or else you will never succeed.
We are being invited to look not at one question, but at three options. I hear what my noble friend Lord Rowallan says about there being more than three options, but one needs to be careful about how one expands this. I believe that there are three principal options.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, does not mind if I say that I think that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, better encapsulates the issue than either his amendment or that tabled by my noble friend Lord Onslow because it gives a three-way option.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: They are not incompatible. On the contrary, what the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, has done is to express what was implied by my two amendments.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I agree absolutely with the noble and learned Lord but, as far as the ballot paper is concerned, if we are to go down the road which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, invites us to tread, we would be better to present a three-way option—a little like that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Sempill—to the Scottish people on 4th September or whenever the referendum is to be. We could even tighten it a little by adding to the middle question the words, "I agree that there should be a devolved Parliament along the lines of the White Paper" although I admit that that may be a previous argument.
I do not want at this time of night to have some sport about last year's Labour Party pantomime. I had my sport at Second Reading and I do not think that the joke will improve any at the second time of telling.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am pleased to hear that your Lordships' agree with that proposition.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Perhaps the noble Lord would move a little down the pool.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am tempted to do that, but the tail of the pool is always a place where it is worth pausing for a little while. One never knows whether one might find a resting fish—or a Minister.
We are all aware of the confusion of the party opposite last year on this question. It has put itself into a position where it must ask these two questions in Scotland and one in Wales. Interestingly enough, five years ago it said that there should be a three-way referendum. I pointed out at Second Reading that Donald Dewar, the Secretary of State for Scotland, in addressing the Scottish Trades Union Congress in Dundee in 1992, said that support for such a three-way referendum should be shouted from the rooftops. He was reported in the Daily Telegraph of 13th April to have said that the party's 49 Scottish MPs would campaign for a multi-option referendum on the country's political future. Scotland United, which was formed in 1992, certainly made that very clear. It said that one of the big problems with the 1979 referendum was the absence from the ballot paper of the independence option, which meant that a significant section of the Scottish population was denied the opportunity to vote for its preferred option.
I read with some interest the speech by Mr. John McAllion, Member of Parliament for Dundee—I can never remember whether he represents East or West—in the other place at Committee stage of this Bill when he addressed these issues that had been raised in the other place by the Leader of the Scottish National Party, Mr. Alex Salmond. Mr. McAllion made it perfectly clear that the "yes; yes" vote would depend on Scottish National Party supporters. I asked the Minister who is to reply—I did not get a reply then and it would be nice to have one now—whether the Government welcomed the support in this referendum of those people who wanted an independent Scotland; that is, people who would far rather vote for the third option in the three-way option of the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, or for the proposition put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. Do they really welcome the support of the Scottish National Party which I understand will organise a campaign on the basis of "yes; yes" as the first step to independence? That simple question was not answered previously. I should like to have an answer to it now.
I accept the point made by my noble friend Lord Rowallan that the majority, but not all, of the Liberal Democrat Party and the majority of the Labour Party in Scotland, although I do not believe all of them, favour a continuation of the Union. I accept what my friends in the Labour Party tell me that they are just as good unionists as I am but they view the way forward slightly differently. But are they happy that at the end of this referendum if they have (in football terms) a result, the Scottish National Party will be able to say—and they will—"You have only got a result because we supported you. Without the support of the people who wanted independence, you would not have achieved this majority"? That would be a very unstable position for Scotland to be in following the referendum. The only way round that is to have a three-way option.

507
I believe that the majority of my fellow countrymen, whether or not they want devolution, are firmly unionist. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, the Secretary of State for Scotland, whom I know well, and I agree with that absolutely. I want the referendum to isolate the people in my country—and the people in Wales if it comes to it—who want independence. I believe that that is the best way to proceed. If they are found to be more than half of the "yes; yes" potential vote I fear that my country may move towards independence, but I would rather have that than huge instability for the next 10 years because there was no proper answer to the settled will of the Scottish people. I believe that there is a compelling argument to try to ensure that the very small minority of my fellow countrymen, as I believe they are, who want to break apart from England and destroy the 300-year-old Union are isolated and shown to be the minority that they are. If they are now shown to be the minority that they are, then inevitably the chorus in a couple of years' time will be, "You only got this assembly because the majority who voted yes wanted independence".
I do not have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, that some people in the Labour Party in Scotland are probably more in that category than not. It is a small minority, but they are there. Every poll shows it. There is a small minority in the Labour Party who would prefer independence. In fact, the 1992 group that I mentioned previously got pretty close to it in Scotland United, but those people wanted it to be clear that there was a proper three-way option.
There is a good argument for a three-way option. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will have to address these questions. Do the Government welcome the support of the SNP in their "Yes, yes" campaign as a first step to Scottish independence? Do they really want the settled will of the Scottish people? If they do, should they not be asking something along the lines proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Sempill? Otherwise how will we all deal with the situation some months or years ahead when the SNP says that we have only had this as the first step to independence, and that is why people voted "Yes, yes" in the referendum—if, in fact, they do.
I am not in favour of having a referendum. I am firmly in the Unionist camp. Everyone knows that. Having read the speech of Donald Dewar, the shadow Secretary of State in 1992, saying that he backed a multi-option referendum, I wonder why the Labour Party, now the Government, has changed. If it was good enough in 1992, surely it is good enough now. I should be a great deal happier if I knew that I was going to be campaigning on a referendum which would settle the issue and show which of the three propositions had the biggest support in Scotland. Frankly, I doubt whether any has a majority if we are talking about over 50 per cent. Of course that is what worries the Government.
I should like to know on 5th September how many of my fellow Scots want to carry on in the Union largely as it is constituted, with one Parliament; how many want to go down the devolutionary road with tax raising powers; and how many want to have a divorce settlement, as the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, said, and end the Union. I would rather look forward to my early old age and my
508
later old age knowing that this matter is settled once and for all. I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendments. I look forward to hearing the Government's answer.
Lord Sewel: We all know that this group of amendments seeks to put the independence option on the ballot paper. It is dressed up in slightly different words in the various amendments but, in essence, that is what the grouping is all about. The simple, fundamental point is that independence for Scotland and Wales is not Her Majesty's Government's policy. The referendum is about testing support for the Government's policy on devolution—no more, no less. It is not an opinion poll.
Let us again go over the facts. All government spokesmen have made it abundantly clear that government policy is devolution within the Union. That is the road down which we are going. That is the policy we feel confident in putting to the people of Scotland. We have no confidence in putting the option of independence to the people of Scotland. It would be a misguided policy. It would be irresponsible to have the question of independence on a ballot paper—a ballot paper which would be structured in the context of the debate on devolution. Independence would just be something tagged on at the end. That is not a sane and responsible way of tackling the problem.
As we have made clear, our position is that it is devolution within the Union. That is the way we shall go and that is the proposal that we shall put before the people. We will put our proposals to the people of Scotland on the basis of them being spelt out in the White Paper, which we all know will be published well ahead of the referendum. We do not see the referendum as being about holding an opinion poll; it is about seeking endorsement of a specific policy.
Holding an opinion poll will tell us nothing that we do not know already. We know exactly the views of the people of Scotland on independence. They spoke most recently in the general election; the independence option was rejected and the devolution option was supported. In the run up to that election, the leading spokesmen of the party opposite made the point that we as an opposition were somehow frightened to put our proposals on devolution in front of the Scottish people because, as the then Secretary of State for Scotland claimed, we feared that we did not have the support of the people. The referendum is about nailing the argument that the people of Scotland do not support the policy of devolution.
It would be absolutely clear what advice and guidance the Government would receive if, as I expect, the outcome of the referendum is, "Yes, yes". The advice and guidance is simple; the people of Scotland want the scheme and they will get the scheme that we propose—
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not speak for the Scottish National Party, but what advice does the noble Lord give to a member who wants independence?
Lord Sewel: It is not my job to give advice to members of another party. It is up to members of all political parties to see our proposals and decide whether they wish to support them. There will be some members of the

509
Conservative Party who support them—that is, some recently departed members and perhaps more—and there may be some members of my party who will reject them.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful. I shall not ask the noble Lord what his advice to Conservatives would be because he has already given it. However, he is unwilling to give it to the Scottish Nationalists. Is he therefore advising Scottish Nationalists to vote, "Yes, yes"?
Lord Sewel: I am advising the electorate of Scotland to read the White Paper. If it contains a set of proposals which they can support they should vote for it, whether they belong to the Labour Party, the Conservative Party, the Liberal Democratic Party or the Scottish National Party. I shall certainly not say to a member of any party, "Don't vote yes in the referendum if you happen to belong to a particular party". It is up to everyone to reach a judgment on the merits of the case laid out in the White Paper. When, on that basis, the people of Scotland have decided, we will have the advice and guidance that we seek. We will have a clear endorsement from the people of Scotland for the proposals that we are advocating. We are not advocating independence. We are not having independence on the ballot paper because the people of Scotland have spoken already on the issue of independence and have rejected it decisively.
9.45 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: If they have rejected it decisively, why cannot it be on the ballot paper? This matter is terribly important. The Government are proposing a limited choice on a constitutional issue. It is a choice which has terrible downsides to it which the Government are determined not to recognise. Therefore, the people should be asked also on the ballot paper whether they want independence. Of course we shall not press this matter to a vote but I do not understand why the Government cannot take this point.
Lord Rowallan: I accept totally what has been said about the last election. At that time, we discovered how many votes the Labour Party, the SNP, the Conservative Party and the Scottish Liberals received. But we did not discover from that how many people within each of those parties voted for them for reasons other than devolution and how many voted for them because of the devolution proposal. That is the difference and that is why we need to have those answers.
Lord Sewel: That is exactly why we are having a referendum—to deal with that argument about the extent of support for devolution. We are not having independence on the ballot paper because that is not government policy. The reason for the referendum is to test popular support for the Government's policy.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I do not wish to prolong this discussion but this issue is extremely important. It may be that the people of Scotland vote "Yes" in the referendum and it is known that a majority has been obtained only because of the votes of those who wish to
510
use a Scottish parliament in order to break up the Union. Are the Government happy that they may achieve a majority through an SNP vote?
Lord Sewel: I am not a great advocate of psychological counselling so I shall not go down the path of looking into the minds, motives and inner workings of whether people have voted "yes" because they wanted independence or not. It is a very simple proposition: do you or do you not agree with the proposals contained in the White Paper? Nothing could be simpler.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The Minister has dug himself into a hole which is even deeper than the one into which I might have been able to dig him if I had been trying. I have read the Scottish press over the past few weeks. The Labour Party has been extremely keen to try to recruit the Scottish National Party to this particular cause and it has even been keen to try to recruit the Conservative Party to it. It is almost as though it does not matter what you think. It is now the conventional wisdom; the establishment has decreed it; and forget about democracy—we should all be on the same side. It seems a bit daft to hold a referendum and to try to get everybody on the same side so that there is no opposition.
But be that as it may, it is definitely true that the Labour Party has been attempting either directly or through its front organisation—the Constitutional Convention—to persuade the Scottish National Party to join in the campaign. I do not blame the Labour Party for that at all. But the fact is that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, seemed to be badly briefed by the Labour Party—and I am sure that it is not the government machine because that takes no part in such matters—about what it has been trying to do over the past many weeks. It has been trying to recruit the Scottish National Party to the "Yes, yes" campaign. I have no argument with that and it can do that if it likes. But you cannot differentiate between those people who vote "Yes, yes" and who are firmly Unionist, like the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and the Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Dewar, and those who vote "Yes, yes" like Mr. Alex Salmond—to pluck a name out of the air—who wish to use this as the way to independence and who do not believe in devolution for a single second.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I have seen a couple of polls which show that when the Scottish National Party was asked whether it preferred devolution or independence, about 30 per cent. voted for devolution.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That is right. So why not let them vote? The Scottish National Party voting by intention on the referendum question is very significantly in favour of the "Yeses". In fact, 94 per cent. of SNP voters will vote "Yes". That is bigger than any other party's vote for the "Yes". So the bulk of SNP voters will quite clearly vote "Yes". They will not do so for devolution; they will do so for independence. Interestingly enough, only 59 per cent. of Liberal Democrats will vote "Yes" and 34 per cent. of them will actually vote "No". Does that not make the representation in this Chamber a little skewed when one considers the speeches that one has heard? Even the

511
Labour Party has 79 per cent. voting "Yes" and 16 per cent. voting "No". Just before any Member of the Committee jumps up to quote it, 26 per cent. of the Conservative vote will vote "Yes" and 64 per cent. will vote "No". So there is some cross-party disagreement when it comes to the question.
I have to say that the Liberal Democrats are the most split of them all. When it comes to the second question— namely, the tax-raising question—the poor old Liberal Democrats are in their normal position of facing both ways. According to the ICM poll of The Scotsman, 46 per cent. will vote in favour of a tax-raising assembly and 46 will vote against a tax-raising assembly. That seems to be a perfect result for the Liberal Democrat Party. However, that is a little aside into which they tempted me, although with not too much trouble.
I return now to the main point; namely, that we have this amazing disagreement. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, seems to be totally unprepared to give Scottish nationals any advice on how they should vote, yet everyone who reads the Scottish press knows that both the Labour Party and its front organisation the Scottish Constitutional Convention, are very keen to recruit the SNP to the "Yes, yes" campaign.
The second point to which I wish to return is the dismissive way in which the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, dealt with the question of a three-way referendum. I should have taken note of what he said, but I believe he more or less told us that no one in his right mind could ever propose a three-way referendum. I have to tell him that I have with me a report by Mr. Ian Bruce, a correspondent of the Glasgow Herald, dated 23rd April 1992 reporting on the Scottish Trades Union Congress in Perth. In that report, someone called Donald Dewar—and it may well be a different Donald Dewar for all I know—was actually advocating a "multi-option referendum". Indeed, he said quite clearly that he wanted such a referendum. I do not have to answer any of the questions; indeed, I now find myself in a new position. The question is quite simple: was Donald Dewar wrong then or is he wrong now?
Lord Sewel: Very simply, the advice that I would give to the people of Scotland, no matter which party they belong to—and, indeed, even if they do not belong to any party—and regardless of whether or not they have voted before, is to vote "Yes, yes" in the referendum. That is the advice I would give them because I have confidence in the scheme that we will be proposing to the people of Scotland. As I said, it does not matter which party they come from. I would give the same advice to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, although I do not believe that he will take it on this occasion. I should add that I do not have to give such advice to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
There is something that I would really like to know, although I do not suppose that I will get an answer. If the independence option was put on the ballot paper, as a
512
matter of pure speculation is it expected that the argument about independence should be contained within the White Paper?
Lord Sempill: As I spoke to one of the amendments, the answer to my noble friend Lord Sewel is, no. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay pointed out, it would make sense for us to put in a second option that it is a devolved assembly as laid down by Her Majesty's Government. I believe that that gets round the problem.
Perhaps I may take the attention of my noble friend the Minister for a moment longer to ask a further question. One of the advantages of a multi-option referendum is that the Government have obviously been given a substantial mandate by the people of Scotland to give the Scots a form of government where they can have larger control over their own affairs. It must be of some interest to the Government therefore to understand exactly where the Scots are coming from. If, in a multi-option referendum, nearly 40 per cent. vote for some form of independence, would that not influence the legislation that is likely to be produced in a devolution Bill?
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I hope I may venture into the Scottish scene from a Welsh perspective. It seems to me that the official Opposition regard voters as members of armies who are in some way controlled or owned by political leaders. They talk about voters as Scottish nationalists, Labour supporters and so on, as if they were always within one grouping and always wore the same tabard. What we are talking about are people in Scotland and people in Wales. In Wales the nationalists achieved rather less than 10 per cent. of the vote in the previous election. That was of course less than the Liberal Democrats, and even less than the Conservatives. The vote in Scotland for independence, as expressed in that way, was small. However, one does not regard those who vote for the Welsh nationalists as seeking independence 100 per cent.; there are all sorts of views expressed within that party.
In this referendum one must be as inclusive as possible and draw together as many people as possible behind a "Yes" vote. That is what we are seeking to do in Wales. We do not care how people have voted in the past—even if they have voted for the Conservatives and have now seen the light—so long as they support the principle that the status quo cannot remain and that there must be change. We do not seek the distant scene; one step is enough for us.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am most grateful to all who have taken part in the debate. I say with respect that I found the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, most effective and indeed most moving. I entirely agree that there are three main options ahead: status quo, devolution within the Union, and devolution outside the Union. The only difference between my amendment and my position and that of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and my noble friend Lord Sempill, is whether the third question should be expressed or implied. I am inclined to think that they are right and that it should be expressed. Having said that, naturally I shall want to consider the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan. Perhaps there are more options which ought to be put before the electorate.

513
We are going through a severe phase of gesture politics and the gestures are almost always to distract attention from a fudge. The matters we are discussing at the moment embody two of the biggest fudges—the two questions that are being put—because what the Government want is to have a vote approaching the size of that which Hitler achieved in his plebiscite. Therefore they ask two questions that will attract the vote both of the devolutionists who are Unionists and the devolutionists who are anti-Unionist.
The first question is, "Do you want a Scottish parliament?". The answer of the government supporters will be, "Yes, we want a Scottish parliament on the lines that are defined", or, if the noble Lord prefers it, on the lines that the Government will put forward in their White Paper. But they will also receive the support of the Scottish nationalists, who will say, "Yes, we want a parliament but a parliament with plenary powers over all matters affecting Scotland". It is a fudge in order to get a maximum figure in the plebiscite.
The second question is also a fudge: "Do you want to vary taxation?". The Government's case is, "Yes, we want powers to vary the basic rate of income tax", although I think they are having second thoughts about the phrase "basic rate". At any rate, it is income tax. But that is not the way that the Scottish nationalists will interpret it. They say: "Yes, we want to vary customs and excise duties and VAT; we want a customs barrier on the Border". That is the great danger.
The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, who has answered this debate, as so many, with enormous skill, says: "We are having a referendum"—I nearly said "plebiscite" because that is really what it is—"because the Conservatives opposed devolution at the general election and we want to show that they were wrong. We do not find it necessary to put the question of independence on the ballot paper because that was rejected at the general election by the electorate in Scotland". Yet in the very same breath he says: "But so were the Conservatives".
When we find an extremely able Minister arguing in that way we must be filled with suspicion as to the real motive. The real motive is for political advantage, to obtain the maximum government vote on both questions.
However, I said that I would not pursue any of my amendments to a division and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 65B:
Page 4, line 18, leave out ("AGREE THAT") and insert ("WANT").
The noble Lord said: I shall be very brief. In the 1979 referendum the question was, "Do you want the provisions of the Scotland Act 1978 to be put into effect?". It is interesting that the questions in this referendum will be, "Do you agree?". I wonder if there is any significant difference. I can see that some people may want the proposition; I can see that others may have been bullied by all the pressure in the media and elsewhere into feeling that they must agree to it. I was going to use this opportunity to point out the ICM poll for The Scotsman
514
and the interesting dilemma that the Liberal Democrats were in, but I have already had that opportunity so I can be even briefer than I had intended to be.
The Government ought to explain why they have changed the word from "want", as it was in 1979, to "agree". If they say that it is because of the difference between a pre-legislative referendum and a post-legislative referendum, I must say to them that I would prefer the post-legislative referendum and the simple question "Do you want?". That seems to me a much more active question than "Do you agree to?", which is the kind of thing that a salesman asks you when he tries to sell you something that you do not really want but perhaps you do not really not want; whereas to ask, "Do you want this?" is a much more positive statement, which, I suspect, would probably get a slightly different answer than the softer question, "Do you agree?". Maybe I am too suspicious about the Government's use of terminology. However, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, can explain the change. I beg to move.
Lord Sewel: I wonder whether a post-legislative referendum would have the independence option as well—but that is another matter. As indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, the amendment would change the wording from "I agree" to "I want". I have to admit that we puzzled and worried over this point for some time. We wondered what it was all about. The noble Lord's intentions are usually admirably clear, even though I rarely find myself agreeing with them. Clarity is one of his great strengths. On this occasion, we were completely bemused by the argument of why "agree" should go out and "want" should come in.
I take the amendment at face value and assume that the noble Lord seeks quite legitimately to probe the reasoning behind the way in which the ballot papers are constructed. I feel that that is what is behind the amendment. Therefore, it may help if I explain why we settled on the wording on the ballot paper.
Let me say at the outset that this is an important point. The wording of all questions is very important. I spent well over 20 years of my life devising opinion questionnaires on all kinds of social and political issues. I am very well aware of how changing a few words can easily help, if not determine, the outcome. It helps to determine the outcome. It is important to take expert advice on the wording of questions, and we did so. We took it from the returning officers, the Association of Electoral Administrators, specifically on how to make the questions fair, clear and unambiguous. I am pleased to say that the general reaction to the ballot papers suggests that we have it right, although I accept that, at the end of the day, one has to reach one's own judgment on these matters.
We firmly believe our judgment to be right. All reputable polling firms devising opinion questions adopt the construction "I agree" and not "I want" because it has been found over the years that "I agree" is a much better way of getting the underlying opinion construct. We took advice, knowing this to be an important matter, and we have the support of independent practitioners that our proposal is the right way forward.

515
As I said when we debated earlier the tax varying question, it is important that the proposition is put at the level of principle. I accept that the amendment is consistent with that notion. I also made clear that it is the combination of the proposition on the ballot paper and the details set out in the White Paper which together produce the clarity that we seek. That is a very important factor because all the questions on the ballot paper are phrased in terms of agreeing to the Government's proposals contained in the White Papers. That would be lost under the rather crude "I want" construction. It would not refer back and embed the answer in the Government's proposals in the White Paper. On the basis of that clarification, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I think I am grateful for that explanation. I am not sure whether it convinced me of the case for changing the wording from the 1979 referendum. But there we are. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, tried to explain it. In fact, I suspect that the people who occasionally send me or my wife a form with about 60 questions on various issues, in order to try to ascertain my opinions, and who usually offer me a free holiday in some draw which chances are nobody will ever win, frame the answers in exactly that way in order to attempt to get you to agree with the proposition they are putting. It is a proposition which can vary all the way from things like smoking to what kind of whisky one drinks and all sorts of other things.
Lord Sewel: We all accept that the decision is a vitally important one for the people of Scotland, and we all make important decisions in our lives. Can I ask the noble Lord what words he used when he got married? Were they, "I agree" or "I want"?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I said, "Yes, of course dear"! That was a good try by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and is the best argument he has advanced for the word "agree" rather than "want".
Leaving that aside, the practitioners he consulted are no doubt the same practitioners that send out those copious forms. I was about to say that I accept his explanation, but I do not. I understand his explanation; I do not accept it. I find it interesting that the 1979 referendum, which was quite clearly "want"—a much firmer word—has now been superseded by "agree". That shows the wobbliness of the Labour Party in relation to putting this question to a referendum for the second time.
With that little bit of interesting discussion, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 66 to 74 not moved.]
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 74A:
Page 4, line 22, at end insert—
("PART III FORM OF THIRD BALLOT PAPER
Parliament has decided to consult the people in Scotland on the Government's proposals for a Scottish Parliament:

Put a cross (X) in the appropriate box

I AGREE THAT, IF THERE IS A SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT, MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT AT WESTMINSTER FOR SCOTTISH CONSTITUENCIES SHOULD TAKE NO PART THERE IN PROCEEDINGS WHICH DO NOT EXTEND TO SCOTLAND

OR

I DO NOT AGREE THAT, IF THERE IS A SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT, MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT AT WESTMINSTER FOR SCOTTISH CONSTITUENCIES SHOULD TAKE NO PART THERE IN PROCEEDINGS WHICH DO NOT EXTEND TO SCOTLAND

The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment, together with Amendment No. 77A, invites the people of Scotland and Wales particularly to express their views on the important West Lothian question. That phrase was invented by an extremely able and independent-minded Scottish Member of the other place. He said, "How can I possibly justify refusing to let an English Parliament participate in matters that are purely Scottish when I assert my right as a Scottish Member of Parliament at Westminster to participate in matters that are purely English?" It is an extremely difficult question to answer; as a devolutionist and as an opponent of the threshold, I find it impossible.
The question that is proposed to be included in the ballot paper is at the bottom of page 6 of the Marshalled List and reads:
"I agree that, if there is a Scottish parliament, Members of Parliament at Westminster for Scottish constituencies should take no part there in proceedings which do not extend to Scotland".
The second amendment puts that question the other way round, in the negative.
I hope the Minister will not say, "That is not our policy". Whether or not it is—I suspect that it is not—I am not asking him to say tonight because I fear that I should get the "South Sea Bubble" answer again. All I am asking is for an exercise in democratic participation and popular consent, and that it should be the people of Scotland who answer that question. I do not know how they would answer it but I do know that it will be extremely important to our final deliberations to know what they think. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I approve of this proposed referendum question. For me it supplies the best and most satisfactory answer to the West Lothian

517
question. The alternative, which would be reducing Scottish representation at Westminster, would be far less satisfactory. Although it would have been drawn from experience of the Government of Ireland Act 1920, a reduction would not be an improvement of the British union. Scotland would need to retain its influence over the powers reserved to Westminster. Somehow I do not think that that would be accepted. However, it would be a better second question— disposing of the question of taxation powers.
Lord Rowallan: I like the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, except that I think it is addressed to the wrong people. The Scots will not be affected by it one way or the other. If they can get representation in Scotland and down here in the Mother of Parliaments, they will think that this is wonderful. The question should be addressed to the people of England, who, under the system being proposed, will, when and if we have a Scottish parliament and when and if we have a Welsh assembly, be the only people not to have one. They will be desperately under-represented. That is where the independence problem will arise. That is why the federal system is the only way out.
Everyone must have the same. Each country should have either nothing or a parliament. Everyone will then be quite happy. What we have at the moment is a hotch-potch. A parliament with certain powers in Ireland, a parliament with tax-raising powers in Scotland, a talking shop or a parish council in Wales—and in England, nothing.
Lord Lucas: Perhaps I may be allowed to cast one last fly over the Dispatch Box opposite. It is late at night and we have not had much success so far. However, I suspect that one of the Ministers lurking behind it may be hungry and may be tempted to have at least a swirl at it.
I wonder whether the Minister can enlighten me as to whether this question also affects Wales. It very much depends on how the Government are thinking as to whether the powers they intend to grant the new assembly amount to depriving MPs at Westminster of control over substantial parts of legislation, thereby effectively making it Welsh legislation, or whether things will be structured in such a way that, as they would be at the moment with the continuation of the Welsh Office, the ultimate authority and responsibility continues to rest with the Westminster Parliament. Can the noble Lord enlighten me on that point?
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: What the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, has just said is absolutely right. This is a far wider question than just a question of whether Scottish MPs should vote on English domestic matters. I support him on that point.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: In the three days of Committee I have resisted moving ahead of ourselves, so to speak, into a devolution Bill (if that is what we eventually end up with) and have kept pretty tightly to discussing the referendum. The noble
518
Lord, Lord Sewel, would agree with that. However, I have been tempted slightly wider by the amendment. As it is one of the last amendments, I do not see the point of resisting temptation for ever. I might get the reputation of being very boring if I did that.
This is a difficult question and it is one to which we shall return if and when we come to the devolution Bill. I refer to what Scottish Members of Parliament will do here at Westminster. One can argue that perhaps we ought to have slightly fewer of them. I have no doubt that we shall go into that when we come to the Bill. I have a pretty firm view that in the Union Scotland ought to have more MPs than England pro rata, but I am not entirely convinced that there should be quite as many more as we have now. There could have been a good argument in favour of Scotland having many more when travel was not what it is today. People usually pray in aid the scattered nature of much of Scotland, but a closer look will show that, apart from two or three constituencies, the small constituencies in Scotland are in the City of Glasgow. As I now live there, I have to tell the Committee that getting from Glasgow to Westminster is extremely easy. I imagine that it is a good deal easier than it is getting to Westminster from many constituencies in England. Therefore, I believe that these arguments are out of date. When devolution arrives there is no doubt that the number and role of the Scottish Members will have to be questioned.
Perhaps I may explain the West Lothian question like this. Today we had a Statement on education. I sat open-mouthed and wide-eyed. Members of the Committee who followed the Committee stage today will realise that in a former life I taught mathematics; that was about 20 years ago. Then I had an uphill battle—indeed, a last-ditch struggle—to prevent mixed ability classes. That was considered the thing to do. The whole left-wing progressive education establishment was ranged against me. I had to concede the principle of mixed ability classes for the first year. I fought a rear-guard action and stopped it going any further in the school where I taught. Thereafter, I believe, mixed ability classes increased up the school and across subjects. It always seemed to me to be a fairly daft idea and I am amazed to learn now that the party opposite believes that it was a daft idea. Frankly, some penitence would come nicely from the party opposite and the left-wing education establishment, every training college, every lecturer and inspector.
A noble Lord: What has all this to do with this amendment?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I shall be coming to that in a moment.
Let us consider this proposition. Let us assume for a minute that in Scotland the power of the educational institutes of Scotland and the progressive establishment were still to be considerable after devolution and that in Scotland they were not going to make this policy change, but were to stick resolutely to mixed ability classes. Here, however, the

519
Government decided that for England and Wales there should be change. What role does a Scottish Member of Parliament take? Does he agree to a change, which in his view is detrimental to pupils, otherwise it would be happening in Scotland? Does he just go along with the fact that he is down here, voting on an English matter, and therefore he should go along with the majority of English Members? Or does he vote with his convictions and against the change being proposed in England, keeping mixed ability classes in England?
That is the West Lothian question. I thought today when listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that this education point puts the matter in stark reality. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, makes the very valid point that we ought to know. If we are going to know where we are with tax raising powers— the Government have left themselves open on this matter—after the referendum, why should we not know where we are with the West Lothian question? Indeed, why should we not know about a lot of other matters after the referendum?
The West Lothian question is very important. It is well encapsulated in education, health and so on. Scottish Members of Parliament could come to Westminster and influence decisions affecting England which they would not be able to influence in Scotland. Often the West Lothian question is portrayed wrongly. It is looked at from the point of view of English Members. It is nothing to do with them but with Scottish Members and, if it comes to it, Welsh Members. It affects more particularly Scottish Members because the Scottish parliament will have much more power than the Welsh assembly. Will those Scottish Members be able to take decisions for English people that they cannot take for their own constituents? If so, the responsibility link between a Member and his constituency will be broken.
We shall return to this when we get the devolution Bill—if it comes to a Bill—but, for the moment, I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has posed an interesting and valid question. The Government ought to consider taking it on board and posing to the Scottish people the question of what they, the Scottish people, want to do about their MPs' continuing role at Westminster.
Lord Desai: I find this doctrine rather strange. I had always thought that, irrespective of where MPs come from, they will make up their minds on an issue according to its merits. Therefore, Welsh and Scottish MPs can speak on English topics while English MPs can speak on Welsh or Scottish topics. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree with the Burkean aphorism that an MP is there to give his or her views on any question. However, that is no longer the case. We now have regional representatives. Perhaps I should say that we have "national" representatives in view of the sensitivities of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, with regard to calling Scotland a "region". The noble Earl gets quite excited about that. I can see that if there were so many MPs from Scotland that they could overwhelm or out-vote the English MPs
520
on an English topic, that might be cause for a sleepless night or two. We shall return again and again to that question.
I have always felt that the West Lothian question is put in a very peculiar way. It is as if Scottish MPs could have nothing to say about England just because they do not represent an English constituency. English MPs have had a lot to say about Scottish matters for a long time. In some matters I believe that we should still think of this United Kingdom as a single entity about which, wherever they come from, people have a right to speak on different matters.
To follow the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, perhaps I may say that had the noble Lord been a Scottish MP, he may well have felt oppressed by fellow Scottish MPs in Scotland, given his views towards mixed ability teaching, but he could have come down here to vote against it. Wouldn't that have been nice for him? We should think about this matter not in terms of regional representation, but in terms of what we are asking our MPs to do. Is it not their job to speak about matters in general? If mere numbers were all that was important and if English MPs felt oppressed because Scottish MPs were against them, could we not consider having qualified majority voting? Those days may well come.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As this is a Committee stage, perhaps I may join in some discussion of this point with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, in order to clarify the position for the Minister who will have to reply. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, and I normally cross swords on weightier matters, if I may put it that way, relating to economics. I am only sorry that in the past few days the Government have not given us the opportunity to discuss the Budget and, among other matters, the penal taxation policies that are being imposed on important Scottish and English pension funds. However, I gather that towards the end of the month we shall have an opportunity to discuss such matters when the Second Reading of the Finance Bill will be brought to your Lordships' House. I am sure that the noble Lord and I are greatly looking forward to that. Certainly, I am looking forward to it because I want to know whether the noble Lord will manage to support his own Government. The noble Lord is what I might call a radical and free thinker. He is not usually bound by the Whips or by anybody else.
The noble Lord rightly said that we should continue to be one United Kingdom. I absolutely and wholeheartedly agree. That is why I think that all the propositions that are before us are fundamentally flawed. I believe that one United Kingdom should be governed from one Parliament. However, if it is not, the question really is: does a Scottish Member of Parliament fall within the Burkean view that a Member's constituents are owed his judgment, if I recall it correctly? The answer is: yes, if at the general election his judgment will make any difference to his constituents. However, if the kind of scenario that is painted in this amendment comes about and there is devolution along the lines proposed that MP will not have any responsibility to his constituents. Therefore, his judgment will be of no interest to them, because in the case to which I referred he will have no say

521
in the United Kingdom Parliament in mixed ability classes as far as concerns his constituents' children. That decision will have been taken by the Scottish parliament. It will have decided whether education in Scotland should continue to be run in this entirely loopy way of mixed ability or whether it should change to whole class teaching. They appear to be quite straightforward options.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Can the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, explain to the Committee how it is that a Member of Parliament for a Scottish constituency, for example that of the former Secretary of State, in a country where by agreement between the employers, the local authorities and teachers there is a maximum class size, can come down to Westminster and vote on proposals affecting the funding of education in England and Wales and deliberately thwart the desire of people in England and Wales to have maximum class sizes? This has occurred in the past 18 years. I believe that the Scottish term is "the red book". There has been an agreement on maximum class size. Perhaps the noble Lord can tell us a little more about why in Scotland the maximum class size is a good thing, but in England and Wales it is not.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The only red book of which I am aware, along with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, is that which is published at the time of the Budget, except that it now seems to have changed to the white book— perhaps because the colour red has connotations for the Labour Party that it now wishes to put behind it. The point made by the noble Baroness is an interesting one. The reason why it has been perfectly reasonable in the past to do it is that the Scottish Member on issues like education, which are different north and south of the Border, has along with his English colleague had a say in education both north and south of the Border. Therefore, if Parliament decided, as it did, to impose certain class sizes in Scotland—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My understanding—perhaps the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—is that the English Member of Parliament has had no say. It has been a Scottish Secretary of State who has given approval to an agreement internal to Scotland.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Up until 1st May and even today the Scottish Secretary of State holds that office by virtue of the majority in the United Kingdom Parliament where all Members are the same. Therefore, if one goes to the other place which is considering a piece of Scottish legislation at Second Read or Report stage—not Third Reading, because the other place does not have a Third Reading as we do—all Members of Parliament can vote. Therefore, the Scottish Member of Parliament can vote on English education matters and the English Member can vote on Scottish education matters. If we go down this road that will change. That is the point that I seek to make. The Scottish Member of Parliament will come down to England and will be able to vote on English matters. Let us suppose that he can vote to ensure that
522
classes in England will not be mixed ability. He will have no say over such issues as far as concern his own constituents. It is that break of responsibility between a Member and his constituents that forms the West Lothian question.
Lord Monkswell: I believe that we are in danger of departing from the Bill before the Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, makes a very interesting case about what may or may not he in the devolution proposals. We have before us a Bill to determine a very simple referendum asking the Scottish and Welsh people whether or not they want some form of devolution as yet unspecified. We have heard from the Government that there will be a White Paper to determine the form of that devolution once we have finished dealing with the Bill. People will then be able to make up their minds.
I raise two points. I take issue with the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. To be quite honest, they are very complicated. If one reads the amendment, by and large—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Does not the noble Lord underestimate the intelligence and expertise of the Scottish electorate?
Lord Monkswell: I do not underestimate the intelligence and experience of the Scottish electorate, but we must recognise that within the electors there is a vast range of experience and expertise in terms of judging public affairs.
One of the difficulties with the amendments is that they prejudge what will be suggested in the White Paper. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, introduced the West Lothian question in a rather convoluted way. There are two plausible mechanisms for dealing with it. The first is to ensure that the people elected to the Scottish parliament are MPs for Scotland, in which case there would be no question that MPs for Scotland should not determine Scottish affairs. As representatives of UK constituencies they would be fully entitled to determine UK affairs. That is one solution to the West Lothian question.
Another solution to the West Lothian question is that the proposals put forward for Scotland and Wales (and, I believe in a different context, for Northern Ireland) should be made available also to the English regions and London. Although the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, is an astute and capable debater in this place, I suspect that he has mislaid his direction when considering the substance of the matter before us, which is the referendum Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention. We are debating the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, on Scottish MPs. I have probably said as much as I needed to say about education and the education question posed this afternoon, at least to me, by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, when she announced that mixed ability classes had been a massive mistake. I wonder whether all those people who told me

523
that I was wrong and they were right, and that I should have mixed ability classes, are all crawling on their hands and knees, or whatever you do if you have to do penance for a serious educational mistake you have made in the past.
The point is still a real one, because education is one of the devolved subjects. It could cause difficulty. It will cause difficulty for Scottish MPs in a way I shall come to in just a second. It could also cause difficulty in a Parliament where, as has happened, the majority of English MPs represent one party, but that is changed by the representation from Scotland and Wales. I know that it has not happened yet. We have to look at what happens if it does.
The other point I make in conclusion is the point made by Mr. Robin Cook in 1992 when he was Shadow spokesman on health. He said that if devolution came about he, as a Scottish MP, could not be the Health Secretary in England and Wales, because he would have no responsibility for the health service in his own constituency of Livingston. That is a telling point. I wonder how many members of the Government currently who are Scottish MPs—it almost looks like a Scottish mafia—will have to make the same decision. That is why the question is so serious. I am not sure that the noble and learned Lord is right that it should be addressed in the referendum, but it most assuredly must be dealt with in any substantive Bill.
Lord Sewel: This has been an interesting and, if I may say so, finely timed debate. It takes me back to the first amendment we discussed in Committee; that the ballot paper should be limited to one sheet of paper. I am grateful that we did not lose that amendment because the questions contained in this amendment would result in ballot papers almost the length of those experienced in the United States.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: This is my amendment. I did not vote in favour of the amendment that there should be only one piece of paper.
Lord Sewel: I appreciate the point that the noble and learned Lord makes. The length of the propositions contained in the ballot paper, which read:
"I agree that, if there is a Scottish parliament, Members of Parliament at Westminster for Scottish constituencies should take no part there in proceedings which do not extend to Scotland",
and,
"I do not agree that, if there is a Scottish parliament, Members of Parliament at Westminster for Scottish constituencies should take no part there in proceedings which do not extend to Scotland",
present a danger that we might be moving away from questions into essays. I do not know whether the electorate are supposed to vote with a cross or give a mark out of 10.
There is a serious issue, which I recognise, called the West Lothian question. I shall not go into its wider details at this stage; I shall focus purely and simply on the terms of the amendment. It is important to remember that the Parliament of the United Kingdom has firmly and historically set its face against the concept of a two-tier
524
parliament; the so-called "in and out solution". It is the idea that some Members of Parliament should not vote on some matters but others should vote on all of them. That proposition has found no favour in the way in which our constitution has developed. Indeed, the precedent which exists is the period of the Stormont government when there was a devolved parliament in Stormont but Ulster MPs were fully free and able to vote on all matters coming before the House of Commons, whether or not they affected Ulster. If we went down that route it would represent a major constitutional departure from accepted practice.
Furthermore, it would create some incredible practical political problems for the management of the business of government. In such a situation we could easily see a government with a majority in the House of Commons, and therefore enjoying the confidence of the House, but being totally unable to secure their legislative programme over a large number of areas. Of course, that would be an extremely difficult matter to resolve in the longer term.
There is one other point which arises from the wording of the question. The wording is:
"should take no part there in proceedings which do not extend to Scotland".
What I ask Members of the Committee and in particular, given his background, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, to consider is a situation in which, for the sake of argument, and only for the sake of argument, social security were not a devolved subject. But social security would clearly be a matter which would affect Scotland. Who would vote? Would Scottish MPs vote on social security in a Westminster Parliament, despite the fact that social security had not been devolved and had been reserved to the UK Parliament? According to this amendment, they would not. I hope that in those circumstances, at this stage, the noble and learned Lord would feel able to withdraw the amendment.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Again, I am grateful for the debate. I believe that I detected that it is not government policy to satisfy the West Lothian question.
It was a Scotsman who taught us that it is demeaning to ascribe to others motives less generous than one's own. But I have made it plain for some time now that in spite of my having been—and in fact still being—in favour of devolution, I have been increasingly concerned that a noble theme is being besmirched by the very lowest of an immediate political consideration. Therefore, I am bound to ask why the Government should oppose something which is so obviously as fair as the solution to the West Lothian question. The answer appears to me to be obvious. How attractive it is to have a Labour majority in the Scottish Parliament and at the same time being able to use those constituencies' votes in Westminster on purely English matters.
The noble Lord postulated social security not being devolved. If it is not devolved, it is not an exclusively Scottish matter; and quite obviously nor is it an exclusively English matter; and quite obviously Scottish MPs can participate and make their influence felt.

525
And then the noble Lord said, "What about a government who have a majority in Westminster? Think of the practical difficulties". But a majority in Westminster sustains a government because it grants supply to the government and nobody has proposed that supply should be a devolved subject. So there is nothing in that.
I am not asking for a solution to the West Lothian question, although I think it has appeared this evening. I am merely asking for an exercise in democratic participation, in popular consultation. When the West Lothian question comes before us, I want to know what the Scottish people think about it and what the Welsh
526
people think about it. That is all I am asking. However, as I promised not to press any amendments, I beg leave to withdraw this one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 74B and 74BA not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Section 2(2).]
[Amendments Nos. 74C to 78 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 79 to 83 not moved.]
In the Title:
[Amendments Nos. 84 to 90 not moved.]
House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.
House adjourned at seven minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Jobseeker's Allowance: Evaluation
  Jobseeker's Allowance: Evaluation
  Social Security: Married and Unmarried Couples
  Social Security: Married and Unmarried Couples
  Asylum Seekers: Detention Policy
  Asylum Seekers: Detention Policy
  Probation Service: Budget
  Probation Service: Budget
  School Meals: Review
  School Meals: Review
  Defence Review
  Defence Review
  Government Reviews
  Government Reviews
  Tax System: Married and Unmarried Couples
  Tax System: Married and Unmarried Couples
  Employment: Labour Force Survey
  Employment: Labour Force Survey
  Interest Rates and Tax: Example
  Interest Rates and Tax: Example
  Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Reduction Target
  Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Reduction Target
  NATO Membership: Russia
  NATO Membership: Russia
  EC Treaty: Co-operation and Co-decision Procedures
  EC Treaty: Co-operation and Co-decision Procedures
  Peacekeeping Costs: Reimbursement
  Peacekeeping Costs: Reimbursement
  US Intelligence Activities
  US Intelligence Activities
  NATO-Russia Founding Act
  NATO-Russia Founding Act
  UN Register of Conventional Arms: UK's Return
  UN Register of Conventional Arms: UK's Return
  UK: International Human Rights Instruments
  UK: International Human Rights Instruments
  Council Tax: Capping
  Council Tax: Capping
  Buses: EU Directive Proposal
  Buses: EU Directive Proposal
  Osteoporosis Report: Implementation
  Osteoporosis Report: Implementation
  Osteoporosis: Males
  Osteoporosis: Males
  Osteoporotic Fractures
  Osteoporotic Fractures
  NHS: Mixed Sex Wards
  NHS: Mixed Sex Wards
  Asylum Seekers: National Assistance Act
  Asylum Seekers: National Assistance Act
  AIDS: Survivors
  AIDS: Survivors
  NHS: Patient and Administration Costs
  NHS: Patient and Administration Costs