Sitting of 8 July 1997

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

    KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Third Reading read.
    To be read the Third time on Tuesday 15 July.

    LEVER PARK BILL (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Tuesday 15 July.

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Hong Kong
    Mr. Ben Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the handover of Hong Kong, and on the current state of British relations with China. [5724]
    Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Sino—British relations. [5728]
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make an assessment of the United Kingdom's future relations with China following the handover of Hong Kong. [5729]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): I apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is attending the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation summit in Madrid.
    As my right hon. Friend told the Chinese Foreign Minister in Hong Kong, Britain and China have substantial common interests. We aim to build a new, broad and forward-looking relationship. We want Hong Kong to be a bridge not a barrier between us. That will depend on China honouring its commitments in the joint declaration.
    Mr. Chapman: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that, on present trends, China has the potential to be the world's biggest economic power early in the next millennium? Does he also agree that it is already a growing and major market for our goods and services? Does he further agree that it is enormously
    754
    important politically, ecologically and demographically and has the potential to be a major outward investor? The handover of Hong Kong provides a new opportunity to develop a relationship with China, freeing us from the tensions inherent in the earlier relationship. Does my hon. Friend agree that, while human rights and our continuing responsibilities for the joint declaration may be features, we should pursue that new relationship with vigour?
    Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend had a distinguished career as a diplomat before he came to the House and has a real understanding of the situation in China. We are looking forward to a new, constructive relationship with China and are keen to engage with it on a range of political, trade and human rights issues. That is the best way to secure the future of Hong Kong. We are deeply committed to ensuring that we carry out our responsibilities under the joint declaration.
    Mr. Waterson: Can the hon. Gentleman explain the rationale behind the last minute volte-face, which resulted in British representatives being permitted after all to attend the swearing in of the new provisional Legislative Council? How can that be rationalised with the view—if it is still the Government's view—that that body is illegal?
    Mr. Fatchett: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman raised that issue. The Government's policy was that no Ministers would attend the swearing in ceremony for the provisional legislature. It has always been our understanding that there will be a consensus on Hong Kong policy. We were deeply disappointed that three senior representatives of the Conservative party attended the swearing in ceremony. When the new shadow Foreign Secretary has the opportunity to come to the Dispatch Box, I hope that he will condemn those Conservatives who went against the Government's policy.
    Mr. Bennett: I do not suppose that my hon. Friend can tell me the CO2 emissions for China and Hong Kong and the likely emissions over the next 10 or 15 years. Does he agree, however, that they will make a significant contribution to global warming and that it is important that we draw China into the worldwide agreements that are beginning to emerge in respect of protecting the environment for us all?
    Mr. Fatchett: As my hon. Friend knows, it is difficult to predict precisely the CO2 emissions from China or any other country, but my hon. Friend is right to say that they are likely to be significant in the coming years simply because of the size and the growth of the Chinese economy. A further reason to engage China on a range of issues is that the environment is as important to the Chinese as it is to us. We have been working with the Chinese on a number of environment projects, and we wish to extend that work in future.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there should be a continuing role for the House, and perhaps for the other place, in monitoring developments in Hong Kong during the rest of the 50-year period?
    Mr. Fatchett: I accept the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question. There will indeed be great pressure

    755
    on the House to ensure that there is effective monitoring. We shall certainly provide the opportunities. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are still discussing the detailed mechanisms for such provision.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has my hon. Friend seen the reports in the Sunday newspapers of actions by the noble Lord Howe, which I support, to undermine the negotiating position of Christopher Patten as Governor of Hong Kong? Can we be sure that there will be a full inquiry into those allegations as many of us would like to know what really happened during that period?
    Mr. Fatchett: My advice to my hon. Friend is to allow the Conservatives yet again to have their internal divisions in public. I enjoy watching those internal divisions. It is important to look to the future, and in that context we must ensure that the joint declaration is honoured and that we and the Chinese carry out our commitments under the joint declaration. That is the best way to ensure the long-term future and prosperity of the people of Hong Kong.

    Commonwealth
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future of the Commonwealth. [5727]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): The Commonwealth has an increasingly important role to play in the modern world. The shared values of its members, reflected in the Harare declaration, are an important force in strengthening democracy and prosperity around the globe. We will take this agenda forward at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Edinburgh in October.
    Mrs. Winterton: History will judge the Commonwealth as bringing great benefit to the emerging nations. Does the Minister accept that it needs new vigour and a new sense of purpose if it is to continue into the new millennium to be an effective alternative to the expensive, inefficient and power-hungry United Nations?
    Mr. Lloyd: I would not pretend for a second to share any of the hon. Lady's sentiments in respect of the United Nations. We applaud the work of the United Nations in many parts of the world. However, there is no conflict between our view of the Commonwealth as an important institution in terms of projecting Britain's own values and making sure that the values that we share with other members of the Commonwealth are appreciated throughout the world. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made it clear in his recent mission statement that the role of the Commonwealth is central to our foreign policy objectives and our shared values in terms of democracy, good government, anti-corruption and building a global sense of values through the Harare declaration to which all Commonwealth nations must adhere.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: My hon. Friend will be aware that Labour Members are delighted with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's strong commitment to the Commonwealth. He will have noticed that the previous
    756
    Select Committee on Foreign Affairs produced a useful blueprint for the work that could be done within the Commonwealth and the genuine help that could be given to everyone throughout the organisation. Will he study it carefully and carry forward its practical views?
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We of course welcomed that report, and we shall take its conclusions very seriously. We also share the view that, as I said, the Commonwealth is central to this Government's purposes. It is also central, though, in ensuring that the values that we espouse and those that we espouse in common with our Commonwealth partners are an example not only to the Commonwealth but to the whole world.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I commend in his absence the recent robust remarks by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in relation to Nigeria? Does the Minister remember that, in 1961, when South Africa left the Commonwealth, it was on the verge of expulsion for its persistent and unrepentant flouting of Commonwealth values? If the present regime in Nigeria persists in its denial of human rights and democracy, will the Government give serious consideration to supporting a policy of expulsion of Nigeria from the Commonwealth?
    Mr. Lloyd: As the hon. and learned Gentleman will know, the Commonwealth ministerial action group will meet at the end of the week. On its agenda, among other things, will be the future of Nigeria in the Commonwealth, and of course the future of its suspension. I think that he will understand if I do not go further than that today except simply to say that we shall be working actively with our Commonwealth partners to see what further action can be taken to bring pressure to bear on the Nigerians so that they recognise that their behaviour is despicable and that it is time they began to reform.
    Mr. Pike: As both Pakistan and India very much value their membership of the Commonwealth, does my hon. Friend believe that this year, given that it is the 50th anniversary of their independence and the 50th year of the Kashmir problem, the Commonwealth could have a role in trying to help resolve that problem?
    Mr. Lloyd: As we have made very clear, the Government are available to act to bring about a resolution of that very long-enduring conflict. The major parties of the conflict are not only the people of Kashmir, who are undoubtedly the victims, but the Governments of India and Pakistan. The British Government, and indeed the Commonwealth, can operate only within a framework established by those two nations.
    Mr. Blunt: Given the events in Kenya reported in today's press, which seem to be in complete disregard of the Harare declaration, what steps are the Government taking to put pressure on the Government of President Arap Moi? Given the division between the Foreign Office and the Department of International Development, would such pressure include the potential suspension of aid?
    Mr. Lloyd: I met President Moi and, indeed, Opposition figures when I was in Kenya just over a week

    757
    ago. I made it clear then that our Government expect all parties to make space available so that the forthcoming general election can be conducted without violence and in a way that allows the Kenyan people to exercise their democratic right to decide the future of the country. The events over the weekend are yet one further serious blow to that process.
    We have made it clear that we deplore the violence and suggestions that the authorities may have used excessive force in their attempts to restrain demonstration. Within such terms, it is clear that the pressure that we are seeking to place is to ensure that the Kenyan people are sovereign in the process. Although I cannot answer for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, I am sure that she will take note of the hon. Gentleman's comments.
    Mr. Howard: Further to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), in the light of the distressing scenes of violence in Kenya, what scope does the Minister think there is for representations by the Government, in co-operation with other Commonwealth Governments, to the Kenyan Government?
    Mr. Lloyd: We have already made representations to the Kenyan Government and said that we expect them to play their part in ensuring that the run-up between now and the election later this year—or perhaps early next year—must be conducted without violence and in a way that allows the Kenyan people to make a decision. Those representations are firmly established with the Kenyan Government. We shall of course be seeking to work with our close allies in the Commonwealth and elsewhere to ensure that acceptance of the Harare principle is central to the Kenyan Government's actions. I simply repeat that we are in the end seeking to ensure that the Kenyan people have the right to choose the Government of Kenya.

    Burma (Human Rights)
    Mrs. Brinton: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the steps being taken by his Department to improve human rights in Burma. [5730]
    Mr. Fatchett: We take every opportunity to press the ruling State Law and Order Restoration Council—SLORC—to put an end to violations of human rights in Burma.
    On 19 June, we announced that we would not provide any financial support to companies for trade missions to Burma or for trade promotion activities in Burma. We have also urged our EU partners to impose further measures against the SLORC.
    Mrs. Brinton: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will support the tremendous efforts of Aung San Suu Kyi and the National Democratic League to fight for democracy in Burma, which is the true test of democratic rights? Will he also assure the House that Government money will no longer be used to encourage British companies to trade with Burma?
    Mr. Fatchett: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend on the first point. We will continue to campaign for the
    758
    restoration of democracy in Burma. It may be some consolation to my hon. Friend to learn that I sent, on behalf of the people of this country, birthday wishes to Aung San Suu Kyi on 18 June. I hope that it is not too long before Aung San Suu Kyi assumes her true position as leader of the Burmese people.
    In addition, I can give my hon. Friend a commitment that no British taxpayers' money will pay for trade missions or trade promotion in Burma, unlike under the previous Government, who showed their hypocrisy by using taxpayers' money to promote trade in Burma while at the same time condemning its human rights record. Our actions match our words: as always, the Conservatives' actions and words do not go together.
    Mr. Alan Clark: The Foreign Secretary's preoccupation with human rights is well known, and I respect him for it. However, there are four separate questions on today's Order Paper about human rights, all of which clearly envisage supplementary questions urging United Kingdom action on human rights in Burma, Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Nicaragua. Is it not the primary duty of the Foreign Office to nurture British diplomatic and commercial interests? Does the Minister think that those are likely to be advanced or inhibited by meddling in the internal affairs of other countries?
    Mr. Fatchett: The right hon. Gentleman must have been away from the House for so long that he does not understand one of the conventions of the House, or perhaps it has been dropped by the Conservative party. He will recall that only a few moments ago the shadow Foreign Secretary raised the question of human rights in Kenya. It seems that a universal principle is being applied—the right hon. Gentleman may be the only person outside it.

    Middle East Peace Process
    Mr. Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the middle east peace process. [5731]
    Mr. Ivan Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the middle east peace process. [5738]
    Mr. Fatchett: We are deeply concerned at the continuing stalemate in the middle east peace process and at the deteriorating situation in the occupied territories. We have impressed on all concerned the dangers of the situation as we see them.
    We played a major role in producing the Amsterdam European Council statement on the middle east peace process. We are conferring with our partners on the follow up to this statement.
    Mr. Burden: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that one of the most difficult questions facing the peace process is the future of Jerusalem? That is why it is so important that neither side takes any action that pre-empts the negotiations that must eventually take place. Does he share my concern that the Government of Israel seem intent on removing residency rights from many of the 170,000 Palestinian Arabs who live in east

    759
    Jerusalem, even though many of them were born there? Will he undertake to investigate that, and does he agree that that policy of quiet deportation is contrary to human rights and to the spirit of the Oslo accord?
    Mr. Fatchett: We certainly condemn any action by Israel or the Palestinians that pre-empts the final status negotiations. The matters to which my hon. Friend refers seem clearly to fall within that category, and therefore we have no hesitation in condemning them.
    Mr. Ivan Lewis: Will my hon. Friend welcome the fact that, for the first time since March this year. tentative discussions have taken place between the Israeli Government and representatives of the Palestinian authorities, especially the surprising recent meeting between Mr. Sharon, one of Israel's well-known hard liners, and Abu Mazin? In that context, when my hon. Friend meets Mr. Arafat next week will he urge him to take every glimmer of hope that is available to him to ensure that the peace process can be put back on track?
    Mr. Fatchett: We welcome any opportunity to reopen negotiations and any initiative that is taken. I compliment Ambassador Moratinos, the European Union special envoy, on his work. He has been particularly influential in trying to restart the talks between the Israeli Government and the Palestinians. I also congratulate the Egyptian Government on their role in trying to restart the peace negotiations. They have shown leadership and statesmanship—characteristics and attributes that are often lacking in that process.
    Mr. Hogg: Does the Minister agree that the single most important step that the Government of Israel could take to promote peace would be to decide not to build new settlements and not to extend existing ones? If he agrees, will he take every opportunity to press that message on the Israeli Government, both collectively and unilaterally? In particular, will he enlist the support of the United States Government in making their position, alongside ours, absolutely plain to the Government of Israel?
    Mr. Fatchett: I am pleased to tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we have already made clear our opposition to the extension of settlements and to new settlements. I visited the Har Homa settlement in May, and I set out clearly the British Government's position, which is based in international law and well known to the Israeli Government. We shall continue to convey that view to the Israelis and to other interested parties.
    Mr. Soames: Does the Minister agree that, in the wider interests of peace and stability in the middle east, he should make the most vigorous representations to the Iraqi Government about the failure to return Kuwaiti prisoners of war? Will he assure the House that, if he has not already done so, he will take steps to represent our views very strongly on that matter?
    Mr. Fatchett: I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that we have conveyed that view. During my recent visit to Kuwait, I expressed to the emir this country's concern about the missing Kuwaitis. I gave him a commitment that we will do all we can to assist in ensuring that those missing Kuwaitis get back to their families in Kuwait.
    Mr. Galloway: Does the Minister accept that the President Arafat who will come here next week is not
    760
    the President Arafat who came here with such high hopes a couple of years ago and sat in the Strangers Gallery? He is almost a beaten and broken man because of his identification with a peace process that has become a tragedy, if not a farce. It is a tragedy because there is neither peace nor a process.
    Although I welcome the Minister's promise to seize on what my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) called a glimmer of hope, I am bound to say that I see no glimmers. The time has come when words of condemnation of Israeli policy in Jerusalem and the occupied territories are no longer enough. International action involving the United States of America, the international community and the United Nations is long overdue.
    Mr. Fatchett: I can assure my hon. Friend that, when I met President Arafat the other week, he did not look broken and beaten: he was in good spirits and was keen to maintain the peace process and to restart the negotiations. I wished him well and gave him a clear commitment that we will do all we can to assist. My hon. Friend is correct to say that it is important that we get back to the negotiating table, as that is the only and best option available to everyone in the middle east.
    Mr. Butterfill: Does the Minister agree that, however faltering, the peace process has been progressive, and there has been a steady handover of territory to Palestinian control? That process needs to continue if we are to achieve peace. Does he agree that the present state of unrest in Hebron is holding up that process? When he meets Yasser Arafat next week, will he impress on him the important role that he can play in creating a climate in which the peace process can proceed to completion?
    Mr. Fatchett: It is clearly important that the process continues apace, otherwise the commitment to the process will diminish. It is obvious that the process must meet the aspirations of the Palestinian people and the security needs of the people of Israel. It must also deliver economically, as one of the issues that must be addressed is the fact that, since Oslo, the living standards of Palestinians have fallen by nearly one third. That is unacceptable, and progress must be made quickly so that everyone has a clear interest in and commitment to the peace process.

    Export Trade
    Mr. Desmond Browne: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he proposes to take to promote Britain's export trade. [5732]
    Mr. Fatchett: We work hand in hand with the Department of Trade and Industry on export promotion. Together, we have established a new export forum which will consider how to improve our export promotion initiatives. We have given trade promotion a very high priority in my Department's mission statement
    Mr. Browne: Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the Scotch whisky industry for its considerable contribution to the UK's trade balance? Will he reassure the House that he will continue to use the World Trade Organisation's disputes settlement system to ensure a

    761
    level playing field for whisky exporters? In particular, will he ensure that everything possible is done to encourage India to include Scotch whisky in the early part of its trade liberalisation programme?
    Mr. Fatchett: I am sure that my hon. Friend will have no difficulty in gaining support for his first point—that is, to ask everybody to support the value of Scotch whisky. I know that Scotch whisky is an important export for the United Kingdom and an important industry for my hon. Friend's constituents. We wish to see open markets for whatever product, and Scotch whisky is no exception.
    During my recent visit to India, I raised with the Indian Finance Minister the question of open markets for Scotch whisky in India, and he was sympathetic to the argument. We need immediate action to achieve our objectives. I stressed the importance of that, and advised the Minister that Scotch whisky was a good nightcap for those touring India. He took my advice, and perhaps it will be open to others in the future.
    Mr. Cash: Does the Minister accept that the most essential means of promoting exports is competitiveness, which requires established Conservative principles with regard to the promotion of trade and economic liberalism? Will new Labour espouse these principles, as it has done with almost everything else we have put forward in the past 150 years? Does he agree that one effective way of demonstrating the Government's determination to improve exports would be to condemn and eliminate illegal subsidies in the EU?
    Mr. Fatchett: I was worried for a time that the hon. Gentleman might get through a question without mentioning Europe, and I was delighted that he arrived at that point at the end. As always, he saved the best bit for the end. Of course we condemn any subsidy that is illegal under European legislation.

    Nicaragua (Human Rights)
    Barbara Follett: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on human rights in Nicaragua. [5733]
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: I say with no apology that human rights are at the heart of our foreign policy. I recognise this receives approbation from hon. Members on both sides of the House. We will monitor human rights closely and raise our concerns with the Nicaraguan Government as necessary. We will encourage further steps to address police standards, prison conditions, banditry in the north of the country and discrimination against women and indigenous groups.
    Barbara Follett: Does my hon. Friend share my concern at the legislation recently introduced by the Nicaraguan Government which restricts the rights of women and children in that country and is in direct violation of the international agreements that Nicaragua signed in Beijing in 1996 and Copenhagen in 1995?
    Mr. Lloyd: I think that my hon. Friend is referring to the legislation on the ministry of the family. While we have not seen a draft of that legislation, I understand that it has received considerable criticism from
    762
    non-governmental organisations in Nicaragua and more generally, which believe that it will discriminate against certain women and families.
    The Government's position is that we support the rights of all women and families. Within that framework, we urge the Nicaraguan Government, which has signed and ratified the UN conventions on the removal of all forms of discrimination against women and on the rights of the child, to recognise that those conventions have to be put into practice in domestic law. We ask the Nicaraguan Government to study them carefully to ensure that any legislation conforms with their international treaty obligations.
    Mr. Swayne: Will the Minister take this opportunity to distance himself from the position taken by the Secretary of State for International Development who, before free elections in that country, called for the expulsion of the American ambassador and the suppression of La Prensa, the anti-Sandinista newspaper?
    Mr. Lloyd: I merely suggest that the hon. Gentleman should take those matters up directly with the Secretary of State for International Development. I am reliably advised that there is not a shred of truth in what he said. Perhaps he ought to check the source of the information, rather than simply pander to the prejudices of an era that even in Nicaragua is long gone.

    Amsterdam Agreement
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with other EU Foreign Ministers about the parts of the Amsterdam agreement that affect his Department. [5734]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary regularly discusses European Union issues with his EU counterparts.
    Mr. Skinner: What are the criteria for applicant countries wanting to join the European Union—the Common Market really, if we are talking straight? Every currency in the single market is being badgered to meet the criteria available to fit the economic and monetary union single currency, yet applicant countries apparently do not have to satisfy those to get in. Who pays the cost? Is it not true that we—the British taxpayers—are still paying large amounts of money for the German annexation of East Germany? Is it not odd that today we hear that Slovenia is being given a consolation prize—joining the Common Market—because it cannot get into NATO?
    Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, since the general election, has been building up a reputation for great support for the Government. I am glad that he is continuing that today. May I reassure him that enlargement of the European Community provides a great opportunity on the one hand for better security within Europe and on the other for British exporters to break into a larger market.
    A number of criteria will be given prominence by the European Commission when it publishes its assessment of the state of the various countries and their suitability

    763
    for membership, which I think will be next Wednesday. The Commission will take into account a country's human rights record, the establishment of parliamentary democracy, the extent to which there has already been economic convergence and the possibility of further convergence. Of course, there will be an assessment of costs.
    Mr. Howard: I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) will not be too upset if I return to the question of human rights. Will the Minister tell us a bit about the human rights provisions of the treaty of Amsterdam? Does he agree that, if a member state is in serious and persistent breach of those provisions, the appropriate action should be to suspend that state from membership or expel it, rather than require it to remain a member and remove its voting rights?
    Mr. Henderson: As one refugee from the Home Office to another, I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman to his new post. I know that he is embarrassed about raising economic, defence and foreign policy issues arising out of Amsterdam. The issue that he has raised is a red herring. European Union countries together stand for human rights. That was endorsed in the Amsterdam treaty and was very much initiated and supported by this Government.

    Arms Sales
    Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to make the announcement of the first countries to be blacklisted under the new code of conduct for arms sales. [5737]
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: We shall announce, as soon as it is completed, the results of the review of criteria used in considering licence applications for the export of conventional arms. We are taking this exercise forward as a matter of urgency. The review does not focus on individual countries and will not involve the compilation of a blacklist. It will, however, meet our commitment not to permit the sale of arms to any regimes that might use them for internal repression or international aggression.
    Dr. Jones: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government have raised expectations that their attitude to the arms trade will be different. The previous Government rejected calls for a ban on arms sales to Indonesia, despite photographic, video and eye-witness evidence of the use of UK equipment for internal repression. Will the Government draw up guidelines to allow the acceptance of such evidence and will he confirm that breaches of those guidelines will lead to the cessation of arms sales to the country concerned?
    Mr. Lloyd: As I have said, the review is urgently under way. My hon. Friend would not expect me to comment on its impact on individual countries because its purpose is to ensure that we have a truly global framework. Nevertheless, in the context of Indonesia, the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), has asked for precisely the sort of
    764
    information she mentioned, so that we can take a proper and informed view of the consequences of previous UK arms sales.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: In advance of the review, will the Minister make it clear that the Government support the principle of defence exports? The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) called them arms sales, but they are in fact defence exports. Will he confirm, that our defence exports are vital for Britain because they sustain tens of thousands of jobs, often high-technology jobs, not only in my constituency but in those of many Labour Members; that they enable us to provide our services with the best British equipment at a price that we can afford; and that they give us foreign policy levers over countries with which we enjoy good friendship?
    Mr. Lloyd: The Government might find it easier to take lectures from Conservative Members, and from the hon. Gentleman in particular, if they had not been part of a Government with an incredibly sleazy record on arms sales. He well recalls the way in which that Government prostituted the aid budget to obtain arms sales at the time of the Pergau dam scandal, and how that Government wriggled and tried to hide the truth about arms sales to Iraq. They were prepared not only to put at risk the lives of British people in the services but were so economically incompetent that we are still owed money by the Iraqis for those deals. If he wants to talk about arms sales, he should start by apologising to the House for his role in that shameful Government.
    Mr. Mullin: Talking of Indonesia—my hon. Friend will recall that the regime there came to power on the back of a bloodbath matched in Asia only by Pol Pot—was he as surprised as I was to find that the Ministry of Defence has given invitations, no doubt left over from the previous regime, to three Indonesian generals who are due in Britain later this month to discuss who knows what? What discussions has he had with the MOD about whether that is a good idea and whether it will send the right message to the Indonesian Government?
    Mr. Lloyd: I can confirm that the invitation was issued by the previous Government.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Disgraceful.
    Mr. Lloyd: Conservative Members speak for themselves.
    We do not know yet whether the invitation will be taken up. I can confirm that any sales to any part of the world that arise from that or other exhibitions of military equipment will, of course, be subject to the export licence procedures that I have already discussed. Inevitably, our commitment to making sure that the review ensures that we do not provide arms that can be used for internal repression or external aggression will also apply to such arms sales.
    Mr. Faber: Further to the last answer, does not the existing policy guidance document on defence exports already include the need to take into account the human rights record of recipient countries? With exactly what aspect of the current criteria does the Minister disagree?
    Mr. Lloyd: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman does not anticipate the outcome of the review but, that said, I remind him—as I said to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) a few moments ago—that his party in government ran defence sales in such a way that they brought great shame to Britain. They made Britain's name abroad one of disrepute. We intend to ensure that Britain, while recognising our legitimate right to trade on the world stage, operates with a degree of moral responsibility. That might shock Conservative Members, but at least we shall ensure that we can hold our heads high in the international arena.

    Kashmir
    Mr. Heppell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans next to meet representatives of the Pakistani and Indian Governments to discuss an agreement on Kashmir. [5739]
    Mr. Fatchett: I discussed Kashmir with both Governments during my visit to India and Pakistan last month. In addition, I met the Pakistani Foreign Minister and the Indian Minister of State for External Affairs in Hong Kong, and we again discussed Kashmir. We shall continue to support both countries in their dialogue on the issues that divide them, including Kashmir.
    Mr. Heppell: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the reports that the Indian authorities in Srinagar have in their possession audio tapes that could shed some light on the motives and the identity of the people who have taken British hostages? Will he raise the issue with the Indian high commission in London as a matter of urgency?
    Mr. Fatchett: I can assure my hon. Friend that we have had close relationships with both the Indian and Pakistani Governments on the hostage question. Their help has been greatly appreciated. I am sorry to say that we have made no further progress, but I can give my hon. Friend and the families of the hostages every assurance that we shall continue to work closely and actively with both Governments until we find the hostages.
    Mr. Colvin: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the plebiscite that was promised to the Kashmiri people on their future in 1947 was denied them because the Labour Government of the day gave India and Pakistan independence six months earlier than had previously been agreed? Does he agree that this year—the 50th anniversary of those events—is a good window of opportunity to permit that problem to be resolved? Will he remind the House of the details of the criteria agreed by India and Pakistan, which must be met before that plebiscite can take place?
    Mr. Fatchett: I congratulate the Indian and Pakistani Governments on their efforts to renew discussions between the two Governments. It is an act of statesmanship and leadership by Prime Ministers Gujral and Sharif. We hope that those talks are successful. I was delighted with the news that, in the talks last month, it was agreed to establish a working party on Jammu and Kashmir. I assume that all the issues to which the hon. Gentleman referred will fall within the remit of that
    766
    working party. If that is the case, there are good prospects of making progress in an extremely difficult issue. We have made it clear to both Governments that, if they so wish, the good offices of the British Government will be made available to them.

    Korea
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new proposals he has to improve relations with Korea. [5740]
    Mr. Fatchett: At their recent meeting in New York, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the President of Korea agreed that the relations between our two countries were improving all the time. We shall work closely together further to enhance this important partnership.
    Mr. Flynn: Does my hon. Friend agree that the decision to locate £2 billion of high-tech Korean investment in my constituency was made in the sure knowledge that the economy in Wales under a Labour Government and a Welsh Assembly would be a healthy one for growth and development? Is he aware that those jobs have been relocated three fields away from the site where British technology jobs once were, before they were relocated under the previous Government to countries that have both the minimum wage and the social chapter? What does my hon. Friend intend to do to ensure that the cordial relations between Korea and the United Kingdom improve this year, when we are celebrating the 200th anniversary of the first contact between those two countries?
    Mr. Fatchett: I congratulate my hon. Friend on all his efforts and on the initiatives that he took to persuade the Korean inward investment to come to Newport. I am sure that his constituents will be extremely pleased with the success of his efforts, and that all hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish to congratulate him in that respect. He also looks to the future and I think that he, along with many other business people, will be encouraged by the decisions taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor last week, when he reduced the level of corporation tax to an all-time low. That will be very attractive to new inward investors, and they will also notice that, at last, we in the United Kingdom have a Government who are sensitive and friendly to business requirements. That is why we have the lowest level of corporation tax—something that the Conservative party talked about but failed miserably to achieve.
    Mr. Rowe: Would the Minister care to share with the House his assessment of how long the present situation in North Korea can persist and what, if any, risk he perceives to South Korea from the impending collapse?
    Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue; and we are naturally concerned about both the nature of the regime in North Korea and the condition of the people there. He will know that the Government have already made £1 million available to help with food shortages. We are also working with our European partners to bring assistance to North Korea. It is crucial, not only to North Korea's immediate neighbours, but to

    767
    all of us, that the four-party talks are successful and that North Korea changes its political face and economic approach and gives its people the opportunity to achieve what has been achieved in South Korea. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that what is happening in North Korea has serious implications.

    Zimbabwe
    Mr. Davidson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relationship with the Government of Zimbabwe. [5742]
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: The United Kingdom enjoys close and warm relations with the Government of Zimbabwe. We are important partners of Zimbabwe across a wide field, including trade, investment, development co-operation and military training. This week, the Zimbabwean Foreign Minister will come to London to take part in, and chair, the Commonwealth ministerial action group, and I look forward to meeting and working with him in that process.
    Mr. Davidson: I thank the Minister for his answer. Has he considered ways in which this country can assist the development of democracy in Zimbabwe by assisting non-racial, non-tribal opposition parties in that country and by encouraging greater democracy within the ruling party?
    Mr. Lloyd: We have welcomed the Zimbabwean Government's proposals to make the playing field considerably more level, specifically in respect of election law and the financing of opposition political parties. We would urge that they carry forward that process so as to make sure that Zimbabwe develops into a proper and pluralistic society.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Why does the Minister believe that it is right to say that we should have export bans and stop people selling to certain other countries because of the problems they have with their democracies, when he does not propose that UK companies should stop trading with Zimbabwe? Is it not strange that we are keen to see Korean companies importing into this country, without sanctions, while constantly saying that we should have sanctions against British companies which are out there exporting?
    Mr. Lloyd: Korea is in Asia and Zimbabwe is in Africa. Of course, the question of how we relate to other nations in respect of their human rights and their domestic and global responsibilities is one that varies on a case-by-case basis. That is the position of any Government—it was the position of the Government that the hon. Gentleman supported before the general election and it is certainly the position of the present Government. However, the hon. Gentleman will notice that we shall be a lot more consistent in our views and a lot more honest.

    Indonesia (Human Rights)
    Mr. Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a
    768
    statement on (a) the human rights record of Indonesia and (b) its impact on the licensing of future arms exports to that country. [5743]
    Mr. Fatchett: We have serious concerns about the human rights situation in both Indonesia and East Timor. We look to Indonesia to improve its human rights record. As announced to the House on 22 May, we are reviewing the criteria used in considering licence applications to export conventional arms. We expect the review to be completed in the next few weeks. We shall not issue licences for the export of arms, to Indonesia or any other country, which might be used for internal repression or international aggression.
    Mr. George: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that a genuine concern for the well-being of civilians and in other countries is not tantamount—
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Take your hands out of your pockets.
    Mr. George: I am sorry.
    Does the Minister agree that it is not tantamount to a preoccupation with human rights, which Conservative Members implied was to be scorned? Has he sought legal advice as to whether the revocation of export licences would imply any compensation payments to those exporters? The legal advice that I have received implies that it would not.
    Finally, will the Minister inform the House how quickly he will move on to the revocation of licences when the review is over?
    Mr. Fatchett: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman never listens to any advice offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). It has never worked for anyone else, so there is no reason to believe that it will work for him. As for the general points that the hon. Gentleman raises on human rights, he is of course correct to say that we are dealing with universal principles of universal application, and that those will be the criteria that guide Government policy.
    As for the arms issues, I ask the hon. Gentleman to wait, with others, for the announcement of the results of the review that we have established.
    Mr. Sheerman: I am pleased that my colleague is carefully examining Indonesia's human rights record. Human rights has emerged repeatedly as an issue during today's Question Time. However, it does worry some of us who want consistency when, post-Hong Kong, all we have heard about is gung-ho trade with China and the fact that we have an enormous trade deficit with that country, when surely no one can defend the human rights record of that country.
    Mr. Fatchett: I suspect that my hon. Friend was not in the Chamber for the first question and the first answer that I gave; if he was, he may well have missed the point that I made about the human rights record of the Chinese Government and the need to engage that Government on the human rights agenda. All that we have said since the handover of Hong Kong, in replies in the House this afternoon and in statements, has been about the need to

    769
    ensure that China honours the Joint Declaration. That is about human rights, and that is about a consistent and universal commitment to human rights. That will apply in Indonesia, Hong Kong and throughout our policy.
    Mr. David Davis: I have a factual question for the Minister, which allows a yes or no answer. Given all the resources available to him in the Foreign Office, can he confirm that British-made Hawks are never used in East Timor?
    Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman is asking me to follow a practice that he never followed in office, and I can never remember him giving such a factual answer. On Hawk and every other arms deal, he will have to wait until the conclusion of our review. We shall have to consider the criteria and make a judgment, and then he will be in a position to support or to criticise the Government. I am afraid that he will have to show patience and to wait.

    Year of the Commonwealth
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives his Department is taking to mark the United Kingdom Year of the Commonwealth; and if he will make a statement. [5744]
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: We welcome the initiative of the Royal Commonwealth Society in naming 1997 the UK Year of the Commonwealth. This Department held a reception to mark its launch in January. As well as hosting the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting and the Commonwealth Business Forum, we are funding the
    770
    Commonwealth Centre in the margins of the CHOGM and are contributing to, and are involved with, a number of other events during the year.
    Mr. Hughes: I thank the Minister for his reply. I would encourage him to realise that, out there in the community, lots of young people, in particular, are completely unaware of the Commonwealth, of our involvement in it, of its importance, and of the number of people who are Commonwealth citizens and who have settled in this country. They may also be unaware of its benefits, to Britain and to half the population of the world. Will the Minister, perhaps with his colleagues who are responsible for education, set up an initiative so that, by the autumn—around the time of the Commonwealth conference in Edinburgh—people will be more aware of the fact that the Commonwealth is one of the most valuable organisations to which we have ever belonged?
    Mr. Lloyd: The role of the Commonwealth, although rarely ignored in other Commonwealth countries, may ironically have been ignored in this country. That is perhaps because we take too easily for granted some of the central values that it represents: democracy, good government and so forth. We can be truly proud of those values; we can celebrate them. That is why the Government are placing considerable emphasis on this Year of the Commonwealth. We are grateful to the Royal Commonwealth Society, and to people such as the hon. Gentleman who support it. The society took the initiative to make this the Year of the Commonwealth. We intend to use the rest of this year to highlight the organisation in the run-up to the Edinburgh meeting, which will generate considerable publicity both for the institution of the Commonwealth and for the values that it underpins.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that you have responsibility for the printing of our proceedings, and it occurred to me that Hansard may have been misled by the answer I was given earlier by the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), who suggested that I was a member of the former Government with responsibility for defence exports. For the benefit of Hansard, may I point out that, so far from being a Minister, I was not even in the last Parliament? But my right hon. Friends did a fantastic job for Britain in the promotion of defence exports.
Madam Speaker: That is barely a point of order for me.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received a request from Foreign Office Ministers to make a statement on the attitude of the French authorities? I learned this morning that a constituent of mine, a British passport holder, has been told that he may not leave the camp site he is on in France while the French authorities investigate whether he is liable for French conscription—the second such case in a fortnight. Can you ask Foreign Office Ministers for a statement on what appears to be an increasing trend on the part of the French authorities? British passport holders should surely be free to travel in France without fear of arrest.
Madam Speaker: I am not aware that any Minister is seeking to make a statement on that matter today. I might advise the hon. Gentleman to make representations himself to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, since the case concerns a constituent for whom he has some responsibility.

Film Classification Accountability and Openness
3.32 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make the British Board of Film Classification accountable to Parliament; to require it to publish each year a list of its members, a register of their interests, minutes of its proceedings and copies of the expert advice it commissions; to give the Secretary of State power to dismiss its president; and for connected purposes.
The British Board of Film Classification is one of the last and worst examples of complacent, arrogant, secretive self-regulation. There is growing concern at the increasing culture of violence in this country, and the British Board of Film Classification should be playing a vital role in combating it.
The board had its origins before the first world war; it was set up by the film industry to provide independent and impartial advice to local authorities—the licensing authorities—on which films should be shown in cinemas. In 1984, Parliament gave the board a more statutory power over videos—it is a criminal offence to see a video which the board has not passed—yet the organisation remains, in effect, accountable to no one. It publishes an annual report, but it contains no register of interests, little or no mechanism for accountability and, worst of all, no trace of the specialist advice that it takes.
A recent celebrated case was the film "Crash", which portrays people getting sexual gratification from the most violent and dangerous motor crashes. It is especially worrying at a time and in a country where more children are killed each month than were killed in the Dunblane incident and where cars are more readily available than firearms—a subject on which the House has expended much time and energy. When asked to justify his decision to allow the film to be shown in Britain's cinemas, James Ferman, the director of the British Board of Film Classification, said that he had done so because he had taken specialist advice from a child psychologist who said that the film was safe. I argued with him on television and heard him repeat those claims.
Fortunately, the psychologist in question was very brave. I hope that it will enhance his standing in the profession that he chose to break confidentiality and blow the whistle, and release the full 12-page text of the report that he submitted. May I quote from it briefly? It said:
"Younger people, and those … who are particularly impressionable, are much more likely to be influenced by the moral vacuum associated with the sexuality shown by the main characters. … inexperienced people may look to the main characters as role models.
In addition, there exists in any community a small group of disturbed, psychologically vulnerable or deviant individuals.
But the main characters—… the Photographer, who pursues his 'art' in this film to the destruction of self and … others—could be seen as an inspiration or role model for these people to emulate."
A professional psychologist has therefore said that the film could encourage certain irresponsible young people to go out and kill people by driving dangerously. We would know none of that had Mr. Brittan not had the courage to blow the whistle on Mr. Ferman.
I wish to make a wider point rather than simply challenge that film. There is something profoundly wrong with a set-up in which an extraordinarily influential and powerful body can conduct its affairs in such secrecy.

773
Furthermore, the lack of a proper register of interests means that we cannot even be certain that none of the board members have commercial connections with films that come before them. The redoubtable Steve Doughty of the Daily Mail, whom I congratulate on his investigative journalism on this matter, unearthed the fact that one board member, who is supposed to review films in our interests, helps to run an escort agency that specialises in the entrapment of parties to divorces.
There should be a full register of interests, and the board should be moved towards the BBC model. Nobody wants the Government or Parliament to censor films, but we need a proper non-executive committee, the members of which would be appointed and potentially fired by the Home Secretary. That system works in the case of the BBC and provides accountability to Parliament, without allowing direct interference in operations.
Since the beginning of civilisation, it has been accepted that what people, especially young people, see and hear, influences them. Pythagoras testifies to the occasion when he prevented a riot by persuading a piper to change his tune—or so the story goes. I do not ask that we impose some new system of censorship; I simply say that in an era when commercial advertisers can spend billions of pounds trying to change people's opinions—rightly so, as part of the workings of the market—we should get the existing machinery to work. That is the Bill's aim.
We owe it to the weak, the innocent and the vulnerable in our society to protect them. Making the board, which had a long and honourable history until recent years, work and clean up its act is in the public interest. I urge the House to support this measure.
3.39 pm
Mr. Norman A. Godman: I object in principle to the Bill, but I promise to be brief. I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and I support his aim to protect vulnerable people in our society, but I object in principle to the Bill because, in my view, its covert aim is to impose a form of state or political censorship on British filmgoers.
Although I have every respect for the Secretary of State for the Home Department, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and for the Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Dewar), I do not want to see them as film censors. I reckon that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—I hope that he will forgive me for this—confines his film viewing to old Hollywood musicals. I sometimes think that he sees himself in his dreams as playing the role of Gene Kelly in a British remake of "Singin' in the Rain". Heaven alone knows when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland last visited his local cinema—I am not sure that he even saw "Braveheart".
The British film board works well. Its members, under the stewardship of Lord Harewood, are not devotees of pornography or violent films. Perhaps unlike the hon.
774
Member for Canterbury, I have not seen the film "Crash" and I have no desire to see it. [Interruption.] I understood from the way that the hon. Gentleman was speaking that he had seen the film.
The members of the British film board make the occasional mistake, but those are honest mistakes. I have more trust in the members of the board than I do in politicians.
My trust in the board is shared by members of my local council, the Inverclyde council. When a cinema was built on the Greenock waterfront, the members of the council, including the opposition members, decided that they had no wish to act as local censors as a condition for the granting of a licence to the cinema proprietor. They say that they are perfectly willing to rely on the British Board of Film Classification for advice on such matters. Among those local representatives are members of the Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic Church. They are regular churchgoers, but—unlike the hon. Gentleman—they have trust in the men and women of the British film board.
I have always supported the statutory powers given to the board to license videos. That is particularly important where children are concerned. Indeed, I supported Gareth Wardell's Bill in the House as far back as 1984. Gareth earned our trust and respect for his Video Recordings Bill, which became the Video Recordings Act 1984. That Bill was strengthened by sections of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which I supported.
On films, we should put our trust in the members—
Mr. Brazier rose—
Mr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman must learn the procedures of the House. I cannot give way to him.
We should put our trust in the members and officials of the British Board of Film Classification, not in politicians.
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. Julian Brazier, Sir Teddy Taylor, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. Edward Leigh, Miss Ann Widdecombe, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. Andrew Robathan, Mr. Piers Merchant, Dr. Julian Lewis, Mr. Shaun Woodward, Mr. Oliver Letwin and Mr. Christopher Fraser.

Film Classification Accountability and Openness
  FILM CLASSIFICATION ACCOUNTABILITY AND OPENNESS
  Mr. Julian Brazier accordingly presented a Bill to make the British Board of Film Classification accountable to Parliament; to require it to publish each year a list of its members, a register of their interests, minutes of its proceedings and copies of the expert advice it commissions; to give the Secretary of State power to dismiss its president; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 41].
Orders of the Day
  Local Government Finance (Supplementary Credit Approvals) Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Local Government Finance (Supplementary Credit Approvals) Bill
    New clause 1

      DUTY OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO HAVE REGARD TO ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS
      'In section 55 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 there shall be inserted after subsection (3)—
      "(3A) In determining the amount of a supplementary credit approval, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the strategy of the authority to ensure full accessibility standards in new build and in conversion or renovation of existing properties.".'.—[Mr. Sanders.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      3.45 pm
      Mr. Adrian Sanders: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The new clause would put some restrictions on the expenditure of moneys drawn down from the supplementary credit approvals. We believe that it presents an excellent opportunity to address the serious problem of the lack of accessible housing for disabled people. That problem has existed for many years.
      According to the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, a considerable amount of local authority housing is inaccessible to disabled people. That leads not only to disabled people waiting long periods for rehousing, and living in inappropriate accommodation, but to massive expenditure on building adaptions. In 1994–95, local authorities spent nearly £85 million adapting properties for disabled people. That is a considerable amount, and much expenditure is a direct consequence of not having a building regulation that makes the necessary arrangements should existing housing stock be required by people with disabilities.
      Two years ago, the Department of the Environment issued proposals to extend part M of the building regulations, which ensures accessibility to all new housing. The Department has not moved on from that initial set of proposals. Unless part M is extended quickly, it will have no effect on the supplementary credit approvals and an opportunity will be lost.
      New clause 1 would ensure that new build and renovated properties are accessible to disabled people. We hope that our new clause will be supported on all sides of the House so that people with disabilities will no longer have to wait for housing adaptions, and disabled people on housing waiting lists will be able to move into accommodation that is appropriate to their needs.
      The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): As the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) has said, new clause 1 would place a new duty on the Secretary of State to take account of each local authority's strategy to ensure full accessibility standards in determining the amount of any supplementary credit approval. Although he may not be aware of it, the hon. Gentleman's new clause would apply
      776
      to the determination of all supplementary credit approvals and not just to those issued under the capital receipts initiative. Therefore, the new clause may go rather further than the hon. Gentleman intends.
      I do not think that, in his heart of hearts, the hon. Gentleman sees the purpose of requiring that accessibility standards be considered when distributing supplementary credit approvals for composting, flood defences or for cycle lanes. However, that would be the effect of the new clause. While we cannot possibly accept the new clause because it would create a nonsensical position, the hon. Gentleman has nevertheless raised an issue which the Government take very seriously. The hon. Gentleman knows that because, when he raised the issue on Second Reading. I assured him that the Government were considering seriously part M of the building regulations and its extension to residential dwellings.
      Under the previous Government, the Department issued a consultation paper on the subject. We have given careful thought to the many responses that we have received and I have been actively involved in bringing together the House Builders Federation and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which take slightly different views on how progress should be made. We are trying to find a sensible accord that will allow real progress without imposing unreasonable additional costs that might have an adverse effect on individual house buyers and the market. We are taking urgent action on the issue, which we take very seriously.
      In the meantime, measures are in place to ensure that all new developments of special needs housing, and housing for the elderly and frail, are covered by Housing Corporation scheme standards, which specifically require that the housing design must provide for the access needs of older people and must meet a range of accessibility standards. Housing specifically for wheelchair users has to meet further guidelines agreed between the corporation and the National Wheelchair Housing Association Group. Any passenger lifts in new social housing must be able to accommodate wheelchairs.
      Sir Paul Beresford: Funnily enough, in a way I support the Minister's argument that the new clause would increase bureaucracy and work for the Department and local authorities. I am particularly conscious of that, because the Bill will already double their work load. Does the Minister agree that the Bill introduces a twin-track approach, bringing in a separate parallel procedure similar to those already existing for local authorities and the Department?
      Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on both counts. As I hope he knows, the Bill has been warmly welcomed by local authorities throughout the country. They see it as a means of increasing investment in housing, which has been scandalously neglected for the past 18 years.
      My point was not about bureaucracy, but about the need to ensure effective measures to extend accessibility standards in new housing and in the conversion of older housing without imposing unreasonable costs that would hit the consumer and possibly harm the housing market. That is a sensible concern. We are working in everybody's interests to improve accessibility for people with disabilities in a practical way.

      777
      I was assuring the hon. Member for Torbay that there were safeguards on all new housing association developments. Similar standards apply to new housing developments by housing associations supported by local authority social housing grant. Any housing associations developments with funding from supplementary credit approvals under the capital receipts initiative will have to meet those standards. The standards of accessibility that the hon. Gentleman is seeking in new investment undertaken as a result of the initiative will be guaranteed.
      In the light of my explanation of why the problem cannot be dealt with in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests and my assurances that the Government already have that important matter under active consideration, I hope that he will agree not to press the new clause.
      Mr. Sanders: I thank the Minister for that comprehensive explanation, but the purpose of the new clause is not just to focus on developments that are specifically designed for people with disabilities, but to ensure that a person who acquires a disability in later life can remain in the home that they had lived in until they acquired that disability. For example, stairways should be designed with possible later adaptation to add a mechanical stairlift in mind. That would ensure that people with disabilities could remain in the community and would not be ghettoised in housing for the disabled. We look to the Government to bring in such standards, because they have been lacking until now.
      Whether or not the Bill goes that far, cycleways should be accessible to people with disabilities. If it does, all well and good, but, although we take on board the Minister's comments—and I thank him for his reply—we wish to push the new clause to a vote. It is an important marker which demonstrates our slightly different approach. We do not want people with disabilities to be ghettoised; everyone should have the possibility of their housing being adapted if that is required at a later date.
      Let me give a wonderful example from my constituency. Some houses had supposedly been designed for elderly people, but no provision to that effect had been made in the building regulations. The kitchen cupboards were too high for elderly people to reach, as elderly people are not quite as tall as younger people; we lose a few inches as we get older. The food cupboard was in front of a water heating pipe, so it was useless for the storage of food. Such incidences require local authorities to spend money on adjustments that would not be required if standards had been laid down before construction.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 38, Noes 303.

      Division No. 48]

      [3.55 pm

      AYES

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Cotter, Brian

      Baker, Norman

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Brake, Thomas

      Gorrie, Donald

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Hancock, Mike

      Breed, Colin

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Burnett, John

      Keetch, Paul

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

      Chidgey, David

      Kirkwood, Archy

      778

      Livsey, Richard

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

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Stunell, Andrew

      Maclennan, Robert

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Moore, Michael

      Webb, Professor Steve

      Oaten, Mark

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Öpik, Lembit

      Rendel, David

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Mr. Paul Tyler and

      Sanders, Adrian

      Mr. Paul Burstow.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cousins, Jim

      Adams, Mrs lrene (Paisley N)

      Cranston, Ross

      Ainger, Nick

      Crausby, David

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Cummings, John

      Ashton, Joe

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)

      Austin, John

      Barnes, Harry

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Barron, Kevin

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Bayley, Hugh

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Beard, Nigel

      Davidson, Ian

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzll (Llanelli)

      Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Denham, John

      Berry, Roger

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Best Harold

      Dismore, Andrew

      Betts, Clive

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Blackman, Liz

      Dowd, Jim

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Drew, David

      Blizzard, Bob

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Boateng, Paul

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Borrow, David

      Edwards, Huw

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Efford, Clive

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Ellman, Ms Louise

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Ennis, Jeff

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Etherington, Bill

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)

      Flint, Caroline

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Flynn, Paul

      Burden, Richard

      Follett, Barbara

      Burgon, Colin

      Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

      Byers, Stephen

      Fyfe, Maria

      Caborn, Richard

      Gerrard, Neil

      Campbell, Alan (Tynernouth)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Goggins, Paul

      Cann, Jamie

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Caplin, Ivor

      Grant, Bernie

      Casale, Roger

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Caton, Martin

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Grogan, John

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Gunnell, John

      Clapham, Michael

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Hanson, David

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Healey, John

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Clelland, David

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Coaker, Vernon

      Heppell, John

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Colman, Tony (Putney)

      Hill, Keith

      Connarty, Michael

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hoey, Kate

      Corbett, Robin

      Home Robertson, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hood, Jimmy

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      779

      Hope, Phil

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      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

      Norris, Dan

      Hutton, John

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Illsley, Eric

      Olner, Bill

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Osborne, Mrs Sandra

      Jamieson, David

      Pearson, Ian

      Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

      Pendry, Tom

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Pike, Peter L

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Pond, Chris

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Pound, Stephen

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Kemp, Fraser

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Purchase, Ken

      Kidney, David

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Quinn, Lawrie (Scarborough)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Rammell, Bill

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Rapson, Syd

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Raynsford, Nick

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Laxton, Bob

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Lepper, David

      Rogers, Allan

      Levitt, Tom

      Rooney, Terry

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Roy, Frank

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Ruane, Chris

      Linton, Martin

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Livingstone, Ken

      Sawford, Phil

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Love, Andrew

      Sheerman, Barry

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McCabe, Stephen

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Singh, Marsha

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Skinner, Dennis

      McDonnell, John

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      McFall, John

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      McIsaac, Shona

      McKenna, Ms Rosemary

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      McNulty, Tony

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      MacShane, Denis

      Snape, Peter

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Soley, Clive

      McWalter, Tony

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      McWilliam, John

      Spellar, John

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Mallaber, Judy

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Marek, Dr John

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Stevenson, George

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Martlew, Eric

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Maxton, John

      Stott, Roger

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Meale, Alan

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Michael, Alun

      Stringer, Graham

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela (Edgbaston)

      Milburn, Alan

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Mitchell, Austin

      Moffatt, Laura

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      780

      Timms, Stephen

      (Swansea W)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Todd, Mark

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Touhig, Don

      Wilson, Brian

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Winnick, David

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Wood, Mike

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Woolas, Phil

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Wray, James

      Vaz, Keith

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Wright, Tony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Watts, David

      Wyatt, Derek

      White, Brian

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Mr. Graham Allen and

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Mr. Greg Pope.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 2

      LOCAL AUTHORITY DEBT REDUCTION STRATEGIES
      'Alter section 55(3) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 there shall be inserted—
      "(3A) Supplementary credit approvals shall only be allocated to authorities which have published and submitted to the Secretary of State a five-year strategy for debt reduction.".'.—[Mr. Chope.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Christopher Chope: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The new clause is designed to be helpful to the Government, because its purpose is to ensure that local authorities have the chance to participate in the Chancellor's five-year deficit reduction strategy. In essence, the new clause would require local authorities seeking supplementary credit approvals to submit a five-year debt reduction plan to the Secretary of State.
      Debt is a massive problem for local authorities. The "Financial Statement and Budget Report" produced by the Government shows in table 4A.3 on page 115 that local authority interest payments amount to £4.4 billion a year. That compares with some £6.7 billion of gross capital expenditure before depreciation. In other words, interest payments are almost as great as the capital expenditure or investment each year. We have tabled the new clause to try to get local authorities to concentrate their minds on the need to reduce that debt burden.
      The latest figures which I have for the total of local authority debt, which were published in the Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin for November last year, show that at the end of March 1996 it was some £49,563 million, or £49.5 billion. That is a very high figure indeed.
      Table 1.1 on page 12 of the Red Book shows the projected change to the public sector borrowing requirement forecast for this year as a result of the latest Budget compared with the November 1996 Budget. It puts the issues in context, because it shows the extent to which the Government have been generous by giving £200 million extra under the local authority capital receipts initiative. The table shows that there is, indeed, a £200 million increase in the PSBR forecast as a result of that initiative, but, as a result of everything else, it is reduced by £8.3 billion.
      At a time when the total PSBR is falling by £8 billion because of the previous Government's prudent budgeting, the Government find only £200 million extra for local

      781
      authority capital expenditure under the local authority capital receipts initiative. I suspect that, having looked at the figures more closely, housing authorities and people concerned about local authority housing will express disillusion and dismay at the fact that they have been misled by the Labour party into thinking that there would be a substantial input of extra money, whereas it is £200 million this year, which is paltry in the context of the PSBR forecast.
      Ms Louise Ellman: Would the hon. Gentleman like to comment on the fact that local authorities and the people of this country regarded as paltry and derisory the action taken by the Conservative Government to prevent house building, which led to a period of social crisis? Against that background, he should welcome every attempt to invest in our housing stock to provide homes and employment.
      Mr. Chope: The hon. Lady will be extremely disappointed when she looks at the figures. Each year, local authorities receive about £1 billion of capital receipts as a result of sales, so for the current financial year and next year, there will be another £2 billion of capital receipts. When the Labour party made its commitment before the general election to allow more of those receipts to cascade down and produce a housing revival, people thought that that money and some of the previous capital receipts that had been set aside would be made available, and that from the onset of a new Labour Government all capital receipts obtained by local authorities would also be made available.
      Existing capital receipts will be released at the rate of £200 million this year and £700 million next year, whereas we were told that £5 billion would be released over five years. The effect of taking this year and next year together is that about £900 million will be released under the so-called capital receipts initiative, but £2 billion will be added to local authority capital receipts as a result of the normal process. A comparison of the position in two years' time with the position as of April this year shows that local authorities will have more capital receipts that they cannot spend after two years of Labour government than they had at the end of 18 years of Conservative government.
      Sir Paul Beresford: I am in slight disagreement with my hon. Friend. The Bill deals with supplementary credit approvals and, in fact, no capital receipts are released, although reference is made to that. We will have the basic credit approvals allocated under the housing investment programmes on one system, and a parallel system—with extra bureaucracy—for supplementary credit approvals merely as a flag-waving exercise for the Labour party's manifesto pledge.
      Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend is right to challenge me for having fallen for the Government's propaganda. The Bill deals not with the release of capital receipts but with the application of supplementary credit approvals as a cover for a promise made during the election campaign which Labour has been unable to deliver in practice.
      4.15 pm
      Dr. Brian Iddon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, after 1979, the previous Government put so many people out of work in the
      782
      construction industry that restarting that industry will have to be done in a phased way, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor proposes?
      Mr. Chope: I am almost speechless. The Government will have to come to terms with this—the construction industry is either booming or in the depths of a recession. The Chancellor has said that he will release capital receipts, taking account of the needs and capacity of the construction industry. I presume that the fact that the Chancellor only felt fit to release £200 million under the supplementary credit approvals programme shows that he thinks that he has inherited a construction industry from the previous Administration that is extremely healthy and is in danger of overheating. We have read of many fears that there is a danger of overheating in the construction industry. I find the hon. Gentleman's intervention amazing.
      I hope that the Government will accept the new clause—which is in line with their deficit reduction strategy—as recognition of the fact that there is a real debt problem for local authorities. The sooner authorities recognise that, if they reduce debt, they will be able to spend more on providing services and investment, the better.
      Mr. Andrew Lansley: On Second Reading, a number of questions were raised, and I was fortunate to be called to raise some. The context in which the Bill would emerge was not clear at that time, as we did not know the character of the Budget or the provision that would be made by the Chancellor. It is timely that my right hon. and hon. Friends have tabled the new clause, since it would have been difficult to structure such a clause at an earlier stage. I agree very much with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) that the intention behind the new clause is to assist the Government.
      Reference was made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch to the Labour manifesto, which stated that capital receipts would be
      "phased to match the capacity of the building industry"—
      to which my hon. Friend and others have referred—
      "and to meet the requirements of sound economic management."— [Official Report, Standing Committee A, 24 June 1997; c. 9.]
      Treasury Ministers estimate that the capacity utilisation of the building industry is above the long-run average at present.
      The new clause relates more to the question of sound economic management, and the addition of the new clause to the Bill would assist in that process. The Government have produced a Budget, the intention of which is to secure the reduction of borrowing in the public sector; however, the Bill will increase borrowing in the public sector. The two cannot be right. In present circumstances, we should not enact a measure that would negate the reductions in public borrowing. We ought to set the Bill in that context.
      I support the new clause because I represent two authorities in my constituency. One is debt-free, while the other has substantial debts. It is clear from the way in which the consultation paper issued by the Ministers is structured that they contemplate the possibility of debt-free authorities, although having been allocated supplementary credit approvals, choosing not to take them up. Paragraph 24 of that paper states:
      "Arrangements would be made to redistribute any SCAs made available either from debt-free authorities or from authorities which had not produced adequate spending plans."

      783
      In the case of debt free authorities, I can well understand members of South Cambridgeshire district council choosing not to take up the supplementary credit approvals. Taking them up would remove their debt-free status and lead them to incur costs through borrowing. The absence of such costs and the income that the authority receives from the set-aside receipts which it has accumulated enable it to be an authority that does not levy a council tax.
      Authorities that have been prudent and are meeting service needs but are not levying a substantial council tax may be allocated supplementary credit approvals but may choose not to take them up. If those SCAs are reallocated, it should be only to authorities that continue down the path of increased prudence in their financial management. Prudent authorities should not be benefiting profligate authorities that might increase borrowing.
      We now understand the consequences of the Bill, which were not clear on Second Reading. At that time, it was not clear who would pay for the cost. There is no cost-free option. The capital receipts do not sit around in a cash fund. Even in South Cambridgeshire district, the council's provision for credit liabilities set aside is not backed by cash. The cash generated has been used to pay off borrowing. Who pays?
      On Second Reading, various possibilities emerged—one idea was that it would be paid for through council rents and another was that it would be paid for through the council tax. The implication of the consultation paper is that the general taxpayer will pay, and we see that in the Budget. The increase in public sector borrowing requirement of £200 million and £700 million to which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch referred has had to be offset in the Budget by tax-raising measures.
      The direct result is that other taxpayers will be funding the increase in borrowing for this purpose. It is all the more important that those taxpayers should ensure that they are not building up a further and growing liability through borrowing that will magnify in time and add to the overall tax burden. It is bad enough that the Budget should have added 1 per cent. to the tax burden this year and another 0.5 per cent. next, without adding to the burden beyond that.
      For those reasons, it is important that we add the new clause to the Bill and give ourselves the opportunity to move public sector borrowing in the same direction in both local and central Government. Therefore, I support the new clause.
      Mr. James Clappison: It is a pleasure to follow the analysis given by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley).
      My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) argued cogently in support of the new clause. It is important to return to the subject of debt and the servicing of debt, because the issue of debt is an important starting point in the history of capital receipts and the Bill. When in opposition, Labour Members and, certainly, present Ministers widely believed that the capital receipts—the proceeds of house sales and other assets—were locked away, being wasted, and were not put to any good purpose.
      784
      We were told—the Minister nods his head now, but I remind him of what he said in opposition. Last year, he said that a Labour Government would release capital receipts and added:
      "We will do it because it makes sense to use the resources that are currently wasted to get people back to work, to build homes".—[Official Report, Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 17 December 1996; c. 10.]
      The hon. Gentleman also talked about "foolish" Government restrictions. I hope that he realises the folly of his words, because those resources, as he well knows, have never been wasted but have been used by local authorities, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire rightly said, to make provision for credit liability, to support the expenditure of local authorities and to service local authority debt.
      It is one of the fictions perpetrated by the Labour party that receipts have not been put to any good use. As the Minister knows now, if he did not when he uttered those words, debt-free local authorities have always been able to spend their entire capital receipts as they see fit. That is contained in his consultation paper. He has come to that knowledge. Local authorities with debts are required to set aside capital receipts on account of them: 75 per cent. for the proceeds of the sale of houses, and 50 per cent. for the sale of other assets.
      We must return to the important issue of how to make provision for local authority debt. It is interesting that the Treasury's financial statement was mentioned, because another fiction perpetrated by the Labour party was that the release of council house receipts would have no effect on public expenditure. I remember having that argument several times with Labour spokesmen in opposition. They would not have it that such a release amounted to public expenditure. As we told them, every penny spent from the capital receipts amounts to additional public expenditure, because provision must be made for the way in which capital receipts are used.
      It is interesting that the Labour party now admits, in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" to which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch properly referred, that every penny of the capital receipts initiative, as it is called, amounts to extra public expenditure. That fact appears in the financial statement set out by the Chancellor as part of general Government expenditure, outside the control total, for that is what matters for these purposes.
      The Minister nods his head at that, but one of the classic fudges perpetrated by the Labour party was that, if public expenditure was outside the control total, it somehow did not count. He should know that the control total is for the internal purpose of controlling the expenditure of Departments. Expenditure outside the control total is still part of general Government expenditure which has to be paid for. It is also made clear in the financial statement that it counts towards the public sector borrowing requirement. In at least two places in the financial statement, it may be seen that that expenditure is counted as part of general Government expenditure and as counting toward the PSBR.
      I referred to the alleged capital receipts initiative because my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) made an important point, which was properly accepted by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. It is nonsense to talk about this money coming from capital receipts; it does not. There is not one penny piece of capital receipts in any of this expenditure.

      785
      It is all additional government expenditure by way of supplementary credit approval. The only way in which capital receipts come into the picture is as part of the formulae for the distribution of that spending.
      I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Ms Ellman) to the somewhat bizarre formulae in the Government's consultation document. Three formulae are set out by the Government as ways in which the money could be distributed. The Government have chosen a way that will penalise authorities such as hers.
      Ms Ellman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Clappison: I shall let the hon. Lady respond in a minute, if she wishes. I advise her to examine the consultation document formulae. In 1997–98, Liverpool will lose about £600,000 on the Government's chosen formula and will lose more than £3 million in the following year. I shall give way, but I think that she must take issue with her Front-Bench colleagues.
      Ms Ellman: I am extremely surprised to hear those comments from the hon. Gentleman. The Bill states clearly that the needs as well as the resources of areas such as Liverpool will be considered. That is a major plank of the Bill. I remind the hon. Gentleman and his honourable colleagues that they are opposing the Bill in its entirety; therefore, it is hypocritical of them to pretend that there are deficiencies in the Bill when they are opposed to the principle of more building to meet social need and provide employment.
      Mr. Clappison: I accept the hon. Lady's point. She wants more spending. That is a theme that we shall no doubt hear from Labour Members on several occasions during this Parliament. The point that the hon. Lady needs to take up with her Front-Bench team—not with me, because I can see the force of the argument for the Liverpools of this world—is that her party in government has decided to spend this money and then chosen a formula for doing so that will penalise authorities such as Liverpool, the inner-London authorities and 33 of the 36 metropolitan district authorities, rather than authorities such as mine—Hertsmere—and Surrey Heath and Malvern Hills, all of which benefit from the formula chosen by the Labour party.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend has great knowledge of these matters. Will he confirm that the previous Government's formula took need into consideration, especially in Liverpool, Riverside, and that the new formula dilutes consideration of need by taking into account capital receipts? The good people of Liverpool are materially worse off under the new formula than under the previous formula.
      Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We went to great lengths to produce a fair formula based on need. If the Government had chosen such a formula, they might have produced a different result. The alternative formula is in the Government's consultation paper. I invite the hon. Lady to look at it and do the arithmetic. She will see that her authority and many of those represented by her colleagues will lose out under the proposed formula for spending the money that has been chosen by her Ministers.
      Ms Ellman: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman persists in his deliberate misunderstanding of what is
      786
      happening and what happened under the previous Government. Neither Liverpool's overall needs nor its housing needs were met by the previous Government. That is why there is now a major crisis in Liverpool in local authority housing and the housing stock needs to be improved. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman repent a little of the misdeeds of his Government and join us in trying to put right an injustice that has persisted for too long.
      Mr. Clappison: The hon. Lady would know if she had served on Committees with me—as the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), has—that I am the first to admit a mistake and repent. I put a proposition to the hon. Lady and to the Minister that the Minister may deny. Under the formula that has been chosen by the Government of two thirds need and one third cumulative capital receipts, Liverpool receives less than it would have received under the alternative formula of 100 per cent. need set out in the consultation document. The same applies to many other authorities, in inner-city areas, metropolitan districts, and so on.
      Sir Paul Beresford: While my hon. Friend is in a repenting mood, will he repent a little of the formula and agree with me that it will in some aspects benefit those local authorities that have successfully pushed and promoted the right to buy and vacant sales?
      Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend makes another important point, with which I am sure that the Minister will want to deal in his reply.
      Before I stray too far from the subject of debt, I emphasise that new clause 2 is important because local authorities have massive debts. We have to think as much about the repayment and servicing of those debts as we think about new spending, which the Government have undertaken in this new spending commitment. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch mentioned the huge proportions of total local authority debt—more than £49 billion. Within that overall total, some authorities have particularly severe problems of indebtedness.
      According to figures that the Library has supplied to me based on debt per resident, some of the worst cases of debt are in authorities such as Islington, which has almost £5,000 of debt per head. Many other local authorities of a similar nature have debts running into thousands and thousands of pounds. It is important that, when we look at debt reduction overall, we also look at local authority debt reduction. As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch so rightly pointed out, those liabilities are going to persist long into the future for the unfortunate residents of those local authority areas. The figures are huge, and it is right that we should think about that problem.
      Ms Margaret Moran: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Clappison: I am neither a Privy Councillor nor an hon. Friend, but I will give way.
      Ms Moran: I apologise for elevating the hon. Gentleman well above his station, but I want to draw his attention to certain facts. He speaks eloquently on the level of local authority debt, but he should perhaps be reminded that, during the period from 1990 to 1996, his Government

      787
      allowed public sector debt to double from the equivalent of £2,200 per head to £5,600 per head; yet, in the same period, local authority debt fell from the equivalent of £899 per head to £843.
      That completely contradicts the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to illustrate and it demonstrates economic incompetence of the highest degree on the part of the previous Government, given that they also allowed house building to be cut by one third during the same period. Economic incompetence—housing incompetence.
      Mr. Clappison: I might be straying from the subject of the debate, but I invite the hon. Lady to pay attention to what is said in Labour's financial statement about the repayment of the public sector borrowing requirement. On the existing figures before the Budget, we were well on course to return to repaying public sector debt by 2000. Those were the figures given by her own right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
      As for debt, the overall lesson for Ministers is that, contrary to what they believed when they were in opposition, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Now they are in government, that has been confirmed—there is no such thing as a free lunch, not even if it has the blessing of the Minister without Portfolio.
      Mr. Oliver Letwin: Before I turn to the main subject that I wish to address, I cannot refrain from mentioning that it is evident to the majority of people in this country, if not to Labour Members, that the person or persons who were mainly responsible for not attending to the needs of Liverpool under the last Administration were Mr. Hatton and his colleagues.
      Sir Paul Beresford: And those who followed.
      Mr. Letwin: Indeed.
      The importance of the new clause lies in the fact that the Government's response will constitute an important test of their true motive in drafting the Bill in the first place. As our discussion of the Bill has revealed, the Bill's main purpose is, in the first instance, to release spending. Spending is being released in a way that enables the Government to claim that they can provide local authorities with the ability to spend money that otherwise the spending limits would not have allowed. If that were the sole purpose of the Bill, it would be a disreputable attempt by one Department of State to undermine the very effects that the Government as a whole and the Treasury are seeking to achieve globally.
      We have, however, been told by Labour Members and Ministers that the purpose of the Bill goes beyond that and that it is not designed merely to allow local authorities to spend rather more in the current year and the next. They say that the intention is to permit a progressive and phased—I believe that was the word used by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon)—increase in the amount that can be spent on the construction industry's activities, so as to permit a sustainable, long-term development of the housing programme in this country. That is a laudable aim and I have no doubt that it is shared by all hon. Members on both sides of the House.
      As I said, the new clause and the Government's response to it is a good test of the proposition that that is indeed the Government's true motivation. There can be
      788
      no doubt that the Bill permits, not only spending, but a considerable increase—in fact, pound for pound—in the amount of net borrowing in which local authorities will be engaged. Ministers have entirely admitted that proposition.
      If that is the case, the cumulative effect on the public sector borrowing requirement and on the stock of public debt in the coming years will be very noticeable. There will come a time, towards the end of this Parliament, when the Treasury, if not the Department of the Environment, will have to call a halt to that increase in PSBR and in the public debt. We are reminded, are we not, of the phrase, too happy to be quoted, of a late lamented Labour Member, Tony Crosland, when he eventually spotted that his policies were sending the PSBR in relation to local authorities out of control?
      If, in this instance, the Government genuinely intend not merely to release extra expenditure to mollify their Back Benches in this first year but to create a sustained programme of development, it must follow that the Government would wish to support moves to ensure that, over the long term, debt does not go out of control, and that the increased spending is matched by a phased debt reduction programme, as recommended in the new clause. For that reason, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) has said that this is a helpful clause, which the Government should be prepared to accept if they are genuinely committed to a long-term programme.
      The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): Are you saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the previous Government were not interested in controlling debt?
      Mr. Letwin: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I suspect it was not you who were saying that but I, but I am privileged to be associated with you, and I would that I had your eloquence or your authority in the Chamber.
      Undoubtedly, the previous Government were extremely anxious to control the public sector borrowing requirement. If I may reply in one word to that intervention and to the earlier remark of the hon. Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran), there is a great difference between increasing the PSBR at a time of recession and doing so at a time of growth. The Chancellor says in his recent great work—the magnum opus with which we have all been presented some time after the Budget was given to us—that he intends us to be in a time of sustained growth.
      In the theology—perhaps I should say the metaphysics—of the Chancellor and his colleagues, there is no excuse for an increase in the PSBR on a systemic basis over a period of sustained growth during this Parliament. If this is a coherent policy to achieve sustained growth in the housing market, there should be a phased debt reduction programme. If, in the light of that, the Government insist on rejecting the new clause, that will prove to the House and the country that the purpose of the Bill, as of much else that is being proposed in that domain, is merely to increase spending in the hope that no one will notice what is going on, without the slightest view of a long-term progression that we could support.
      Mr. Paul Burstow: I shall make only a few brief comments on the new clause—no doubt

      789
      to Labour Members' relief. I want to pick up one or two remarks that Conservative Members have made about the alleged virtues of the new clause.
      It is a hit rich for the Conservative party to advance the cause of debt reduction, given the overwhelming contribution that it has made in recent years to increasing the national debt. It is not that there are no lessons that Members of all other parties on both sides of the Chamber can learn from the Conservative party in that respect—simply that that might provoke some comment.
      Mr. Letwin: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept the proposition that I was advancing, that there is a significant difference between an increase in the PSBR in times of recession and such an increase in times of growth?
      Mr, Burstow: I am sure that, if the hon. Gentleman reads the Committee Hansard, he will note that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) have been advancing on behalf of others—notably the Chartered Institute of Housing—the case for a change in the accounting regime, moving towards the use of the Government general finance deficit to deal with these issues.
      I note from reading the report of the Second Reading debate that the hon. Gentleman criticised the Liberal Democrats for advancing that device. We regard that device, not as a crock of gold or a panacea, but as a means by which we can change the accounting regime and treat borrowing for investment in the creation of new assets—which is what we are talking about—differently from borrowing to fund on-going recurring expenditure, which is what the previous Government often did. We criticise the way in which privatisation receipts have been used to deflate the PSBR but not for proper funding.
      Conservative Members have adopted a contradictory position. Surprisingly, they are moving hack towards supporting assessing the allocation of capital receipts solely on the basis of housing need. Having watched the way in which challenge and single regeneration budget initiatives progressed under the previous Government, I find it refreshing that a short time in opposition has changed the Conservatives' minds.
      We shall not support the new clause, because it adds nothing to the Bill. We do not believe that the argument about the Government's desire to increase expenditure is especially well made, because we criticise the fact that the Government are not adequately investing in housing as a consequence of the Bill, and we see no need to tie to it a specific measure to require local authorities to reduce debt. However, we do think that, obviously, local authorities need to manage their debt prudently, and that that should be a matter for local authorities, not Parliament, to dictate.
      4.45 pm
      Ms Armstrong: We have had an interesting little debate. When the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) moved the new clause, he appeared to have difficulty in keeping a straight face because, obviously, he was simply stirring the pot. He knows that the new clause is not serious, because, even were it incorporated in the Bill, it would not do what he wants it to do.
      For many years, the Conservatives were responsible for local authority debt, sanctioning the amounts that local authorities could spend and borrow. They frequently
      790
      castigated local authorities for having so much debt, but they never took action to tackle that problem or even saw the need to do so. As hon. Members have noted in interventions and the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) has noticed, the Conservatives have been responsible for increasing debt, without using that debt to good effect—in other words, without using it to invest.
      Sir Paul Beresford: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Ms Armstrong: Of course I will allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene, but I want to finish the point.
      The previous Government did not use increased borrowing to invest and get the economy growing—they did the opposite. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) appeared to acknowledge that we are just emerging from 18 years of recession. I believe that most people experienced the past 18 years as two severe periods of boom and bust, which is why we have adopted a very different approach to borrowing.
      My right hon. Friend the Chancellor said in his Budget statement that the Government would keep total national debt at a prudent and sensible level, but that, where the Budget does allow increased borrowing, it will be borrowing to finance investment, not day-to-day expenditure. I have said that throughout. I wondered whether hon. Members had not been present on Second Reading or had not read the report of that debate, because I have always said that we know that borrowing will increase, but that it is borrowing to finance investment, not to be frittered away on day-to-day expenditure. We want borrowing for investment, so that we may increase the capacity of the economy, and increase the capacity of the construction industry so that it may play its part in a growing economy.
      Sir Paul Beresford: May I take it that the Government are putting in £200 million, and then £700 million, in SCAs; and that BCAs will continue next year at the same amount, plus inflation?
      Ms Armstrong: This measure has to do with supplementary credit approvals, not basic credit approvals.
      The hon. Member for Christchurch tried to suggest that local government borrowing is increasing all the time, and that local authorities must play their part in the Government's overall programme for reducing national debt—hence the idea of a five-year debt reduction strategy as suggested in the new clause. Indeed, the new clause would make the issue of any SCA subject to local authorities publishing and submitting to the Secretary of State a five-year strategy of that kind.
      The new clause does not deal with basic credit approvals, or with how local government will pay for them or manage the debt. The condition would apply to any SCA, not just to SCAs issued under this initiative. I am not sure that that was the intention of the Opposition—although they may have intended to contrast SCAs issued under the capital receipts initiative for local authorities—a debt-increasing move—with the Chancellor's five-year reduction plan for the PSBR.
      Sir Paul Beresford: I have not yet heard an answer to my question. In helping local authorities to control their debt, is the hon. Lady going to bring in a reduction in

      791
      BCAs partly or completely to compensate for the SCAs? I repeat: may we assume that SCAs for next year will be the same as they were in this financial year, plus inflation?
      Ms Armstrong: Opposition Members should listen more carefully. I have answered that three times today; I also answered it on Second Reading and in Committee. This is additional spending—I have already accepted that it is.
      Sir Paul Beresford: So the answer is yes?
      Ms Armstrong: If it is additional spending, it means that there will be no specific measures to reduce what is already committed spending by the same amount—otherwise, it would not be additional spending.
      Sir Paul Beresford: So the answer is yes?
      Ms Armstrong: Opposition Members are having trouble keeping a straight face, and if we go on much longer like this, the whole House will have the same trouble. We know that the Conservatives are not serious about dealing with housing need, which the Conservative Government left in a state of desperate neglect. That explains the need for this Bill.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Ms Armstrong: I may take more interventions later; meanwhile, I suggest that Conservative Members keep listening, because that will help them to understand what I have been saying.
      Conservative Members appear to believe—I deduce this from the new clause itself—that there is no prudent or sustainable strategy for reducing local authority borrowing. Yet the position in local government is fairly healthy. Local authorities' debts have remained steady in recent years; at the end of 1996, they represented only 13 per cent. of general Government debt. and 7 per cent. of GDP.
      It is important to allow local authorities themselves to decide how best to manage their debt and their investments, in conformity with good Treasury management practice and the need to achieve best value for money for the local taxpayer and rate payer. By insisting on publication and submission to the Secretary of State of a debt reduction strategy, the new clause would undermine the work that local authorities are already doing, thus necessitating extra spending and more paperwork. That would be undesirable, and unnecessary for local authorities.
      Mr. Pickles: If, as the hon. Lady says, local authorities already have a coherent strategy for reducing debt, what is the problem with announcing what that strategy is?
      Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman's problem is that he lacks patience. I am about to explain to him what local government already does, and why what he seeks would impose more bureaucratic burdens. The former Administration said that they wanted to reduce
      792
      bureaucracy and increase deregulation, which is why I find the hon. Gentleman's support for the new clause somewhat bizarre.
      Sir Paul Beresford: We already have the bureaucracy associated with BCAs. Now we suggest a parallel system similar to it. That will indeed double the bureaucracy, and it would not be necessary, but for the fact that the Government feel the need to genuflect in the direction of their manifesto commitment on capital receipts—even though none is being released.
      Ms Armstrong: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman believes that political parties need not think about their manifestos. The Bill meets our commitment in that respect.
      It is far from obvious what the obligation to prepare a five-year strategy for debt reduction would require a local authority to do. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy already gives guidance to local authorities, building on section 45 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, which requires local authorities to make a Treasury management policy statement. I note that no Conservative Minister in the past seven years. when issuing SCAs, thought it desirable to require local government to produce such a strategy. In fact, existing controls on borrowing appear to have been accepted as perfectly adequate.
      Mr. George Stevenson: Has not my hon. Friend just put her finger on the bogus nature of the new clause? The previous Government extended the use of SCAs with no such debt reduction requirement. There is surely a world of difference between extending SCAs to stimulate the housing market and meet a need, and issuing SCAs, as the Conservatives did, simply to reduce Government support to local authorities.
      Ms Armstrong: Absolutely. That is why I began by pointing out that the hon. Member for Christchurch had difficulty keeping a straight face.
      Local authorities already have a statutory duty to set aside a fixed proportion of their net debt each year from revenue—known as the minimum revenue provision. I see no case for further restrictive controls or further bureaucracy.
      The new clause is flawed because it would act on supplementary credit approvals but not on basic credit approvals. As the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) said, basic credit approvals authorise the bulk of new local authority borrowing each year, so much of local authority debt would not be covered by the new clause.
      May I deal briefly with the point made by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who is no longer in the Chamber, about debt-free authorities? Debt-free authorities will not be disadvantaged or penalised by this measure. They will be free to take up credit approvals if they so wish, and they may choose to use them to meet housing need, without ceasing to be debt free, by spending money that they have set aside to meet their debts. That matter is clear because we have been through it several times in Committee, and most Committee members are now clear about the position of debt-free authorities.
      The new clause is undesirable and unwanted. I urge the House to reject it.
      5 pm
      Mr. Chope: I am disappointed with the Minister's response, because the new clause was tabled to try to help the Government. The Minister demonstrates the Government's inability to come to terms with the fact that there is more than one way to have a debt reduction strategy. She talks about phasing the payments and ensuring that local authorities pay so much capital back each year, but another debt reduction strategy is asset realisation—[interruption.]
      Labour Members are commenting on the fact that a number of Conservative Members have absented themselves from the Chamber. The reason is that they wish to participate in a democratic election for an important post on a Conservative Back-Bench Committee. They will be back. I am grateful for their active participation in this debate and to debates in Committee.
      I remind Labour Members that when the Bill was in Committee, speeches on the Government side were made only by Ministers; none was made by Labour Back Benchers. Indeed, there were no Scottish or Welsh Committee members, despite the fact that the Bill applies to Wales. We surmise that that was because Welsh Members might have wanted to speak, and it was clear that the Government had delivered an edict ensuring that only Government Front-Bench Members could speech.
      The Parliamentary Under—Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Win Griffiths): You are struggling.
      Mr. Chope: We are not struggling at all. However, local authorities are struggling with the debt burden, which will increase as a result of the Bill.
      We suggest that local authorities should be encouraged in the process of asset realisation. During the debate, it has been suggested that the previous Government did nothing to help reduce local authority debt. The previous Administration did a mass to reduce local authority debt, because we enabled people to buy their own council houses, which was the largest privatisation that this country had ever known. Some £20 billion was realised as a result of that process. Without that successful policy, national debt would have increased by even more than it did during the recession.
      Some Labour Members talked about the net public sector debt per person. In 1979, when the last Government took office, the Conservative Government pulled this country up from virtually the worst performer in terms of net debt to one of the best, compared with other European countries. At the last general election, the only European country with a lower debt ratio was Luxembourg.
      Mr. Sanders: Was not this country's debt reduced purely because of the privatisation programme and how it related to the public sector borrowing requirement?
      Mr. Chope: We knew all along that the Liberal Democrats were against the privatisation programme. We now have the spectacle that the Government have made some obiter dicta to the effect that they may be in favour of certain privatisation programmes, but even the Liberal Democrats have not yet come round to accepting the benefits that flow from privatisation, particularly in housing—the large-scale voluntary transfer of housing to housing associations, and the sale of individual council
      794
      houses to tenants who wished to buy them. Those initiatives, which were the hallmark of the last Conservative Government, were opposed tooth and nail by the Liberal Democrat party.
      Mr. David Watts: Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the cost of bed and breakfast to the taxpayer during the 17 yeas that the Conservatives were in power?
      Mr. Chope: Any money spent on bed and breakfast was too much. One of the problems was that the last Government brought in measures to deal with bogus asylum seekers who came to this country—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would now return to the new clause.
      Mr. Chope: I was looking forward to the opportunity to respond to a point made in an intervention, but I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker that it was too wide of the new clause.
      The new clause is designed to deal with capital debt reduction. I hope that the House will accept the purpose behind it. The hon. Lady's response was that it would create too much bureaucracy. She said that it would be too burdensome on local authorities to produce a debt redemption strategy, yet we know that any local authority worth its salt could produce such a strategy and should already have an asset realisation strategy, if it is to deliver what its rate and charge payers deserve. [Interruption.] I cannot hear what the Minister is mouthing from a sedentary position. I remain disappointed at her response.
      I am grateful to my hon. Friends who contributed to this debate so effectively. During the last Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) witnessed from the Front Bench the suggestions made by the Labour party, leading people to believe that a pot of gold would be released as soon as a Labour Government came to power. My hon. Friend drew attention once again to the manner in which those people were cruelly misled.
      My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) made another powerful speech, and effective interventions were made by my hon. Friends the Members for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) and for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford). We think that this issue is sufficiently important to divide the House. The burden of local authority debt should be brought under control and we are frightened that, under the present Government, it will run completely out of control without such a measure.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 142, Noes 355.

      Division No. 49]

      [5.9 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Bercow, John

      Amess, David

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Blunt, Crispin

      Arbuthnot, James

      Body, Sir Richard

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Boswell, Tim

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Baldry, Tony

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Brady, Graham

      795

      Brazier, Julian

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Loughton, Tim

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Luff, Peter

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Burns, Simon

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Butterfill, John

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Cash, William

      MacKay, Andrew

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Chope, Christopher

      Madel, Sir David

      Clappison, James

      Malins, Humfrey

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Mates, Michael

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Merchant, Piers

      Collins, Tim

      Moss, Malcolm

      Colvin, Michael

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Norman, Archie

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Page, Richard

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Paice, James

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Paterson, Owen

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Pickles, Eric

      Duncan, Alan

      Prior, David

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Evans, Nigel

      Robathan, Andrew

      Faber, David

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Fallon, Michael

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      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

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Gibb, Nick

      Steen, Anthony

      Gill, Christopher

      Streeter, Gary

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Swayne, Desmond

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Syms, Robert

      Gray, James

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Green, Damian

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Greenway, John

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Grieve, Dorninic

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Townend, John

      Hammond, Philip

      Tredinnick, David

      Hawkins, Nick

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Hayes, John

      Viggers, Peter

      Heald, Oliver

      Walter, Robert

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Waterson, Nigel

      Horam, John

      Wells, Bowen

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Whittingdale, John

      Hunter, Andrew

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Wilkinson, John

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Willetts, David

      Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Key, Robert

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Woodward, Shaun

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Yeo, Tim

      Lansley, Andrew

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Leigh, Edward

      Letwin, Oliver

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Mr. Richard Ottaway and

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Mr. James Cran.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Ashton, Joe

      Ainger, Nick

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)

      Austin, John

      Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)

      Baker, Norman

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Barnes, Harry

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Barron, Kevin

      796

      Bayley, Hugh

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Beard, Nigel

      Darvill, Keith

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Davidson, Ian

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Berry, Roger

      Dawson, Hilton

      Best, Harold

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Blackman, Liz

      Denham, John

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Blizzard, Bob

      Dismore, Andrew

      Boateng, Paul

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Borrow, David

      Doran, Frank

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Dowd, Jim

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Drew, David

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Brake, Thomas

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Edwards, Huw

      Breed, Colin

      Efford, Clive

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Ellman, Ms Louise

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Etherington, Bill

      Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Burden, Richard

      Fisher, Mark

      Burgon, Colin

      Flint, Caroline

      Burstow, Paul

      Flynn, Paul

      Butler, Christine

      Follett, Barbara

      Byers, Stephen

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

      Cabom, Richard

      Fyfe, Maria

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Galloway, George

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Cann, Jamie

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Caplin, Ivor

      Godsiff, Roger

      Casale, Roger

      Goggins, Paul

      Caton, Martin

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Cawsey, Ian

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Gorrie, Donald

      Chidgey, David

      Grant, Bernie

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Clapham, Michael

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Grogan, John

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Gunnell, John

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hancock, Mike

      Clelland, David

      Hanson, David

      Coaker, Vernon

      Harvey, Nick

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Colman, Tony (Putney)

      Healey, John

      Connarty, Michael

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Corbett, Robin

      Heppell, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hesford, Stephen

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Cousins, Jim

      Hill, Keith

      Cranston, Ross

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Crausby, David

      Hoey, Kate

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Home Robertson, John

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cummings, John

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Hope, Phil

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Dafis, Cynog

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      797

      Hurst, Alan

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Hutton, John

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Illsley, Eric

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Mountford, Kali

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Mudie, George

      Jenkins, Brian (Tarnworth)

      Mullin, Chris

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Norris, Dan

      Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Olner, Bill

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Osborne, Mrs Sandra

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Pearson, Ian

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Pendry, Tom

      Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Keetch, Paul

      Pike, Peter L

      Kemp, Fraser

      Plaskitt, James

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Pond, Chris

      Khabra, Piara S

      Pope, Greg

      Kidney, David

      Pound, Stephen

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Purchase, Ken

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Laxton, Bob

      Quinn, Lawrie (Scarborough)

      Lepper, David

      Rammell, Bill

      Levitt, Tom

      Rapson, Syd

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Rendel, David

      Linton, Martin

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Livingstone, Ken

      Rogers, Allan

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Rooney, Terry

      Love, Andrew

      Roy, Frank

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Ruane, Chris

      McCabe, Stephen

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Salter, Martin

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Sanders, Adrian

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Macdonald, Calum

      Sawford, Phil

      McDonnell, John

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McFall, John

      Sheerman, Barry

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McIsaac, Shona

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McKenna, Ms Rosemary

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Singh, Marsha

      McNulty, Tony

      Skinner, Dennis

      MacShane, Denis

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      McWalter, Tony

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      McWilliam, John

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Marek, Dr John

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

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Snape, Peter

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Soley, Clive

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Martlew, Eric

      Spellar, John

      Maxton, John

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Meale, Alan

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Michael, Alun

      Stevenson, George

      Michie, Bill (Shef"ld Heeley)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Milburn, Alan

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Mitchell, Austin

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Moffatt, Laura

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Moore, Michael

      Stott, Roger

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      798

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Stringer, Graham

      Watts, David

      Stuart, Ms Gisela (Edgbaston)

      Webb, Professor Steve

      Stunell, Andrew

      White, Brian

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Wlliams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Wills, Michael

      Timms, Stephen

      Winnick, David

      Tipping, Paddy

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Todd, Mark

      Wood, Mike

      Touhig, Don

      Woolas, Phil

      Trickett, Jon

      Wray, James

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Wright, Tony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Tyler, Paul

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Vaz, Keith

      Mr. Clive Betts and

      Wallace, James

      Mr. David Jamieson.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 4

      LOCAL AUTHORITY INVESTMENTS IN ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES
      "After section 55(3) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 there shall be inserted—
      "(3A) In determining the amount of a supplementary credit approval the Secretary of State shall have regard to the strategy of the authority to implement a programme of investment in energy efficiency measures.".'.—[Mr. Yeo.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Tim Yeo: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I shall follow the precedent established by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) in moving new clause 2 and show the House that I wish to be helpful. I believe that the inclusion of a reference to energy efficiency in the Bill will strengthen it greatly.
      Energy efficiency is widely, perhaps universally, recognised as a desirable goal. It is one of the few areas where environmental and economic aims coincide. Greater attention to energy efficiency improves the environment, saves money and can, under certain circumstances, create jobs—at least on a temporary basis. Partly because of the lack of controversy surrounding the subject, the issue has become rather unglamorous. It does not attract as much political attention as is justified.
      Against that background, I am surprised that the Government did not include something like this new clause in the original draft of the Bill. Their failure to do so is part of a consistent and regrettable pattern. As with so many other environmental goals, the Government claim to support energy efficiency. Labour Members have referred to the subject many times in speeches and have used line phrases at home and sometimes abroad. However, there has not been much action—and there was no action at all in the Budget last week. A Treasury press release promised
      "to examine options to help people on low incomes to insulate their homes and save energy."
      A promise to examine options does not add up to much—particularly when it is set alongside other Budget measures, which include a powerful incentive to increase energy

      799
      consumption in the form of a cut in value added tax on domestic fuel prices. On 4 December 1996, the then Labour spokesman on environmental issues, the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), said:
      "each year we will publish a 'green book' alongside the Chancellor's Red Book, setting out the environmental implications of Government policy."—[Official Report, 4 December 1996; Vol. 286, c. 991.]
      No such green book appeared, because Ministers knew that it would expose the Government's gross failure to honour any of their environmental obligations. They knew also that it would expose the fact that the net impact of the Budget measures might well be to increase carbon dioxide emissions.
      Such an impact is in unhappy and stark contrast to the fine phrases used by the Prime Minister when he addressed the Earth summit in New York a couple of weeks ago. Perhaps the hon. Lady's commitment was the reason why she was not appointed as Minister of State, Department of the Environment. Perhaps she was shuffled off to the sidelines as a warning to other Labour Members not to make commitments of that sort.
      When the Minister for London and Construction replies to the debate, will he make it clear that the Government intend to make amends by publishing the "green book" that the hon. Member for Deptford promised last December? If he does not, should the House take it as a sign that new Labour, like old Labour, does not give a stuff about the environment—that this is just another pre-election promise that can now be junked, like the promises on pensions, the national health service and on tax? Every one of those promises is now worthless. They were given merely to win votes and are now forgotten.
      We are left with the Chancellor's promise that the Treasury will report to Parliament in October about the effect of a reduced rate of VAT on energy efficiency materials. However, we do not need to wait until October to know that cutting VAT on energy efficiency materials will encourage investment in energy efficiency. In that context, I draw much encouragement from the comments of the Minister for the Environment—I am sorry to see that he is not in his place for a debate that touches directly on his responsibilities. The right hon. Gentleman succeeded the hon. Member for Deptford, and is now the Minister with responsibility for environmental matters.
      As recently as last week—unfortunately for the right hon. Gentleman, it was the day before the Budget—he answered a parliamentary question about the need to levy VAT on energy-saving materials at the same rate as VAT on fuel prices. The right hon. Gentleman said:
      "I am certainly on record as supporting that argument. Such a policy is desirable".—[Official Report, 1 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 90.]
      When the Minister replies to the debate, will he confirm that he shares the view expressed by his ministerial colleague? Will he confirm that he and his right hon. Friend will resign from the Government in October if the Treasury report does not support their view or will he merely confirm that his views on this issue, as on all other issues, are of no consequence whatever to the Treasury? [Interruption.] That seems to cause great mirth on the Government Front Bench. Will the Minister confirm that, in this Government, the Chancellor and the Treasury are all-powerful, and that the Treasury does not care about either his views or the environment?
      800
      Last week, the Deputy Prime Minister pronounced on the purpose of the Bill in the context of a press release that was issued with the Budget papers. He set out in two paragraphs the purposes to which the resources that he claims will be released by the Bill will be applied. In that press release, the Deputy Prime Minister did not see fit to mention energy efficiency in a single phrase.
      That was yet another missed opportunity for the Government to pay even lip service to environmental goals and another sign of their priorities. There are no public spending implications in mentioning energy efficiency in a press release. I am forced to conclude that Ministers mention energy efficiency only when they are attending events such as the Earth summit. As soon as there is a chance to do something, they quickly forget their commitment to green objectives.
      5.30 pm
      I have come to the rescue with the new clause tabled by my right hon. Friends. It gives the Government a chance to rectify their omission and reward those local authorities that show that they, unlike the Government, take energy efficiency seriously—local authorities that run their estates with energy efficiency as a priority; local authorities that provide buyers of council properties with information about energy ratings; local authorities that encourage private sector owners and tenants to invest in energy efficiency improvements. The new clause offers the Government a chance to reward authorities that are enthusiastic in implementing the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, to which many are responding well. The laggards should be encouraged to catch up. Why are Scottish local authorities being given an extension in the timetable within which they must report under that Act?
      The new clause would benefit all local authorities that are willing to do what the Government will not do—act to promote energy efficiency. It would give local authorities with less good records on energy efficiency an incentive to improve. If the Minister is unable to welcome the new clause whole-heartedly and accept it, will he say whether energy efficiency considerations will play any part in determining the way in which supplementary credit approvals are allocated? What specific steps do the Government propose to encourage local authorities to invest in energy efficiency measures? Do the Government agree with the recommendations of the 1993 Environment Select Committee report on energy efficiency?
      Mr. Raynsford: I was on the Committee.
      Mr. Yeo: The hon. Gentleman has remembered. I remind him of recommendation 53, which said:
      "We also recommend that the Government revise the system of capital controls to provide an incentive for energy efficiency by extending the current capital receipts spending 'holiday' to enable local authorities to fund approved energy efficiency and CHP projects."
      Does the Minister still agree with that unanimous report? If he is unable to accept the new clause or finds it difficult in any way, he would cause himself much less embarrassment by recommending that his hon. Friends vote for it.
      Mr. John Gummer: The Government must think seriously about the problem

      801
      resulting from the arguments in New York. The United States does not believe that Britain is serious in its determination to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010. It is using that as an excuse for taking no action.
      I have asked the Government several questions about what they intend to do. The answers have been somewhat confusing. When I asked how much of the reduction industry would be expected to bear, the Department of Trade and Industry said that it did not know, but that it was thinking about it and was hoping to estimate the figure, which it would no doubt tell us.
      In the Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared not to have worked out how much more had to be done because of his changes to VAT. He did not have a figure in his mind of the extra emissions that might occur because of the cheapening of fuel. That is a worry. When the Government make such decisions without the facts and suggest that the House should wait until October before we have the facts, it is hard to believe that the Chancellor and the Treasury are taking global warming as seriously as I had hoped they would or as seriously as I believe the Prime Minister suggested they would.
      The Minister for Local Government and Housing has smiled at every suggestion that has been made today. I hope that she will listen carefully to me now.
      If the Government do not support the new clause, what are they saying? They are saying that they will not take into account the strategy of any authority to implement a programme of investment in energy efficiency measures. They will ask the House to vote against taking that into account. That does not seem to sit squarely with what the Prime Minister said in New York or what the Government have been saying.
      The hon. Lady is still smiling. She spends the whole time smiling. That is very happy for her, no doubt, but it suggests that she does not take such matters with the seriousness that they deserve—or that she does not understand them. I have begun to believe that she giggles because she does not understand and does not want to listen to the facts.
      The Conservatives have agreed to support a bipartisan environment policy because we want to achieve the ends that the Government have said that they accept. In opposition, they did not help much. The two Ministers present today were not well known for coming to the aid of the Green party, but we have forgotten about that and we shall support them. However, we shall keep them to their promises. The Minister and those who flank her should remember this simple fact: if they say that they are going to reduce emissions, they must also say how. If they do not, nobody will believe them. Nobody believes the Government yet. I want to give them the chance to be believed about this—if about nothing else. It is the most important subject for them, because, if they get it wrong, the damage to future generations will be very severe.
      Does the Minister for London and Construction recommend that the House should vote that the Government should not take into account the energy efficiency strategy of a local authority? If he suggests that we should not vote for the new clause, he will be asking the House to ask the Department to ignore that essential issue. The Minister for Local Government and Housing should take the issue much more seriously if the nation and, more importantly, the international community, are
      802
      to take the Government more seriously. I despair of them taking her more seriously, but they would take the Government more seriously if they showed how they will deliver what we believe they want to deliver.
      Mr. Andrew Robathan: I support the new clause. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) spoke lucidly about the need to deliver gains in energy efficiency rather than just talking about them. We have heard fine words from the Prime Minister. In general terms, I applaud most of what he said in New York, as does the whole House, but we need to see some action. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal said that the Government's answers were confusing. We all understand that putting VAT on domestic fuel was not a particularly astute move politically by the last Government, but it was a good stick with which to encourage people to use less energy.
      If we are to reduce the effectiveness of the stick, we need to use a little more carrot to encourage energy efficiency. VAT on domestic fuel is now down to 5 per cent. What is the message from the Government? They cannot decide whether, at minimum cost, to reduce the rate of VAT on energy-saving measures and insulation. It is extraordinarily confusing. The new clause gives the Government the opportunity to benefit the environment by taking account of energy efficiency. It is a serious matter that does not deserve giggles from Ministers.
      I am not making special pleading for my constituency, but for many years Blaby district council has had a fine record of encouraging energy efficiency in its own housing stock and elsewhere. Harborough district council has a similar excellent record. However, some councils need to be encouraged with a stick and a carrot. The new clause provides a marvellous carrot for local authorities to take seriously energy efficiency and implement previous legislation.
      I am also involved with the all-party renewable and sustainable energy group, which takes a close interest in these matters. Hon. Members will have received today a communication from Greenpeace, an organisation with which I do not always agree. It is about solar energy being used in Silvertown in docklands. It is an extremely sensible piece of information. Under the new clause, the Government could further the use of solar energy in new housing stock and make an appreciable difference to the energy we use—and, indeed, the energy that we waste—and the carbon that we release into the atmosphere.
      Although the previous Government were attacked endlessly by the Labour party, they had a proud record in those matters. The home energy efficiency scheme and the neighbourhood energy action scheme resulted in better insulation in the homes of 2 million old people. That makes a profound difference to their lives and to the energy used.
      It is an absolutely vital issue. I applaud the new clause and support it whole-heartedly. The Government should consider it seriously and not just dismiss it with a giggle as being entirely irrelevant. It is a big issue that matters to a huge number of people. The Government have a chance to do something concrete about it and put their fine words into action.
      Mr. Raynsford: New clause 4 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to take into account each authority's strategy for investment in energy efficiency measures when determining its supplementary credit approval. As I hope that we have already established in debating earlier amendments, the drafting of the new clause would extend its impact well beyond the distribution of additional resources under the Government's capital receipts initiative. It would apply to all supplementary credit approvals.
      I welcome the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) back to the Front Bench, but I can see no compelling case for making a local authority's energy efficiency strategy a pivotal factor when a supplementary credit approval is issued for road safety purposes, firefighting, harbour improvements, flood defences or composting—possibly a subject of concern to some hon. Members.
      Mr. Clappison: It is a serious subject.
      Mr. Raynsford: Indeed, but it is totally irrelevant to energy efficiency in housing.
      Mr. Gummer: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Raynsford: I hope that the former Secretary of State will bear with me for a moment. He has jumped to his feet rather rapidly.
      We are debating measures to give effect to the Government's commitment to release capital receipts for housing purposes, including energy efficiency measures. Had the Opposition prepared the new clause more carefully, it might have achieved their intended effect. However, they have produced a completely unworkable new clause that would produce absurd consequences, as I have illustrated. The former Secretary of State knows only too well that it would be ridiculous to try to take into account energy efficiency in the home when issuing supplementary credit approvals for other purposes.
      Mr. Gummer: For 17 years, civil servants handed me precisely such answers. For 17 years I told them, "Take it away. I shall tell people that this is not the way to achieve what they want, but I shall tell them at the beginning that I want to achieve what they want and I shall make sure that we table an amendment to that effect." I have always told civil servants, "Don't tell me to make a cheap point across the Floor of the House. Let's deliver what we can do together."
      Our new clause may not be properly worded. The Minister knows from a long time in opposition—he will soon learn again in the same circumstances—that these matters are not so easy in opposition, so will he please give an undertaking that he will ensure that the purpose of the amendment is achieved in a sensible way? If he does, we can all go home quite happy and leave the composting to composters.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Raynsford: I shall give the right hon. Gentleman exactly the assurance that he seeks. Had he taken care to read our consultation paper, he would know that the Government intend to do exactly what he has requested. Perhaps, in the intervals of jetting in and out of New York and other places, the right hon. Gentleman might have taken the time to look at our proposals in more detail. Had he done so, he would have been better informed for tonight's debate.
      Let me assure the right hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members that energy efficiency is a central concern for the Government. It is a clear commitment. As the hon. Member for South Suffolk acknowledged, under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, local authorities have a duty to have strategies to make significant energy efficiency improvements in the domestic sector. Energy efficiency is already taken into account in the annual housing investment programme through which the Government distribute capital resources for housing to local authorities. The effectiveness or otherwise of those strategies will have a bearing on the resources allocated to authorities through the process that we are debating tonight.
      Let me remind Opposition Members what is in the consultation paper that we have issued to local authorities. We make it quite clear that
      "Expenditure under the capital receipts initiative should be directed at meeting local priorities consistent with the local strategy. Such works might include"—
      and there follow six headings, including
      "improving the energy efficiency of local authority and private sector housing and reducing CO2 emissions".
      That is a clear commitment to energy efficiency that should at least have been acknowledged by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal who spoke about a bipartisan approach, but never misses the opportunity to make a cheap point.
      Mr. Gummer: The Minister well knows that it is always easy for Ministers to read out their speeches, although I would have been pretty angry had any of my junior Ministers read out such a speech, which is clearly unamended. At least I hope that it is unamended. If the Minister has amended it, he clearly does not get the point.
      We want the provision on the face of the Bill. Only then can we be sure that local authorities comply with it, If the Bill says "might" or "may" or "could" or "we might have purposes to see" in the same way as the consultation document that I have before me, it does not have the effect of law. I am asking the hon. Gentleman to promise that the provision will be on the face of the Bill. If he answers that simple question, we need not hear the rest of his speech.
      Mr. Raynsford: Once again, the right hon. Gentleman reveals that he has not read the consultation paper. Paragraph 24 contains a clear statement of the mechanism that will be adopted to allocate resources under the initiative. Local authorities will be asked for detailed spending plans showing how they are taking account of the objectives that have been specified, including achieving greater energy efficiency. It states:
      "The Government Office will advise Ministers on the merits of the proposed spending plans … Having given due consideration to this advice, Ministers may wish to vary the final allocations to individual authorities."

      805
      There is a very clear mechanism for doing something about energy efficiency rather than talking about it.
      The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal may have heard the hon. Member for South Suffolk referring to the Environment Committee report of 1993. That report recommended—indeed, the hon. Gentleman referred specifically to the recommendation—that the Government of the day should extend the capital receipts holiday to enable local authorities to do more in the way of energy efficiency. Did the Government of the day, whom Conservative Members supported, follow that advice? No, they did not. They did not continue the capital receipts holiday; they ended it. They ignored the advice of the Environment Committee, which they now have the cheek to quote at this Government.
      The Government are acting on the advice of the Environment Committee. We are releasing receipts under a capital receipts initiative which is designed to achieve precisely the energy efficiency objective among others.
      Mr. Yeo: The hon. Gentleman, and not any Opposition Member present, was a member of that Committee, signed that report and made the recommendation—it was a unanimous recommendation of the Committee—which he now appears to want to reject.
      Mr. Raynsford: On the contrary, as I have just pointed out to the hon. Gentleman, we are acting in accord with that recommendation. We are bringing forward the capital receipts initiative, we are making additional resources available to local authorities and we are saying clearly that energy efficiency is one of the objectives.
      Of course, there are other objectives. We know of the problems of homelessness that the previous Government ignored. Action is necessary to deal with that. We know about the number of people living in rotten, miserable, poor conditions due to the failure of the previous Government to invest adequately in improving the condition of the housing stock. That is a priority as well. We are clear that energy efficiency is one of our objectives, and we are acting under the initiative to give effect to it.
      Mr. Pickles: I am sorry that the Minister seems to be quite rattled on this subject. Perhaps I can bring him back to the central point. Will he explain why it is stronger and tougher on ensuring that energy efficiency is brought about to give discretion to Ministers rather then putting a provision in the Bill?
      Mr. Raynsford: Sadly, the hon. Gentleman, along with all his hon. Friends, appears to have ignored entirely the fact that the new clause as drafted would be totally defective, as I have said. If he wishes us to put into effect ineffective legislation that requires the Secretary of State or Ministers to have regard to entirely irrelevant considerations when allocating supplementary credit approvals for other purposes, all I can say is that his party has learned very little over 17 years.
      Mr. Pickles rose—
      Mr. Raynsford: No, I shall not give way. I have given way already.
      806
      In 17 years in government, Conservative Members entirely failed to learn one very simple lesson: to be effective one needs to have clear objectives, to state them and to have mechanisms for implementing them. The Government have clear objectives and a commitment to implementing them. We shall ensure increased investment, which will contribute towards increased energy efficiency: action, not words.
      Mr. Yeo: I must, with regret, refer to—since Hansard will not report—the frivolity with which the Minister for Local Government and Housing greeted nearly all the comments made by Opposition Members during a debate about a very serious issue, to which the Government and the Prime Minister pretend consistently to pay lip service. When faced with it in the House, all the hon. Lady was able to do was giggle and make cheap points from a sedentary position.
      As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) pointed out, the Minister for London and Construction resorted to the oldest argument: to attack a new clause on the ground of its unworkability, some shortcoming in its drafting. I simply say that I hope that, in his own interests, he will not resort to that argument again when he deals with other matters in the House or in Committee.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal exposed the yawning gap between the Government's proclaimed environmental objectives and the actual policies that have so far been announced. The Minister could have put matters right in his reply, but he totally failed to do so. He relied on the drafting of his consultation paper, which says that the purposes for which supplementary credits might be applied might include energy efficiency.
      Given the Government's total disregard of the commitments that have been given in specific and unequivocal terms, I cannot be hopeful—nor can the House—that a commitment that is couched so vaguely in a consultation paper is likely to be honoured if it does not suit the Government at the time to do so. If the Government really intended to give energy efficiency proper priority, they would include it in the Bill, as I, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal and other hon. Friends have suggested.
      I very much regret that the Minister has so cavalierly ignored the key arguments advanced in support of the new clause. He will not look back on his contribution to the debate with much satisfaction. However, in the interests of the House and of getting on to other important matters, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New clause 6

      HOUSING NEED CRITERIA TO BE THE SAME IN ENGLAND AND WALES
      'In section 55 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, after subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
      "(3A) Any criteria of housing need used in the allocation of supplementary credit approvals shall be the same in England as in Wales.".".—[Mr. Evans.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Nigel Evans: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 8—Total amount of supplementary

      807
      credit approvals to he allocated between England and Wales according to relative share of funding for local government in those countries—
      'The Secretary of State shall secure that the allocation of the total amount of supplementary credit approvals as between England and Wales accords with the formulae employed to determine the relative levels of funding of local authority revenue expenditure in England and Wales.'.
      Mr. Evans: I have great pleasure in moving new clause 6. It has become quite apparent that, although Labour Members have wailed 18 years to be in government, they have forgotten what it is to be the Government of the country. One of the great challenges and opportunities for a Government is to answer the questions that are posed. I am afraid that they have signally failed to do that since they took office.
      I shall give the Minister an opportunity to answer at least two questions on the allocation of supplementary credit approvals, which many people living in Wales will be asking themselves concerning the Bill—although, as we saw, the Government were asked many questions on the issue of devolution, and not only did we not get any answers, but we seemed to get more questions.
      I understand that there is a timetable for procedure involving SCAs, but Wales is seemingly being left in the dark about how much money it will receive. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) tabled a question on the issue. Even though I am going to ask the question again in this debate, I should say that the Treasury did not seem to know the answer earlier. We shall be listening for any further information from the Minister.
      New clauses 6 and 8 will give the Minister the opportunity to tell the people of Wales specifically how much they will receive of the allocations of £200 million and £700 million. It will depend on what formula is used, how the money will be distributed and what criteria will be used. Will the Barnett formula he used to allocate the total budget?
      We know that the Barnett formula was first used in 1978. It is an example of a non-statutory policy rule based on a mutual understanding between parties in a policy network, the implementation of which is subject to both sides observing the behavioural rules of the game. Thus, for example, if £1 billion is added to planned health service expenditure in England, £106.6 million would be added to the Scottish block and £60.2 million to the Welsh block.
      The system offers three advantages to the territorial Departments. First, the operation of the formula protects to a large extent the existing situation, where spending per head is above the national average. Secondly, there is no need for the Departments to argue the case for equal treatment on each occasion that a relevant programme in England receives increased funding. Thirdly, the Secretary of State retains the freedom to allocate the block between programmes.
      We might this evening be seeing the ending of the use of the Barnett formula. Perhaps it is an idea of the Government in order to distance themselves from Wales. Together with the devolution referendum, perhaps the Government are slowly but surely moving away from their commitment to Wales.
      808
      If the Barnett formula will not be used, what measures will be used? We already know that Wales is being downgraded by the Secretary of State for Wales and that he wants to see Wales marginalised in the United Kingdom, with his powers being transferred almost lock, stock and barrel to the turbo-charged county council, otherwise known as the Assembly, which will sit in Cardiff.
      The Minister has the opportunity to tell the people of Wales, and she must do so, whether they will lose out under this deal. The great fear is that they will, and that Wales, which has suffered too long from Labour-controlled local authorities will lose out.
      6 pm
      Once the allocation is known—I hope that we will be told this evening—how will its distribution in Wales be defined? Will we be told that the definition of housing need in Wales is exactly the same as that used elsewhere? As a Member of Parliament for an English constituency, I regret that we have so few Welsh Members in their places on the Government Benches today. They speak long and loudly about their commitment to Wales, but it is a shame that so few of them have sufficient commitment to be present when we are debating something of great importance to Wales.
      I represent an English constituency, but my family live in Swansea and I have spent 17 of my 23 long years in politics in Welsh politics. As far as I am concerned, the definition of need should be the same whether in Wales or England. Local authorities need to know the definition of need that will be used and whether it will be the same. If it is not to be the same, what definition will be used? If a different needs formula will be used, will the Minister tell us why that is so?
      Mr. Win Griffiths: Has the hon. Gentleman read the Welsh consultation paper, because the answer is there?
      Mr. Evans: Yes. I have read the Welsh consultation paper, but I did not get the answers to my questions. I hope that we will not be fobbed off merely by advice to the people of Wales to refer to the Welsh consultation paper. The Minister has an opportunity to give us a clear figure for how much money Wales will get and what formula will be used. I know the definitions that have been used in the consultation paper, but I want to know whether they will be exactly the same as the definitions that will be used in England.
      The people of Wales will be put in double jeopardy by the Government, as they sway from a tried and tested formula that has served Wales well for many years. Different needs criteria could cause tremendous problems. The only thing that is certain is that the people of Wales face needless uncertainty. The Minister should understand that Wales is not second class and the Welsh people are not second-class citizens. Wales deserves the answers to these questions.
      I started my speech by saying that answering questions is a responsibility of government. This Government have been quick to shirk that responsibility. They asked us for trust during the general election, but trust is a two-way street, and the journey starts here.
      Ms Armstrong: It gives me great pleasure to answer the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). I realise that, because there are now no Welsh Tory Members of

      809
      Parliament in the Labour party, it has been difficult for Opposition Members to keep up with this debate and with what has already been said about allocations in Wales and the previous Government's practice in determining housing need in Wales. We have inherited the same formula that they used. The new clause would do down Wales and make its position much worse.
      I welcome the hon. Member for Ribble Valley to the debate on the Bill, because we are always pleased to welcome new recruits. We announced last week after the Budget the amounts that the Chancellor had allocated to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We will use the Barnett formula—
      Mr. Evans: Will the Minister give way?
      Ms Armstrong: I am trying to answer the hon. Gentleman's questions.
      We will therefore allocate £9.54 million this year to Wales and £33.38 million next year. That is the allocation according to the Barnett formula and we will undertake consultation in Wales on the precise distribution mechanism. As I have said, the definition of need was used consistently by the previous Government in their allocation year on year to the housing programme in Wales. They recognised that housing need in Wales is different from that in England, because Welsh housing stock is different. That is reflected in the manner in which need is assessed. I hope that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley understands that his new clause would be to the detriment of Wales.
      The indicators used in the allocation of resources for capital expenditure will cover broadly the same measures for all authorities, but the differences between England and Wales have been developed to take account of the differences in the housing needs of English and Welsh authorities. For example, the differences include the high demand for renovation grants in Wales, reflecting the higher level of unfitness in the private sector stock and the economic circumstances of owner-occupiers. Those needs will, of course, be reviewed when the results of the English and Welsh house condition survey become available.
      Consultation papers issued by the Department and the Welsh Office set out the needs indicators that we propose to use in each case. Those are available for people in Wales and all Welsh authorities to examine, and we will consult them.
      Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I am sorry to take the Minister back to the issue of the shares that England and Wales will receive. She gave us—strangely—the figures that the Chief Secretary failed to give in a written answer today. Will she explain why that information is available for her speech, but was not available to the Chief Secretary? Will she also explain, or perhaps confirm, that the Bill and the allocations represent extra money for housing in England and Wales but not in Scotland? Can she give us a figure for Scotland?
      Ms Armstrong: I suspect that I would be out of order if I strayed too far on to the subject of Scotland, but—as I have already said—the amount allocated by the Chancellor last week covered England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. I have not announced any
      810
      new figures today and I am concerned that that has not been reflected in the written answer. If the hon. Gentleman will give me a copy of the question, I shall respond to him on another occasion. I suspect that the problem lies in the nature of the question that was asked.
      Mr. Chope: Will the Minister give way?
      Ms Armstrong: I have already offered to respond to the question on another occasion.
      Mr. Chope rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Lady giving way?
      Ms Armstrong: No. [Interruption.] I am sorry. I have not seen that question. I cannot be expected to give a response at the Dispatch Box.
      Mr. Richard Ottaway: That is what the hon. Lady is paid for.
      Ms Armstrong: It is not what I am paid for: I am paid to be honest and straight with Parliament. I must have proper and appropriate discussions with colleagues. Hon. Members earlier accused me of being frivolous, but I was not. I was trying to draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that they had not read the consultation document. They should have the decency to deal with questions properly. I am seeking to do that, and you are saying, "Oh no, you don't need to do it properly, you can give me a quick answer across the Dispatch Box." That is not the way I work. I shall come back to you with an answer.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Lady that she is continually using the word "you".
      Ms Armstrong: Sorry. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was getting carried away.
      The people of Wales want parity and fairness. The Bill will give them the fairness that the previous Government were not prepared to give them, because they did not deal with the real needs of the people in Wales. This Government are prepared to face the problems of housing need that were so neglected by the previous Administration. I hope that, having been given straight answers to his questions, the hon. Gentleman will not press the new clause. If he does, we will resist it.
      Mr. Evans: The Minister began by saying that there were no Welsh Members of Parliament in the Labour party.
      Ms Armstrong: I said that there were none in the Tory party.
      Mr. Evans: Hansard will no doubt help the hon. Lady, but that is what she said. Perhaps she was pre-empting the next general election. We shall see.
      The hon. Lady also said that the new clauses would do down Wales. That is not our intention. We wanted to discover whether the Government were intent on doing down Wales. No one has done more to assist Wales in the past 18 years than the Conservative Government, as can

      811
      be seen from the figures for expenditure per head of population and from inward investment into Wales. I have no reservations about our commitment to Wales.
      We wanted clarification on the Barnett formula, because it was not clear in the document. It is amazing that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) received a non-reply from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury earlier today, yet the Minister can give us the exact figures. I am quietly bedazzled by that, but perhaps she will consider the matter and tell us later why the Treasury Minister was unable to answer the question that she has just answered.
      We want clarification on a number of points. The Government have clarified one matter, but I am still not happy about the definition of housing need. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Chope: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. An important issue arose in that debate. When the Budget was announced, a press notice said that the allocation between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland of the £200 million for housing would be announced shortly after the Budget. I tabled a priority notice question for written answer today from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I received an answer from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury saying that he would write to me shortly. The hon. Lady has now given a partial answer to that question, which is extraordinary.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman should think himself lucky.
      Mr. Chope: That is my point of order. Are the House and the Opposition entitled to obtain information by seeking answers to parliamentary questions, or are we to be given information as and when the Government design to give it to us?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The content of parliamentary answers is not a matter for the Chair.

    Clause 2

      POWER IN PLACE OF DUTY TO SPECIFY AMORTISATION PERIOD
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, leave out lines 16 to 21.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 21, at end add
      ', but no period so specified shall exceed seven years, except in respect of old loan charge grants.'.
      Mr. Chope: We discussed clause 2 in Committee at considerable length. The Opposition have grave suspicions about the clause. We were worried that it would be used to enable local authorities to capitalise their revenue expenditure, so that they would capitalise the money that they needed to spend this year and impose a burden on future generations through a debt that would be paid over a period of more than seven years.
      812
      In Committee, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), was unable to give a specific example of a local authority that had asked the Government for a special dispensation for a period in excess of seven years. In the light of that, the Committee divided. The hon. Gentleman said that it was reasonable for a period of more than seven years to be allowed for the specific category of old loan charge debts. Accepting that, we have now tabled an amendment that would apply the seven-year rule to all categories of debt other than old loan charge debts.
      I hope that the Government will accept the amendment, because it would deal with all the points discussed in Committee. If they cannot accept it, our suspicions will be roused to an ever greater extent than they have been already by the Government's shilly-shallying on this issue. It is a short, simple point. If any more local authorities are pressing to wrap up their revenue expenditure in capital and repay it over a period in excess of seven years, let us hear about them tonight. We should be open about this issue, and if no local authorities are pressing for that, the Government should accept this reasonable amendment.
      Mr. Raynsford: As I said to the hon. Gentleman in Committee when we debated this matter, he is making a mountain out of a molehill. This is a relatively minor issue and certainly does not justify his paranoia about widespread financial consequences for local authorities. It is not like that at all.
      The two amendments are contradictory: one would leave out the whole of clause 2, and the second would make a specific amendment to the procedure. The hon. Gentleman accepted that there could be an appropriate arrangement for amortisation of old loan charge grants. That makes the point that amendment No. 3 is inappropriate, because it would remove the flexibility to make such arrangements.
      We do not believe that there is a case for amendment No. 3 under any circumstances. At present, supplementary credit approvals are issued in respect of capitalisation directions in limited circumstances. The only example of that being done routinely—I stress, routinely—is for the commutation of loan charge grants. That is a small, uncontroversial programme, for which about £4.5 million to £5 million a year is available. All we are seeking is for Ministers to have the discretion to specify an amortisation period appropriate for the particular expenditure and the circumstances of each authority.
      Although I gave an example to the hon. Member for Christchurch of the commutation of loan charge grants, that is not the only circumstance in which supplementary credit approval might be given.
      Mr. Chope: Can the Minister give some more examples?
      Mr. Raynsford: I can. Thurrock—the local authority which most recently made representations to the Department—is seeking assistance with the capitalisation of the cost of local government reorganisation. That is an issue where there might be a case for provision for capitalisation and for repayment over a longer period than

      813
      seven years. Certainly, Thurrock council told us that the seven-year amortisation period was too short and would represent a significant revenue burden on it.
      Mr. Chope: I am grateful for that example, but it raises concerns. Will the Minister agree to place the papers in relation to that application in the Library so that hon. Members can have a look at them? Will he confirm that the application is for a sum of £1 million or less?
      Mr. Raynsford: I shall be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman to set out the full details about that case, but I used it for illustration in response to a request for an indication of circumstances other than dealing with old loan charges where the provision might be appropriate.
      The commutation of old loan charge grants is a good example of the need for the clause. The previous Administration meant commutation to be neutral for local authorities, but it led to revenue losses through no fault of the authorities. Consequently, authorities are allowed to capitalise their commutation costs and borrow to meet them. It is unreasonable to impose a short amortisation period in these cases.
      The clause is relevant to other cases in which revenue expenditure is capitalised. We would allow authorities to borrow for revenue purposes only in the most exceptional circumstances where it would not be reasonable for them to meet the expenditure out of their existing revenue resources. The seven-year rule means that authorities would almost immediately have to start finding large sums to repay the debt which, in some circumstances, would have unacceptable financial consequences for authorities. We are seeking more flexibility to deal with cases on their merits.
      Amendment No. 4 would restrict the benefits of clause 2 to cases involving old loan charge grants. I agree that more flexible amortisation periods are needed in connection with SCAs relating to the commutation of old loan charge grants, but equal flexibility is needed in connection with other SCAs—in particular, those made possible by clause 1.
      Another example for the hon. Member for Christchurch is a case where there might be significant revenue expenditure—for example, on preliminary research or consultation necessary for one or more schemes involving expenditure under the capital receipts initiative. I am not suggesting that that will be the case, but there might be circumstances in which there would be a reasonable case for the revenue costs to be capitalised. In such cases, it would be absurd if there were no flexibility to allow that or an amortisation period appropriate to the circumstances of the authority.
      We would need to be sure that the authority could not afford to meet the expenditure from its existing revenue resources. Under the present law, we would tell the authority that it must find at least one seventh of the borrowed sum out of its revenue in the following year, and the same amount in each of the six subsequent years. If the authority could not cope with that revenue commitment, it would be denied this assistance.
      I hope that I have made clear to the hon. Member for Christchurch that we are not dealing with a major cause of additional local authority expenditure, but with limited circumstances. We are seeking the appropriate flexibility to cope with those circumstances and to respond to the needs
      814
      of individual authorities without an unduly rigid framework. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree, in the circumstances, to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for his response, although I am disappointed that he did not make such a response in Committee, where he seemed remarkably coy about giving any example other than the generality of loan charge grants. We now have it on record that there is a Labour-controlled local authority that is seeking to capitalise its revenue expenditure and to pay back that capital over a period in excess of seven years. How does that fit with the Chancellor's so-called "golden rule" on public borrowing? It does not fit in with it at all.
      We are anxious about the powers that the Government are giving themselves, and we shall seek to monitor vigorously the way in which the Government exercise these powers. But certainly we will not press the amendment to a vote, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      6.26 pm
      Ms Armstrong: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      We have had a relatively short but interesting set of debates leading to Third Reading. The Bill lays the foundation for the Labour Government to deliver on our manifesto pledge to increase the opportunity for housing need to be met through a capital receipts initiative. That is the first vital step towards the Government's objective of ending years of under-investment in housing. The Bill has been well received by local government and the housing world, which has struggled to come through those years of under-investment. Many people have suffered because their house has not been improved; others have not been able to get a house because there is insufficient housing in their area.
      The Government are living up to our undertaking in Committee that the Bill's Report stage would be taken after the Budget. One of our debates this afternoon arose out of the Budget and our spending commitments for this year and the next. We are having a comprehensive spending review and examining how housing need can be addressed in the future. The Chancellor announced that significant additional capital resources are being made available to meet pressing housing need across the UK and, as part of the Government's capital receipts initiative, an additional £174 million has been provided in England this year, with a further £610 million available in 1998–99. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) did not get a fuller response. I shall write to him to ensure that he knows the amounts allocated to each of the four nations of the UK.
      Mr. Chope: Were the allocations announced through a press notice? In what way where the allocations communicated to those concerned in Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England?
      Ms Armstrong: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about this matter. I announced the English figures at a conference last week. I am responsible for those and

      815
      they were in a subsequent press release. I apologise for the fact that the hon. Member has not seen them, but I think that I referred to them in Committee last week. A Welsh Office press release announced the amounts in Wales on 3 July.
      Mr. Bernard Jenkin: That makes it all the more extraordinary that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was not able to give my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) a proper answer today.
      Ms Armstrong: I have dealt with that matter and I have tried to be open and honest with Opposition Members. I have said that I shall write to the hon. Member for Christchurch. The Opposition's behaviour is extraordinary. They too have been in government and I can remember many occasions when they were less than perfect. Obviously they are learning how to be in opposition and it is going to be a long learning curve.
      The Government face a legacy of massive under-investment in housing throughout the United Kingdom. The capital receipts initiative should concentrate on England and Wales. When Opposition Members find out the amounts for Northern Ireland and Scotland, they will realise that although the receipts concentrate on England and Wales we know that there is real housing need in Northern Ireland and Scotland and so have extended the initiative to them. We will make announcements about the application of those resources in due course.
      The Government's proposals for England were set out in the consultation paper. The Welsh paper was issued recently and I am pleased that Opposition Members have read it. The initiatives have been warmly welcomed on both sides of the House and, in particular, by local authorities.
      The House will be pleased to note that, in Committee, Opposition Members were largely able to endorse and support the broad thrust of the initiative. I think that that has been true of our debates today. There have been some mischievous responses to some of our points, but I feel none the less that there was overall recognition that the level of housing need demands a response. It seems fair to us that some of the money made from the sale of council housing should go back into housing so that we invest in social housing in areas where houses have been sold and so that the nature and condition of the housing enables people to make it into a real home.
      Discussions with the Local Government Association will continue so that we can ensure that the initiative continues to benefit from a genuine partnership between central and local government. We look forward to receiving views from the LGA, local authorities and other interested parties when they have had time to read the consultation paper and consider how they would best be able to implement the intent of the Bill in their areas.
      The resources that will be released will enable local authorities to work in partnership with all housing providers, tenants, residents and the private sector to begin to tackle that legacy of neglect, decline and decay that is all too often the prospect in too many areas.
      We will also encourage authorities to take every opportunity to support projects that complement the Government's wider policy initiatives. We discussed one
      816
      earlier—the policy to encourage energy efficiency and CO2 emissions. The Government have more than that single objective in relation to this initiative. We want training opportunities to be increased. We are concerned about some of the training offered in the construction industry and the fact that so many young people start construction industry courses but do not finish them. Through this initiative, we want to get more people into training—good training—in the construction industry, so that they end up with a job and so that young people, in particular, can be led into work and financial independence. This initiative is one clear way in which that other overriding strategy of the Government will be met.
      Mr. Chope: Can the Minister tell the House how many extra jobs will be created in the construction industry as a result of the £200 million allocation this year in the supplementary credit approvals and the £700 million next year?
      Ms Armstrong: That depends on how authorities decide to use the initiative, whether they go into renovation or new build and whether they encourage work with other organisations, such as housing associations, whereby the money will be matched with money from the private sector so that the effect of the initiative will be greater. It is impossible to give a proper estimate of the number of jobs and I do not want to speculate. We know, however, that many more jobs will be created by this initiative than would have been if we had not taken it. This Government will create many more jobs in this area than did the previous Government.
      In particular, we will encourage young people to be involved in the initiatives that local government takes through the Bill. Opposition Members were somewhat scathing about the amounts that we intend to release this year. I remind them that we cannot release any money until the Bill is enacted. We want to get the Bill through to release some money to local authorities this year. That is why we are pressing ahead with it.
      The Bill will give us, local authorities and others in the housing sector the real opportunity to be imaginative and creative in how the money is used to encourage regeneration and pull in money from elsewhere so that jobs are created for young men and women and the other priorities identified in the consultation document can be put into practice.
      The Bill and the resources provided by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer should leave the House in no doubt that the Government are serious about tackling poor housing, poor health, ghetto estates and joblessness. We are not content that we were left a legacy that did not need moving and shifting. If the previous Government were honest, they would be ashamed of that legacy. We are not prepared simply to inherit it. We want to give people opportunity. We are determined that they will be given opportunity. A decent home is always necessary if people are to be able to take advantage of opportunities.
      The Bill is one way in which the Government are fulfilling their commitment to the British people to open up opportunities, offer decent housing for everyone and ensure that it is no longer necessary for anyone to sleep in the streets—a shameful episode that we inherited from

      817
      the previous Government. The Bill is the first this Parliament to have reached Third Reading having been through a normal Committee stage. It is with great pleasure that I commend it to the House.
      6.39 pm
      Mr. Chope: The Minister noted that this is the first Bill this Parliament to have had a normal Committee stage. It is a commentary on the Government that none of their Back Benchers participated in Committee or on Report; everything has been left to the Front-Bench spokesmen.
      The Labour party manifesto included the following commitment:
      "capital receipts from the sale of council houses, received but not spent by local councils, will be re-invested in building new houses and rehabilitating old ones. This will be phased to match the capacity of the building industry and to meet the requirements of prudent economic management."
      Having discovered from the Budget that there would be some £200 million extra for Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland this financial year. I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate of the capacity of the construction industry in 1997–98 and 1998–99 underlay his decision to allocate extra sums under the Government's capital receipts initiative. I was asking him to explain exactly how the phasing would match the capacity of the building industry and meet the requirements of sound economic management. Today, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury replied that he would let me have a reply as soon as possible.
      I also asked the Chancellor about the allocation of the £200 million between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Again, I received the answer that he would let me have a reply as soon as possible. Put together, those answers leave one with the feeling that the Government are arrogant beyond belief. They are not even prepared to let an Opposition spokesman speaking in a debate material to the subject of the questions to have information that, we now learn from the Minister, she divulged during a press conference last week. It was divulged in debate today, but the Chief Secretary was not prepared to divulge it to the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman in answer to a priority written question.
      We know that the Government want to take debate away from this Chamber and this Parliament. This is another example of the arrogant way in which they are seeking to achieve that objective. I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and Madam Speaker, will intervene to protect the rights of Parliament and of the Opposition to receive timely information.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not draw the Chair into his case.
      Mr. Chope: I raised the issue on a point of order earlier. I shall insist that we get assurances from the Government that we will not again be put in a position where information that is clearly available to the Government is withheld from the Opposition.
      Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman was given the information.
      Mr. Chope: The hon. Lady says that the information was given to me. It was given to the House three or four hours after I had been told that it was not available.
      Ms Armstrong: I understand that the hon. Gentleman asked for information from the Chief Secretary for all four
      818
      nations. The Bill relates to England and Wales. He was given the information on England and Wales. He did not ask for the information that he says he asked for.
      Mr. Chope: The hon. Lady is clearly desperate. In this debate, she said that the Barnett formula applies. If it applies to the £200 million, the results of its application could have been announced in a press notice on Budget day in the same way as detail was announced, using that formula, for allocations available under the health service and education initiatives. The Barnett formula was used for both those initiatives and the figures were produced. In respect of the so-called capital receipts initiative, the press notice from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions said that the allocation would be announced shortly, clearly implying that either the Government had not made up their mind or they were not sure whether they would use the Barnett formula. Perhaps we now know that they wanted to keep the information secret and prevent the Opposition knowing about it so that they could divulge it to suit their convenience.
      Despite the Budget, at the end of this financial year and the next, local authorities will have more unspent capital receipts from the sale of council houses than at the time of the general election. I cannot believe that many Labour party supporters envisaged that, two years after the election of a Labour Government, the total of unspent receipts would be greater than at the time of the general election, yet that will be the impact of the Chancellor's Budget announcement and of the Bill. It is going to be a grave disappointment to Labour supporters.
      We know what the Bill does not do. Contrary to the wishes of the Local Government Association, it does not remove restrictions on the use of new receipts. As recently as 5 June, the LGA said:
      "Restrictions on the use of new receipts should be removed."
      Nor does the Bill remove restrictions on the use of set-aside receipts; it merely allows them to be taken into account in the granting of credit approvals. The Bill is a charade. It purports to be something other than what it is.
      Nor is the Bill's application confined to house receipts and housing authorities, as the Government said all along it would be. The consultation paper, the rhetoric and, indeed, the Labour party manifesto, refer to housing receipts, but under the Bill the Government are taking power to allow non-housing receipts set-aside to be taken into account in the granting of credit approvals. The Bill also allows set-aside receipts to be taken into account for any purpose of credit approval.
      I raised this issue in Committee. The Minister replied:
      "We have made it quite clear that the Bill deals specifically with housing receipts."
      Unfortunately, the text of the Bill does not match her words. She continued:
      "Over many years in opposition … we have been committed to an initiative to deal specifically with the sale of council houses and the proceeds of that sale. We wanted to deal with the problems that local authority areas have experienced as a result with both the state of their existing stock and, in some cases, a simple lack of housing.
      Our priority is to meet the commitments that we made in our manifesto."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 24 June 1997; c. 16.]
      The hon. Lady has not said during the passage of the Bill why it goes far wider than dealing with housing authorities and the receipts from housing sales.

      819
      We can consider the Bill on Third Reading with the benefit of the knowledge that the extra £200 million and £700 million announced in the Budget are a grave disappointment. The Local Government Association estimated that some £5 billion was available. It wanted an extra £500 million this year and a lot more beyond. The Bill has raised expectations that can never be realised. Conservative Members will oppose it.
      6.49 pm
      Sir Paul Beresford: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) has said, especially his latter points. There has been much talk on the Government Benches, when Labour Members have been allowed to speak, to the effect that the Bill is related to capital receipts, but it is related to set-aside. At present, councils can take into account the usable capital receipts, which obviously have a link to set-aside, especially if the local authority has debt. I emphasise the point that my hon. Friend makes. Clause 1 is merely flag-waving to a promise that the Labour Government cannot fulfil. They are releasing not capital receipts but capital credit allowances. That is all. Any claim that they are doing anything more than that is fictitious.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch did not touch on clause 2, which I find especially disturbing. To capitalise revenue in specific circumstances is just acceptable in accounting terms. The reorganisation costs of many of the local authorities that wished to be unitary authorities were accepted by the previous Government. I understand why. It was expected that those costs would be paid back within seven years.
      Thurrock was mentioned in the debate. Thurrock was enthusiastically in favour of unitary status because it would make the council more efficient, better able to handle its services and able to make considerable savings. Capitalisation over seven years could adequately be met by any competent authority, including Thurrock. As a proportion of its total expenditure, the revenue costs are small.
      We are giving an open cheque book to local authorities to allow them to approach the Secretary of State and ask to capitalise revenue on the never-never without reporting to the House. That is a dangerous move and one that the Government will rue. Local authorities and the children of the parents who are paying the bills now will have to bear the costs. This is a case of revenue costs on the never-never and I support my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch in rejecting the Bill.
      6.52 pm
      Mr. Sanders: This is not a Bill about capital receipts. It is not about allowing local authorities to use their own money. It is about giving them permission to borrow someone else's money. The supplementary credit approvals announced in the Budget are not up to the scale of the task ahead. They are simply straws in the wind.
      About 28,000 homes could be built in the next two years if all the money allocated was put into new build—it will not be, but let us assume that it will—yet the Government's own estimates are that we need between 60,000 and 100,000 new affordable rented homes each year. So 28,000 has to be set against 60,000 at the bottom
      820
      end of the estimate and 100,000 at the top end. The amount of money available this year will provide only 4,000 new builds. We should put that into context.
      On 1 April 1996, in the constituency of the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong), 4,738 people were on the waiting list. Hon. Members should remember that just 4,000 homes are to be built in the whole of the United Kingdom. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) the waiting list is 6,445.
      I have an apology to make to the House for something that I said on Second Reading to the hon. Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran). I said that she might be disappointed to find that the Bill will provide enough money to provide only four new houses in Luton. I was wrong. It is five new houses. That is all that the new money will provide.
      We should not get too excited. Labour supporters will be extremely disappointed if they compare new Labour's proposals with those of previous Labour Governments. During the lifetime of this Government, it is likely that between 28,000 and 60,000 new homes will be built in the social sector as a consequence of the supplementary credit approvals. That compares with new build between 1945 and 1951 of 850,000. The Labour Government of 1965 to 1970 built 1,100,000 new homes. The Labour Government of 1974 to 1979 built 850,000. The new Labour Government's proposals are peanuts. The best that one can say is that some extra money is better than no money.
      It is with some sadness that we shall support the Government tonight—[Laughter.] it is with some sadness, because there was a possibility of doing a great deal more than has been proposed in the Budget. When one is in a hole, as the Government are over housing, one does not carry on digging. That is the problem. The Bill does not go far enough—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There must be quiet in the Chamber when an hon. Member is addressing it.
      Mr. Sanders: We support the Government with sadness because the Bill does not go far enough. I hope that the thousands of people in each hon. Member's constituency who are on waiting lists will know that their plight is being laughed at.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 350, Noes 138.

      Division No. 50]

      [6.56 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Bayley, Hugh

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Beard, Nigel

      Ainger, Nick

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cav'try NE)

      Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)

      Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Ashton, Joe

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Berry, Roger

      Austin, John

      Best, Harold

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Blackman, Liz

      Barnes, Harry

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Barron, Kevin

      Blizzard, Bob

      821

      Borrow, David

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Edwards, Huw

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Efford, Clive

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Ellman, Ms Louise

      Brake, Thomas

      Etherington, Bill

      Breed, Colin

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Flint, Caroline

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Flynn, Paul

      Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)

      Follett, Barbara

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Burden, Richard

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Burgon, Colin

      Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

      Burstow, Paul

      Fyfe, Maria

      Butler, Christine

      Galbraith, Sam

      Byers, Stephen

      Galloway, George

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Gerrard, Neil

      Caborn, Richard

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Goggins, Paul

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Cann, Jamie

      Gorrie, Donald

      Caplin, Ivor

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Casale, Roger

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Caton, Martin

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Grocott, Bruce

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Grogan, John

      Chaytor, David

      Gunnell, John

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clapham, Michael

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hancock, Mike

      Hanson, David

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Harvey, Nick

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Healey, John

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Clelland, David

      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

      Hoey, Kate

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Home Robertson, John

      Cotter, Brian

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cousins, Jim

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Cranston, Ross

      Hope, Phil

      Crausby, David

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Cummings, John

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Hurst, Alan

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Hutton, John

      Dalyell, Tam

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Darvill, Keith

      Illsley, Eric

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)

      Denham, John

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Doran, Frank

      Jowel, Ms Tessa

      Dowd, Jim

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Drew, David

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

      822

      Kemp, Fraser

      Pickthall, Colin

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

      Pike, Peter L

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Plaskitt, James

      Khabra, Piara S

      Pollard, Kerry

      Kidney, David

      Pond, Chris

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Pope, Greg

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Pound, Stephen

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Laxton, Bob

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Lepper, David

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Levitt, Tom

      Purchase, Ken

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Rammell, Bill

      Linton, Martin

      Rapson, Syd

      Livingstone, Ken

      Raynsford, Nick

      Livsey, Richard

      Rendel, David

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Love, Andrew

      Rogers, Allan

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Rooker, Jeff

      McCabe, Stephen

      Rooney, Terry

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Roy, Frank

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Ruane, Chris

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Salter, Martin

      Macdonald, Calum

      Sanders, Adrian

      McDonnell, John

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McFall, John

      Sawford, Phil

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McIsaac, Shona

      Sheerman, Barry

      McKenna, Ms Rosemary

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Maclennan, Robert

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McNulty, Tony

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      MacShane, Denis

      Singh, Marsha

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Skinner, Dennis

      McWalter, Tony

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      McWilliam, John

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Mandelson, Peter

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Marek, Dr John

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Snape, Peter

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Soley, Clive

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Spellar, John

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Martlew, Eric

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Maxton, John

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Stevenson, George

      Meale, Alan

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Milburn, Alan

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Moffatt, Laura

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Moore, Michael

      Stott, Roger

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Stringer, Graham

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela (Edgbaston)

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Mountford, Kali

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Mudie, George

      Mullin, Chris

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Norris, Dan

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Timms, Stephen

      Olner, Bill

      Tipping, Paddy

      O'Neill, Martin

      Todd, Mark

      Öpik, Lembit

      Touhig, Don

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Trickett, Jon

      Osborne, Mrs Sandra

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Pearson, Ian

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Pendry, Tom

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      823

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Tyler, Paul

      Wills, Michael

      Vaz, Keith

      Wilson, Brian

      Wallace, James

      Winnick, David

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Watts, David

      Wood, Mike

      Webb, Professor Steve

      Worthington, Tony

      White, Brian

      Wray, James

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Wright, Tony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Wyatt, Derek

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Mr. Clive Betts and

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Mr. David Jamieson.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Collins, Tim

      Amess, David

      Colvin, Michael

      Arbuthnot, James

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Baldry, Tony

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Blunt, Crispin

      Duncan, Alan

      Body, Sir Richard

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Boswell, Tim

      Evans, Nigel

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Faber, David

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Fabricant, Michael

      Brady, Graham

      Fallon, Michael

      Brazier, Julian

      Flight, Howard

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Fraser, Christopher

      Burns, Simon

      Gale, Roger

      Butterfill, John

      Garnier, Edward

      Cash, William

      Gibb, Nick

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Gill, Christopher

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Chope, Christopher

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Clappison, James

      Gray, James

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Green, Damian

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Greenway, John

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      824

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hammond, Philip

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Hayes, John

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Heald, Oliver

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Ruffley, David

      Horam, John

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Soames, Nicholas

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Spring, Richard

      Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Key, Robert

      Steen, Anthony

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Streeter, Gary

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Swayne, Desmond

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Syms, Robert

      Lansley, Andrew

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Leigh, Edward

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Thompson, William

      Loughton, Tim

      Townend, John

      Luff, Peter

      Tredinnick, David

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Viggers, Peter

      MacKay, Andrew

      Walter, Robert

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Wardle, Charles

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Waterson, Nigel

      Malins, Humfrey

      Wells, Bowen

      Maples, John

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Mates, Michael

      Whittingdale, John

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Wilkinson, John

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Willetts, David

      Merchant, Piers

      Wilshire, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Page, Richard

      Woodward, Shaun

      Paice, James

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Paterson, Owen

      Pickles, Eric

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Prior, David

      Sir David Madel and

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Mr. James Cran.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  Local Government (Contracts) Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Local Government (Contracts) Bill
    Clause 1

      FUNCTIONS TO INCLUDE POWER TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT
      7.10 pm
      Mr. David Rendel: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 10, at end insert—
      "(1A) The power of a local authority to do any thing (whether or not involving the expenditure, borrowing or lending of money or the acquisition or disposal of any property or rights) which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of its functions, includes the power to enter into a contract with another person for the provision or making available of assets or services, or both (whether or not together with goods), for or in connection with those purposes.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker, I apologise for the confusion if you thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) intended to move the amendment. In Committee, my hon. Friend raised an issue somewhat similar to the one raised by amendment No. 1 and said that, if he was dissatisfied with the Minister's response, we might well table an amendment on Report.
      Having listened to the Minister's response on that occasion, and having had the opportunity to reflect on the matter again when it was reported in Hansard, I was not entirely satisfied with the Minister's response. Further reassurances are required before we feel it right to withdraw the amendment, because some sections of local government will continue to worry if the amendment is not passed and if further reassurances are not given.
      The amendment in no sense tries to expand the powers of local government, which is one of the confusions that arose in Committee. The Minister appeared to feel that we were trying to expand the powers of local government. That was not the point of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam at the time, and it is not the point of amendment No. 1.
      The amendment simply seeks to clarify the extent of the Bill and to ensure that it is wide enough to cover all those aspects of local government performance which I believe that the Government intend it to cover. In that sense, it is a helpful amendment, which tries to take out of the Bill that which might otherwise be a part of it and that leaves some of the potential contractors of local government in doubt whether local government really has the powers that it seems to think it has.
      In her reply, the Minister said:
      "the word 'functions' in the Bill covers both duties and discretions."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 1 July 1997; c. 12.]
      That does not appear to be a normal definition of the word "functions," and it is unlikely that the Bill could be interpreted in exactly that way in plain English. I therefore ask for further clarification from the Minister.
      I believe it is fair to say that the Bill talks only of functions that are conferred or imposed by statutory provision, and if the amendment is to be withdrawn the Government must explain how the Bill can cover the potential use of some discretionary functions by local government—especially, perhaps, those new functions that may not yet have been thought about. New ideas are
      826
      always emerging on what local government may wish to be involved in, as new technology comes into use, and the Bill should cover any such new functions in which local government may be involved in future.
      If the purpose of the Bill is as I understand it to be—to reassure potential contractors that they may go ahead with their contracts in the full assurance that they will be paid even if, on occasion, local government appears to have acted ultra vires—the amendment can only help the Bill to secure its true purpose. It will make it plain that the Bill does cover all the potential aspects of local government involvement, not only—as appears to be the case at present—those that are specifically laid down as the functions of local government directly in statute.
      Mr. Eric Pickles: I do not intend to detain the House long in considering the amendment, but as it is my first time at the Dispatch Box—
      Mr. Nicholas Soames: First-class man.
      Mr. Pickles: I thank my hon. Friend. I hope that I shall be here long enough to enjoy it.
      What the Liberals said on Second Reading and in Committee has changed a little; at first they talked about a general power of competence and now they say that they want to extend it because they want to be sure that it covers everything.
      I clearly recollect what happened in Committee. Several times I asked the Minister for Local Government and Housing whether discretionary powers were covered, and especially whether section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 was covered. The hon. Lady was straightforward about that and unequivocal in her assurances that that would be covered.
      At a future date, there may be a case for examining the general competence of local government, but I do not believe that it should come about as a result of the amendment. It is true that, if it was decided to reconsider the way in which local authorities receive their powers, something like the amendment would need to be considered, but those with experience of local government and the way in which it approaches matters of general competence believe that what we need is a clear statement of powers and responsibility, and the Minister, in fairness to her, gave the Committee precisely that. We need to understand where responsibility lies in local government and in terms of the council tax payer.
      Local authorities have generally used the test that is set down in section 137 of the 1972 Act, which is one of direct benefit. There must be a clear demonstration that it is to the benefit of the local community or a substantial part of the local community or a substantial geographical part. It seems to me that, in ways of operating, powers are best left in terms of "must" or "may" take action, in recognition of the fact that there is always scope for ambiguity. That is why section 137 of the 1972 Act, and the previous section, section 111, came into existence.
      In Committee, the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) suggested that we might try to reverse the position and lay down several exceptions, so that local authorities have a wide power except in the case of the exceptions. I believe that that is the idea underlying the amendment. Arranging things in that way would only

      827
      result in a long list of exceptions. Would we want a local authority to trade? Probably not. Would we want it to manufacture windows? Probably not. I can, however, think of examples when we might be disposed to allow local authorities such powers—when an authority was in charge of a disabled workshop, for instance. The Liberal Democrat approach will not, I believe, produce any great benefits.
      I cannot help agreeing with Professor Grant's feeling that this approach is more symbolic than real. That sums up the amendment, too, and the general attitude of the Liberal Democrats to local government.
      The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): The Bill appears to enjoy the support of both Opposition parties, although they disagree about the amendment. I want to be helpful to both parties, if I can.
      The effects of the amendment are difficult to ascertain. It would insert new section (1A), lifting its words from section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972. That section empowers authorities to do anything that facilitates
      "or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of"
      any of their functions. The amendment would enable authorities to enter into contracts for assets or services when relying on subsidiary powers under section 111, instead of primary powers. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) realises that the amendment would have that impact.
      I fear that ingenious interpretation of the amendment might lure authorities into schemes in which their powers were at best highly ambiguous. The amendment would therefore seem to widen the effect of the Bill, which is not our intention. The Bill does not add to local authorities' powers. Clause 1 is designed merely to make explicit what is already implicit, so that authorities can more confidently enter into contracts in pursuance of their functions.
      Where entering into a contract is necessary to help an authority discharge a function, but it is not confident of being able to rely on the provision for the power to enter the contract, the authority could rely on section 111, on the basis that a contract is incidental to or conducive to the performance of the function. There were doubts in some quarters whether the main statutory provision, or section 111, empowered an authority to enter into contracts in all cases.
      The Bill removes that uncertainty. It does so by confirming, in clause 1, that the statutory provisions that confer functions also confer power to enter contracts for assets or services in connection with the discharge of those functions. The Bill makes this implicit power explicit. To that extent, inserting the words of section 111 is unnecessary. Indeed, such insertion could add an incidental power to an incidental power, thus augmenting local authorities' powers.
      I know that this is getting complex, so I shall provide some examples of what we think might happen. The first concerns an activity permitted under current legislation; clause 1(1) would confirm it. An authority can enter into a contract for the provision and servicing of computers
      828
      and other office equipment required to discharge its primary functions—for instance, education or social services.
      The second example concerns an activity not permitted under current legislation or the Bill, but possibly permitted by the amendment. Under it, an authority might claim that it could enter into a contract connected with borrowing or lending money but unconnected with the discharge of its functions—the very problem identified in the swaps cases, for which section 111 alone could not be relied on to facilitate an authority's actions: there needed to be a primary function.
      I hope that that is now clear. We believe that the Bill meets the points made by the hon. Member for Newbury. We are anxious to give lawyers no more of a field day than they will already have with this type of activity. Because the amendment might be interpreted as providing another incidental power, I believe that it goes against what we are all aiming for. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured enough to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Rendel: I am grateful to the Minister. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) appears to have missed the point of the amendment, which is not about a power of general competence. I thought that I had made that plain—good though it might be to introduce such a local government power, that is irrelevant to this amendment.
      The Minister said that the amendment would add a power to local authorities in some cases—she mentioned monetary transactions. It was certainly not my party's intention to add to local authorities' powers, and I accept that the Minister is worried about that. Instead of pushing on with the amendment at this stage, it may be sensible to withdraw it for the time being.
      I nevertheless hope that the hon. Lady will seriously look again at a possibility that she seems to discount. The legal advice of local government bodies is that there is still a problem in the Bill, in the sense that it may exclude some local authority contracting with external contractors. I am sure that we are at one in wanting to overcome such a problem, if there is one, and it would be wise of the Minister to examine it again. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 3

      THE CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
      Mr. Paul Burstow: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 16, at end insert—
      '(3A) A person signing the certificate on behalf of the local authority shall in doing so be under no duty to any party other than the local authority on behalf of which he has signed.'.
      I have read and reflected on the discussions that took place in Committee, in particular the comments of the Minister in this respect. I still believe that the case law to which I referred in Committee—the case of Burgoine and Cooke v. London borough of Waltham Forest—raises serious questions.
      The Minister reassured us in Committee that there would be a serious problem with negligence only if officers could be regarded as having acted in bad faith.

      829
      My reading of the Waltham Forest case is that the officers who were held to be liable in negligence were in no way acting in bad faith. I fear that that judgment may impinge on the working of the Bill once it becomes an Act. I tabled the amendment to make it clear in the Bill that the officers who certify these contracts are responsible only to their local authority and to no one else. That is the best way to offer legitimate protection to local government officers in carrying out their role as advisers to, and servants of, local authorities.
      If the wording of the amendment is imperfect but the point is valid, I hope that the Minister will find some appropriate wording to reassure officers who will sign those certificates.
      7.30 pm
      The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I hope that I can persuade the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), who moved the amendment in a constructive and sensible way, that in practice his fears are groundless and the amendment is not required. The amendment appears to be based on the misapprehension that the Bill can somehow increase the potential vulnerability or exposure of council officers to legal action. The Bill does not do that.
      Local council officers who carry out their normal duties in good faith are not liable to third parties for the acts of a local authority, even where those acts turn out to be ultra vires. The Bill does nothing to add further burdens. Officers will be no more liable in signing a certificate than in putting their name to the contract to which it relates. I am sure that they will exercise the same care in signing certificates as they do at present in binding the authority under any contract or other transaction.
      There are no real grounds for concern, in connection either with the kind of contract for which the certificate might be given or with other contracts. We would not want to throw misplaced doubt on officers' positions in the generality of their activities by making a provision—in the form of the amendment—affecting the certifying of some contracts.
      The hon. Gentleman raised the case of Burgoine and Cooke v. London borough of Waltham Forest. The problems in that case were of a very different nature and flowed from the authority's lack of capacity to set up a particular company and appoint its officers as company directors. It was not concerned with the day-to-day activities of an officer, of which certification would naturally form a part. The officers in that case were acting not as local authority officers but as company directors, and that difference created the problems.
      I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that we have given this matter serious consideration. We do not wish to create a situation where council officers are exposed to the risk of litigation or liabilities simply through exercising their normal functions in good faith and in a proper way. We are satisfied that there is no risk of that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will therefore not press the amendment.
      Mr. Burstow: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. It is important to put such a matter clearly on the record. If, in the unlikely event that the courts look into this matter, the fact that it is set out in Hansard will undoubtedly be of great benefit to judges in deciding what we legislators were attempting to achieve through the Bill.
      830
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 5

      SPECIAL PROVISION FOR JUDICIAL. REVIEWS AND AUDIT REVIEWS
      Mr. Burstow: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 4, line 15, at end insert—
      '(3A) Before making a determination under subsection (3), a court shall have regard to the consequences for the parties to the contract of such a determination arising from provision made in any relevant discharge terms relating to the contract.'.
      I shall be even more brief on this amendment, but I look forward to hearing the Minister's detailed response. I raised this matter in Committee in the clause stand part debate, and I remain concerned about it. It concerns a court's power, and what the court will take into account, when considering contracts and whether they are ultra vires, and the consequences for local authorities and therefore council tax payers if the discharge clause comes into effect.
      The discharge clause in the Bill could place on local authorities a heavy burden, which would be passed on to council tax payers. The amendment would include in the Bill a provision requiring judges to take the impact on council tax payers into account when assessing whether a contract should be allowed to continue to operate. Although I listened to, and later read, the Minister's comments in Committee, I am not yet convinced that judges will be able to act as I hope. I want an assurance that the amendment is not necessary, but I believe that it is.
      Ms Armstrong: As the hon. Gentleman noted, the Bill deals with the possibility that, in the unlikely event of a contract being subject to audit review because it has been successfully challenged, a heavy burden will be placed on council tax payers. It is precisely for that reason that the Bill has been drafted as it has. The Bill makes it clear that, before entering into a contract, a local authority must have assured itself that it will be acting within its powers. The Bill is constructed so as to ensure that that happens.
      I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman wants to be helpful and that he seeks to ensure that, in the unlikely event of a certificated contract being subject to audit review, a court, when considering the setting aside of a contract, is required to act as on judicial review and therefore take full account of all the circumstances. Clause 5(3) already requires a court to act as it would on judicial review and the court will take account of all circumstances and arguments that can be presented to it about the contract and its effect on the parties if it is set aside.
      There is a danger that, if one factor, such as that emphasised in the amendment, is stated in the Bill, it will have the opposite effect and raise doubts about what the court should consider in the contract. We are trying to ensure that the court properly considers what the contract contains and what, in the context of the case, is proper for the court to consider. We therefore want to ensure that the Bill properly addresses that. We shall continue to listen to and hear representations, but the hon. Gentleman's intention is accounted for in the Bill. The amendment could make matters more difficult rather than ease the path.

      831
      I wish to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman. Had I been assured that the amendment would improve the Bill, I would have been much more sympathetic. We cannot accept the amendment because it would probably make matters much worse. The judge would have to address that specific issue rather than the context within which the contract had proceeded, and therefore the common-sense view of what the contract sought to do and what was in the best interests of the council tax payer.
      Mr. Barstow: I am grateful to the Minister for that full response. My intent is to improve the Bill, not to stop it or wreck it, and certainly not to create a situation in which a judge's hands would be more tied than necessary. However, I welcome the fact that the Minister is willing to consider how the intention of my amendment could be given effect. I hope that, perhaps in another place, the Government will take the opportunity to introduce wording that they find acceptable and that would achieve the intention of my amendment. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      7.40 pm
      Ms Armstrong: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      It is with great pleasure that we come to the Third Reading of what I admit is an exceptionally complex Bill. None of us is certain that what we want from the Bill is what we will end up with. Unfortunately, that is the nature of such legislation. The previous Government had much experience of that with a Bill on the national health service and the private finance initiative. In the week in which the election was called, they admitted that that Bill did not meet the needs that they had intended it to meet. We are now considering a further Bill relating to that.
      It is important to restate what the Bill does and what it does not do. Its purpose is to remove an obstacle to successful local authority public-private partnerships.
      The Bill does not change the fundamentals of the law. It does not add to local authorities' existing powers. Equally, there can be no question of it rendering ultra vires transactions that have always been within authorities' powers. It merely makes explicit what was already implicit: that local authorities can enter into contracts in pursuance of their functions.
      Mr. Tony Colman: May I declare an interest as chair of 4 Ps—the Public Private Partnerships Programme—and ask my hon. Friend whether she would support an experiment, a pathfinder project, for the use of PFI in HRA housing. I believe that that could lead to best value, and 4 Ps has established that there is support from financial institutions. Would my hon. Friend support such an experiment?
      Ms Armstrong: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who probably has more experience than any other hon. Member of the matters covered by the Bill. I should be happy for the Government to work with 4 Ps on a pathfinder project for housing. We are always looking for
      832
      ways in which we can draw in private sector money to increase housing capacity. I thank my hon. Friend for his constructive suggestion.
      The Bill deals with a certification procedure, which does not permit authorities to act ultra vires. It does not give them immunity from challenge in public law by a taxpayer for entering into deals that are outside their powers. It does not restrict the auditors' right of challenge.
      The certification procedure enables authorities to say to contractors, and to financiers who are backing deals, that, to the best of the authority's knowledge and belief, the deal in question is within powers.
      The Bill also provides contractors and financiers with the assurance that if, at some later stage, there are proceedings to enforce the contract, the authority will not then be able to claim that the deal is ultra vires. However, should the deal none the less be found to be ultra vires, the authority will have to recompense the other parties to the contract.
      For those reasons, the Bill has been welcomed by the finance community. The other partners are also extremely important.
      What is in the Bill for local authorities? First, it provides a valuable clarification that statutory powers carry with them a power to enter into associated contracts for assets or services, or both.
      Secondly, the Bill means that authorities will be able to give assurance to potential partners in innovative partnership schemes that if, after certification of a scheme and in the unlikely event of the scheme nevertheless being found to be ultra vires as a result of a challenge in public law, the provider and the bank will be protected. The local authorities understand that. They know that they will have the responsibility to ensure that schemes that they enter into are within their powers.
      It has been suggested that certification will be too burdensome, and will entail additional requirements. We do not believe that it will be complicated or burdensome. It should reflect the process of considered assessment that an authority will have to go through in any case, and which an authority should undertake before entering any partnership agreement.
      The certification process will focus specifically on powers. For that reason, it is not the appropriate vehicle for giving assurance about other matters, important though those may be. It need not be cluttered up with details of risk transfer, procurement processes, planning matters and so on. The authorities should address those issues, but in another context.
      We do not believe that certification adds to officers' liability. I know that that has been a particular concern of local government officers and of Liberal Democrat Members. On the contrary, by clarifying authorities' powers, the Bill is likely to reduce the risk that officers entering into contracts, especially innovative partnership deals, might inadvertently act ultra vires. Signing the certificate carries no more liability than signing the contract to which it relates.
      There is every reason why local authority officers will act in good faith in going about their business. If they act in good faith, honestly and without malice, they will have nothing to worry about.
      I welcome the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) to the Dispatch Box, and apologise for not doing so earlier. It is one of the better innovations of the

      833
      new Conservative party that Back Benchers are being encouraged to join Front-Bench teams on appropriate occasions. This is such an occasion. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman has been left on his own—no, I see the that hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) is also present, and I welcome him. I am sure that his support is of great encouragement to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar.
      It might seem entirely reasonable for parties to contracts to agree not only to the issue of certificates, but to their content. However, any amendment along those lines, although apparently innocuous, would destroy the Bill's good effect. If contractors and banks had to agree that schemes were intra vires, rather than just relying on the authority's opinion, they would be tied into the decision-making process. They would have to form a view, when they would prefer not to do so. Not only would contractors and banks not be well placed to form an opinion, but they would have to exercise due diligence in expressing a view. The Bill aims to protect financiers and contractors in the unlikely event of authorities' making a mistake about whether contracts fall within their powers.
      I believe that the Bill will achieve the stated aims of all hon. Members. We want to engender confidence in the contracts that local government will sign with the private sector. This is a very important development for local government, because it is about the future of local services to local taxpayers. I commend the Bill to the House.
      7.50 pm
      Mr. Eric Pickles: I thank the Minister for her kind remarks. I forgive her for not making them earlier—no doubt she was struck dumb by the sight of me at the Dispatch Box. I also thank the hon. Lady and the Minister for London and Construction for the courteous way in which they conducted business in Committee.
      I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope): it is a great pity that we have not heard much from Government Back Benchers in this debate. It is also a pity that the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) did not serve on the Committee. Committees are often stuffed to the gills with people who know nothing, and care even less, about the subject under consideration. The hon. Gentleman is an expert on whom we could have leaned. We could have listened to his advice, and probably concluded our deliberations much sooner. I hope that he will speak on this subject in the future—in fact, I look forward to hearing from him in a few moments.
      This is an uncontroversial Bill, and we shall not divide the House on it this evening—although it is not terribly wise to send Labour Members home just yet. The debate on the Bill was quite exciting. At times, I expected to see great shafts of light issuing from the ceiling and cherubim and seraphim dancing in it, because this is the stuff of the road to Damascus. The Government have a new enthusiasm for private finance initiative projects. In the past few years, I have listened to Labour Members of Parliament and parliamentary candidates describing the wickedness of the PFI, which they called a waste of taxpayers' money.
      834
      However, there is now a new enthusiasm for the PFI. PFI projects worth about £7 billion are in the pipeline, thanks to the Conservative Government. I recall Labour Members' cynicism about the PFI and the vitriol that they aimed at it—but that was then, and this is now.
      The Government have embraced existing legislation that was prepared for a Conservative Government, which complements perfectly the 1997 local government capital finance regulations. Hon. Members referred to several high-profile court cases that sent a shiver down the back of the banks and financial institutions. Partnership agreements were found to be unenforceable and banks suffered losses, seriously harming confidence in local authorities as serious risks.
      We have heard a little about the Waltham Forest and Allerdale cases. Contracts that had been entered into were found to be null and void because the local authority lacked the necessary credits. The repercussions were quite serious. The company had no recourse to legal action, and was saddled with considerable bad debts. The company in the Allerdale case is pursuing individual councillors as company directors. I have some sympathy—as do Labour Members—for those councillors who sought professional advice and were badly let down by their advisers.
      The Bill provides clarity where there was doubt, and parties now know where they stand. The public will know where they stand, thanks to a concession secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch that will ensure that documents are open for inspection.
      I have referred to the road to Damascus, but perhaps it might be better to regard the legislation as the manifestation of a crate culture in the Labour party. Hon. Members will recall that, during the second world war, the American air force parachuted crates on to remote Pacific islands in order to look after their fliers who might be stranded there. The islanders created a new religion from that activity, and the same sort of thing is happening with the PFI. The PFI is being bandied around the Chamber as the solution to every problem: if we need a new hospital, call for PFI; if we need a new tube network or a new school, call for PFI. The scheme seems to have no limitations.
      However, the PFI has limits. It transfers the risks, and offers the opportunity of new finances for public services. That risk transfer allows the release of provisions that were needed in order to deal with that risk. However, although the PFI brings new finance, it certainly does not bring new funds for local authorities. It is simply a rescheduling of debt. New funds can be created only through the release of real resources—and the PFI does not do that.
      During the recent debate on the future of the London underground, I likened the PFI process to that of a person buying a home: the building society provides the finance, but the purchaser provides the funds. Companies that enter into contracts with local councils will be seen to enjoy a special relationship. We must consider carefully the way in which the Bill will operate in practice. We must be absolutely certain that no special favours are shown to those who enter into contracts with local authorities.
      When that issue was considered in Committee, the hon. Lady referred to local authorities as having the powers of planning authorities and of those who enter into contracts. She seemed to suggest that that situation was well

      835
      established. However, she has since retreated from that position. In her winding-up speech today, she said that there was no need to consider the situation, as it was well established.
      I have read her remarks in Hansard, and I believe that we will have to re-examine the matter in another place by way of certification and through greater openness because of problems with planning gain. The situation is slightly different from that suggested by the hon. Lady. Earlier this year, the Department of the Environment issued a circular, which made it clear that,
      "To retain public confidence, such arrangements must be operated in accordance with the fundamental principle that planning permission may not be bought or sold. This principle is best served when negotiations are conducted in a way which is seen to be fair, open and reasonable".
      What better way to achieve to achieve that than in the process of certification?
      I have the smallest criticism of the previous Government, because one point was left open on planning problems. I am sure that the Minister would like me to mention it.
      When an important company cosies up to a local authority, officers from the council and the company will inevitably get to know one another, and in many ways the arrangement almost becomes an extension of the council. The recent case of Tesco v. the Secretary of State for the Environment shows that, if an authority decides not to follow the guidance, and the application is not called in, the local authority does not have to follow Government guidelines. Perhaps we shall have to come back to the important—
      Ms Armstrong: I should like to help the hon. Gentleman. He may know that Lord Nolan has today published his third report on local government. He makes recommendations about how planning decisions are made and handled. We shall consult widely on that in the light of the report, and will therefore be able to return to some of the issues that we discussed in Committee. I do not believe that those issues need detain us at the moment, but we shall take any recommendations seriously and consult on them.
      Mr. Pickles: That is most helpful. In Committee, the hon. Lady said that the issue was one of certification, and had nothing to do with planning. If she is moving from that position, that is marvelous.
      Ms Armstrong rose—
      Mr. Pickles: I hope that the hon. Lady is not going to disappoint me by retracting.
      Ms Armstrong: I am trying to be helpful. What I have just said does not interfere with what I said about certification. We shall deal with any concerns about planning issues through consultation and our response to the Nolan committee. I do not want the hon. Gentleman to run away with the thought that we are not serious about that, but nor do I want him to think that we shall have to
      836
      come back to the Bill with subsequent amendments. The Bill deals adequately with the situation. Planning issues will have to be dealt with in the other way.
      Mr. Pickles: I cannot imagine the hon. Lady being anything other than helpful. She claims that what she has just said does not interfere with what she said in Committee, but it slightly contradicts some of what she said before.
      The public would expect to know about the state of planning in certification. I cannot put that better than Mr. Charles Kirkman did. He is quoted in the Nolan report, setting out the problem that we are asking the Minister to address. He said:
      "I appreciate that this is a difficult problem to solve but it does appear in principle wrong, that councils should determine planning applications, in which they themselves have a strong financial interest. Even if a theoretical division of development and planning functions were introduced, it would be difficult to implement under a single Chief Executive."
      I share that view. I recognise that the hon. Lady will want to return to the Nolan recommendations, but we must consider the issue. We all felt deep shame when we read this morning about the problems of Doncaster council. The problem is not just the level of corruption in Doncaster, but the apparently cosy relationships between developers and councils.
      I repeat that we do not intend to press for a Division, but we expect the Government to look carefully at the difficult issues of conflicts of interest.
      8.4 pm
      Mr. Tony Colman: I congratulate the Government on the speed with which they have brought the Bill forward. We must remind ourselves that it is still only 68 days since the general election. As chairman of 4 Ps, I know that there was no Bill ready to inherit. For some time, 4 Ps had been asking for one, representing local authorities and the private companies working on PFI projects. Bringing the Bill forward so rapidly shows the Government's determination to do business and to ensure that public-private partnerships flourish between local authorities and the private sector.
      I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) talk about a Damascene conversion. That conversion has really been on the other side. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) started down the road towards the private finance initiative back in 1991. It is important to remember that it is a Labour party idea. We are now going to demonstrate properly how it can be carried into local government and other areas.
      I am pleased that the Opposition do not want to press for a Division, and that they support the Bill. I hope that the slight threats issued by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar do not presage possible changes in another place. I am concerned, because the private sector and local government want to get on with the projects. We want to give local government and the private sector the assurances in the Bill.
      Credit is due to officials at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and at the Treasury, as well as to the 4 Ps legal forum. In particular, I pay tribute to the work of Paul Bryans and Peter Fanning, the new chief executive of 4 Ps, for their work

      837
      in preparing the Bill. We have had to concertina the consultation, but local government and private sector lawyers were fully involved. There were 24 Government amendments in Committee, showing how those views were taken into account. As a humble Back Bencher in the Government party, I take pride in the Bill, which I believe will be acceptable to those to whom it will apply.
      Clifford Chance—one of the largest legal practices in the United Kingdom and a member of the 4 Ps legal forum—has welcomed the Bill, calling it a
      "quick fix response to current uncertainties about local authority powers"
      and
      "an improvement on the present position."
      Many other legal practices, including Evershed, have echoed that strong endorsement of the Bill as a way forward.
      The Bill has clear, limited objectives, addressing the concerns of private companies wishing to do business with local authorities. Those objectives were drafted against an extremely complex framework of local authority legislation and regulation. As a former leader of a local authority, I can vouch for the difficulties that the Bill has had to confront to fit in with that legislation. Some Opposition amendments could not be taken on board.
      The Bill appears to meet its limited objectives admirably. However, the private finance initiative is a new and developing approach for local government. It would be imprudent to rule out the possibility of further legislation being needed should gaps emerge as ideas for public-private partnerships develop. I have every confidence that the Government will be ready to act if the need arises.
      8.8 pm
      Mr. Burstow: I shall try not to detain the House too long, but I should like to raise several points that were mentioned earlier but remain of concern.
      First, I should like to pick up one or two of the comments by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). He remarked on the Government's Damascene change of attitude on the PFI. We seem to have witnessed two roads to Damascus this evening, as he made some refreshing and honest comments on the validity and value of the PFI as a significant way of levering private finance into local government. I was grateful to witness two Damascene changes of belief tonight.
      Secondly, the hon. Gentleman referred to our discussions in Committee about the need to be concerned about conflicts of interest that might arise in determining planning applications. I agreed with the Minister's comments in Committee, and raised concerns that accepting an amendment that would effectively put an obligation on an authority to have regard to its planning decisions in its contracting arrangements could be construed as fettering the discretion of elected members of local authorities in discharging their planning responsibilities. I would not wish that to be included in the Bill in any way, shape or form.
      The hon. Gentleman and the Minister referred to the third report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, and particularly to the section dealing with potential conflicts of interest. I draw attention to the conclusion of that section of the report, which states:
      838
      "Our conclusion is that the balance struck at present between local autonomy and central guidance and supervision is broadly correct. The Department of the Environment must however be kept fully informed and show due diligence. It must not hesitate to step in if public disquiet is clear. Respect for local autonomy is a good principle, but it has led the Department to fail to respond to serious local concerns in the past."
      The report then makes two specific recommendations, to which I am sure the House will return.
      The question of autonomy goes to the heart of what the Bill should have been about. It has been our contention throughout its passage that an opportunity has been missed to pursue something in which we believe passionately, and which we thought, in a measured way, the Government also supported—the idea of extending to local authorities a power of local competence or, as the Labour party calls it, a power of local initiative. We were hoping that the Bill would provide an opportunity to engage with the Government on how we might achieve that end.
      We do not agree with the view advanced by Ministers and shadow Ministers that a power of general competence is an illusion, and is simply symbolic. In evidence for that belief, we point to the many examples of powers of general competence that operate in other European countries that cherish and protect their local government in a clearer constitutional framework than ours.
      I was grateful to the Minister for giving us on Report assurances in respect of the potential for exposing officers to liability for negligence. However, we regard the Bill as something of a red herring. That is not just because we believe that a power of general competence would address many of the issues that have caused concern in the business community in terms of the ability to enter into binding contracts with local authorities.
      We also believe that the Government have slipped into the same habit that the previous Government had, of imposing duties on local authorities rather than giving them discretions. We fear that, although the Minister has told us that the Bill imposes no new duties, we should have done one of two things tonight. Either we should have implemented a power of general competence, or we should have sought to clarify the law in respect of the powers and duties of local authorities. The Bill forces the obligation on to local authorities, and creates a cumbersome and bureaucratic procedure.
      Like the official Opposition, we have no intention of dividing the House as we believe strongly that although the Bill is imperfect, it provides some reassurance to the private sector and in that sense it represents a useful safeguard. However, if the Government are serious about building a new relationship with local government over the next few years, as I am sure they are, because they have many friends and colleagues in local government—they probably want that relationship to extend beyond the Labour party—they have to engage in a serious discussion about what a power of general competence might mean, as many in local government—not just from the Liberal Democrats but across all parties—believe that it is an appropriate next step.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman should not be discussing next steps. On Third Reading, he should discuss only what is in the Bill, and not what should be done in future.
      Mr. Burstow: I am still on a learning curve in respect of the procedures of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Please forgive me for not being aware of that.

      839
      In conclusion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—I thought that those words would be popular. We still regard the Bill as a rather crude and dirty measure. We do not believe that it achieves everything that is necessary, but we see it as a stop-gap that we hope will reassure the private sector. However, given the comments by Ministers that they are uncertain whether it will provide all the necessary assurances, we have our doubts. We remain to be convinced that we will not need to make further amendments to the legislation to provide further reassurance to business. That seems to be entirely the wrong approach.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  SELECT COMMITTEES RELATED TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
  Ordered,
  That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended—
  (1) by leaving out items 3.4, 10 and 15 in the Table in paragraph (2) and inserting the following items at the appropriate places:

  'Education and Employment/Department for Education and Employment/17/5';

  'Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs/Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions/17/5';

  'International Development/Department for International Development/11/3";

  (2) by leaving out line 10 and inserting the words 'The Education and Employment Committee and the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee shall each have the power to appoint two sub-committees; and the';
  (3) in line 25, at the end, by inserting the words 'and to lay upon thc Table of the House the minutes of the proceedings of sub-committees';
  (4) in line 36, alter the word 'House', by leaving out the word 'and'; and
  (5) in line 37, after the second word 'place', by inserting the words 'to report from time to time the minutes of their proceedings, and to meet concurrently with any committee appointed under this order or any sub-committee thereof for the purposes of deliberating or taking evidence'.—[Mr. Graham Allen.]

  SELECT COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
  Ordered,
  That Standing Order No. 146 (Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration) be re-named 'Select Committee on Public Administration'; and that the said Standing Order be amended, in line 7, after the word 'therewith', by inserting the words 'and to consider matters relating to the quality and standards of administration provided by civil service departments, and other matters relating to the civil service'.—[Mr. Graham Allen.]

Low Flying (Northumberland)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Graham Allen.]
8.16 pm
Mr. A. Beith: I welcome the Minister to his new responsibilities at the Ministry of Defence. He will often be preoccupied by the issue that I am about to raise in relation to various parts of the country, but I shall seek to show that the position in Northumberland is especially difficult.
Most people in Northumberland accept that low-flying training is necessary and that we have to take a share of it. The issue is how much and what limits and controls there should be. It has been a local issue not only during my twenty-three-and-a-half years as a Member of Parliament, but during the time of my predecessor who changed from being one of the hon. Members complaining about low flying to being the Minister with responsibility for these matters, who had to sign the letters explaining why it was essential.
I acknowledge the assistance that I have received from the Royal Air Force, the RAF police and the Ministry of Defence in dealing with the great deal of correspondence and the many inquiries that the subject generates and in securing avoidance of major equestrian events by low-flying aircraft.
The problem in the public mind is low-flying military jet aircraft. We also have extensive low flying by helicopters, but that does not create as much public anxiety, partly because helicopters do not appear so suddenly and partly because of the perceived high value to the community of the search and rescue work by RAF Boulmer. Indeed, the helicopters earn applause and enthusiasm when they visit local events. Nor do the Hercules low-level transport flights arouse great public concern except when they are involved in evasion exercises that also involve Tornado F3s.
The difference lies in the speed and the surprise or shock created by the sudden appearance at close quarters of a fast jet fighter or two jets chasing each other. Motorists are taken aback when aircraft appear below them when they are driving on the hillside roads. Horse riders fear for their safety. Many people feel that their isolated house or the landmark close by is being used as a target, attracting a succession of dry-run approaches right at the minimum permitted height limits. It is notoriously difficult to judge the heights accurately, and speed makes identification difficult if a member of the public wants to make a complaint.
For many years, it was impossible to get figures for the number of flights taking place but, in March, the Ministry of Defence produced a report on the geographical distribution of military low-flying activity in the United Kingdom. I have been making use of the figures, which show that Northumberland gets a greatly disproportionate share of low flying. I should like first to ask some questions about the figures themselves.
My constituency is in low-flying area 12, with slight overlap from areas 16 and 13. It includes an area where flying can take place not merely down to 250 ft but right down to 100 ft. The figures are dramatic enough so far as Northumberland is concerned, but they do not show the further impact of night low flying, and might be

841
artificially reduced by the exclusion of sorties, which are primarily over the sea or mainly, in the case of Tornado F3s, at medium height—although in both instances some of those sorties will include low flying. Will the Minister confirm whether I am right in assuming that, if such qualifications of the figures had not been made, Northumberland's share would appear even higher? It is also unclear whether the figures include operational low flying which is below 250 ft.
The MOD's figures for 1996 show that, taking 100 per cent. as the average figure for fixed-wing low-flying intensity in the 15 areas included in the UK low-flying system, Northumberland—area 12—had 301 per cent. No other area had more than 175 per cent. One has to bear in mind that those are the averages for areas where military low flying is permitted and do not include London or the Thames valley. Moreover, within each area, there are exclusions around airports and centres of population.
In area 12, low flying is concentrated in the area between Morpeth and Berwick and in the Tyne valley. To some extent, the figure might he particularly high because the area provides access to the Otterburn and Spadeadam ranges, although low flying in those areas is much less intense than over the coastal strip of Northumberland. I put it to the Minister that, precisely because we have and accept obligations in support of the ranges at Otterburn and Spadeadam, which are important to Northumberland, there should be some compensating reduction in the amount of other military low flying that is allowed over area 12.
In 1979, there was a substantial reorganisation of low-flying areas, and that was supposed to lead to a more even distribution and, therefore, a reduction in intensity over Northumberland. That it did not was primarily due to the introduction of the Tornado aircraft, which doubled the amount of low flying. The report concerned said that the withdrawal of some units from overseas stations to the United Kingdom
"should result in no noticeable increase in the amount of low flying in the UK."
In an article in Scotland on Sunday in May 1996, Malcolm Spaven predicted a 10 per cent. increase arising from the RAF's withdrawal from Germany. He has also referred to the amount of low flying by aircraft from allied countries, which is not on a reciprocal basis but may be in return for cash payments or supply of equipment, or generated by the need to promote greater use of the Spadeadam range by other countries so as to support its continuance.
I am told that Italian aircraft use the low-flying facilities despite refusing similar facilities to the RAF in Italy. Furthermore, the RAF does not appear to have been allowed to make full use of the opportunities that it could have in Goose bay facilities in Canada. The Dutch and German air forces use those facilities, which are expensive to maintain, and I believe that they could relieve some of the pressure on Northumberland.
What particularly annoys the inhabitants of Northumberland is to be told that they have to accept most of the low flying because it needs to be over uninhabited areas. The area is not uninhabited. Northumberland is sparsely populated, but more than 200,000 people live there and hundreds of thousands of tourists are to be found there, especially on the fine days that are favoured for low flying.
842
To the extent that there is a risk, it is a risk to the towns and villages and activities of Northumberland, just as it would be to anywhere else. As the RAF would want to point out, however, the risk is very low indeed, and those most at risk are the courageous and highly skilled men and women who fly the aircraft. There has, of course, been a substantial loss of aircraft from accidents over the years, although thankfully not of aircrew or civilians.
The disturbance is a much more apparent problem than the risk. Since we all benefit from air defence, we should all share as far as possible the disturbance that is required to maintain it. That seems a reasonably fair principle. Whether we live in a sparsely populated area or in a more populated area, we all benefit from the defence capability that is being maintained, so we should all share in the disturbance which it generates.
The exception must be areas where low flying is incompatible with civil aircraft activity. Indeed, those who live on the flight paths of civil airports put up with considerable disturbance. I see and hear more aircraft from my London flat than I do from my home in Northumberland. since they go into Heathrow at about one a minute. Some low-flying areas are, however, not carrying a fair share of the burden, and within LFAs, there may be too many exclusions, some of which are out of date or unjustified.
I was very pleased to get a letter dated 9 June from the Secretary of State, in which he said:
"It is clear from my Department"s recent analysis of the distribution of military low flying in the UK that in recent years our use of airspace in the north-east has been heavier than we would have
… liked. I can assure you dial my Department is looking to see what can be done to achieve a more equitable balance for the future."
That is a very important and honest admission. I therefore look to the Minister to put some initial substance on that promise.
Does the Minister accept, as the Secretary of State clearly does, that Northumberland should not be getting three times the average of military low flying? I ask him to take active steps to see that it is distributed more fairly. In particular, will he tell the House what assessment is being made of the operational importance and value of low flying? There is some argument about this. There are those who say that the air forces of allied countries do not find it necessary to place such dependence on it, but it is clearly a skill that is highly developed by the RAF and one that it believes is important to its combat role.
Will the Minister say whether the total amount of low flying will increase or decrease? What provision has been made for the use of our low-flying facilities by aircraft from other countries on a non-reciprocal basis? I was pleased to note that an exercise involving French aircraft, which was announced the other day, involves reciprocal use by the RAF of facilities in France. What provision is being made to ensure that, when other aircraft come to this country to use our facilities, wherever possible reciprocal arrangements are made?
What prospects does the Minister see for the wider use of simulators in low-flying training—an issue that is regularly raised? Will he seek to make increased use of Goose bay and other overseas facilities? Will he review the exclusions, so as to ensure that those which remain are fully justified? Will he take active steps to reduce Northumberland's share of low flying by redistributing the permitted activity?

843
Those seem to be reasonable requests to put on behalf of a community which acknowledges the importance of the RAF, is proud of the RAF's work, feels it right to share some of the burden of disruption and anxiety that can result from low flying, but believes that that should be a fair share.
8.28 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): I thank the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) for setting out so clearly and reasonably the concerns of his constituents about military low flying. I hope to cover his specific questions in my reply.
It is some two years since the last debate on military low flying. Tonight's debate therefore gives me a timely opportunity to set out clearly why the ability to fly low continues to be an essential requirement for our armed services in the post-cold-war years and to explain why we must continue to train aircrew in that specialised skill.
It has been said many times that we live in an unstable and unpredictable world; we do. It has also been said many times that we, as a nation, expect to have well trained armed forces ready to defend our interests and those of our allies anywhere in the world and at short notice; we do. Because we have those expectations, we must ensure that when we send our armed forces off to deal with the unexpected, they are able to achieve their objective and take control of the air, at the earliest opportunity.
Why do we need aircrew well trained to fly low and fast? Low flying is a vital element in our armoury of tactics, not just to deliver weapons on target with pinpoint accuracy. but to enable aircrew to penetrate and reconnoitre hostile airspace with minimum risk to themselves. The most effective defence against any aggressor is to attack his capability to make war. Aircraft provide the firepower and flexibility to deny an aggressor the sanctuary of secure bases from which to launch attacks.
Both military fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters have to penetrate modern, capable radar and anti-aircraft air defence systems to do that. An aircraft's best chance of survival against those sophisticated weapons lies in flying very fast and low, using ground contours to escape detection. Flying fast and low screens them from hostile fighter aircraft, missiles and anti-aircraft artillery. RAF air defence fighter aircraft must also be able to fly at low level so that they can, should the need arise, intercept and defend against enemy aircraft using the same tactics. Our aircrew must be able to reduce the effectiveness of an enemy's air and ground defences when required to do so. They must train to be able to do so.
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the need for low flying is kept under review. It is an essential tactic for a modern air force and, as I have said, one of the most effective ways of penetrating hostile air defences.
The Gulf war demonstrated so well how low-flying missions by RAF Tornados made an important and unique contribution to coalition air operations. Flying low-level missions because of the threat from enemy air defence systems at medium level, they contributed greatly to the
844
success of the coalition air campaign which achieved air superiority as early as the fourth day. They were a great success flying against heavily defended targets, and that says a great deal for the skill of our RAF aircrews.
Low flying is a specialised and perishable skill. Like other professional skills, it is perfected only through rigorous training and continuous practice in a realistic environment. Without that, it is a skill which, like many others, quickly fades. Although the Gulf war was six years ago, and the threat of an all-out war has diminished, the warning time to prepare for the type of operations to which our forces are now deployed—such as those in Bosnia, and so nearly in Zaire—mostly allows only for the honing of flying skills, not their creation.
Aircrew must attain and continuously maintain a high standard of proficiency in peacetime. We cannot, and will not, put their lives at risk by sending them off inadequately trained, and unprepared for their task. Regular low-flying training is essential if we are to meet our defence commitments. Our Navy, Army and RAF aircrews are rightly respected throughout the world for their skills and professionalism. We are most grateful for the support and understanding that they receive from all parts of the country as they carry out their training.
I assure the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed that maximum use is made of simulators, which he mentioned, for those activities, such as cockpit procedures and general handling, for which they are, currently, best designed. Unfortunately, even the most advanced technology available today cannot replicate, or impart the necessary physiological and psychological pressures to substitute for, actual low flying. We monitor carefully modern advances in simulator technology to assess the scope for their use for the future, but, in the meantime, they complement, rather than replace the need for, low flying.
As the right hon. Member mentioned, the United Kingdom low-flying system comprises the open air space of the whole of the UK and the surrounding over-sea areas from the surface up to 2,000 ft above ground level. The normal lower limit for fixed-wing aircraft is 250 ft, even though aircrew are required to fly much lower in operational theatres. The training value of that combat skill degrades rapidly as height increases, and is considered of little value above 500 ft.
A small amount of fixed-wing low flying, down to 100 ft, is permitted in three specially designated tactical training areas in the Borders, which, as the right hon. Gentleman said, is partly in his constituency, northern Scotland and central Wales. The amount of that lower level activity, operational low flying, is limited to that absolutely necessary, and is spread across the three special areas proportionate to their size. It amounts to no more than 1 per cent. of the 110,000 low-flying sorties flown annually.
We realise, of course, that military low-flying training can be intrusive, and we implement various measures to minimise it as far as practicable. The amount is limited to that strictly necessary for aircrew to achieve and maintain operational effectiveness. Most low flying takes place during the daylight hours of weekdays. Public holidays are avoided, as are weekends, as far as possible, although some activity may be permitted then, mainly in support of reserve forces who are unavailable for training during

845
the week. Night low flying is required to be completed as soon as possible in the evenings, and it is rare for jet aircraft to be permitted to operate after 11 pm.
My Department announced in 1991 a target to reduce the amount of jet low-flying sorties across the UK by 30 per cent. by the end of 1994 against the 1988 baseline. That target was achieved by the end of 1993, ahead of time. It is our intention that the reduced figure will be maintained.
I also wish to reassure the right hon. Member that each request for foreign aircraft to use the UK low-flying system is considered on its merits, taking into account the principle of reciprocity, the mutual benefit of such flying to the UK and our allies, and the wider defence interest. The right hon. Member will know that, wherever possible, we try to inform him, and other hon. Members whose constituencies might be affected, in advance when large-scale exercises are planned, and about unusual activity such as the very low-level operational low flying.
Mr. Beith: Can the Minister say whether some low flying by foreign aircraft is done in return for equipment supplies, use of other range facilities or for other reasons than reciprocity?
Mr. Spellar: As far as I am aware, reciprocity is one of the key elements, but I will note the right hon. Gentleman's comments and look into the situation.
We are unable to inform hon. Members when it comes to the routine day-by-day flying training, since the sorties are generally arranged at short notice to take account of variable factors such as the prevailing weather at the time.
We are frequently asked to avoid overflying certain locations such as schools during examination periods, environmentally sensitive areas, wildlife, bird colonies during nesting time, horse riders, and much of the country during the lambing season. While we are sympathetic to the requests—the right hon. Member mentioned some of them—it would be invidious to accede to some and not others. Granting all the requests would exclude aircraft from large areas of the country for most of the year, making it impossible for us to meet our essential training requirements.
As the right hon. Member will know, there are no uninhabited areas of the UK large enough to meet our essential low-flying training needs, which is not surprising when an average fast jet sortie may cover some 500 to 600 miles. As I said, in principle, the whole of the UK is open to low flying, but certain areas, such as restricted air space around civil aerodromes, glider sites, major industrial hazards, and major conurbations of 10,000 or more inhabitants, must be avoided. With those exceptions, however, it is our aim to spread low-flying training across the whole of the country, thereby spreading the disturbance caused as broadly as possible.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned reviewing areas excluded from low flying. He can be assured that we carry out a continual review of the UK low-flying system to ensure that it remains properly reflective of current environmental and flight safety considerations.
I shall deal specifically with the position in Northumberland. As the right hon. Gentleman said, most of Northumberland is in LFA 12, with some of the area in the adjoining LFAs 13 and 16. In March this year, my Department published an analysis of the distribution of
846
military low flying activity in the United Kingdom, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. It did so because the volume and location of low flying had increasingly become the subject of uninformed comment based on inaccurate and misleading information, especially in the media.
In response to the right hon. Gentleman's questions about the abatements used when calculating the figures in the paper, I can say that it is true that, without them, the figure for Northumberland's share would have been higher, but I must stress that that would also have been the case for other low-flying areas across the country.
The figures given represent the amount of activity, including operational low flying, over the land areas that give rise to disturbance on the ground. They provide a clear picture of the intensity of low-flying activity across the country as a whole. We found that the areas that generated the largest numbers of complaints did not necessarily see the most activity.
The analysis showed that, in 1995 and 1996, the right hon. Gentleman's constituents experienced more low flying than the overall average for the country as a percentage, although there was a reduction in the gross numbers. I am afraid that, for a number of valid reasons, it is inevitable that LFA 12 will see a concentration of low flying. Its undulating terrain offers valuable training, and there are a number of training facilities within and close to Northumberland, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.
The Otterburn training area provides vital training for our ground forces. Those forces will often be moved into the training area, or supported while they are there, by low-flying support helicopters, air transport aircraft and jet aircraft providing close air support. There is also an air-to-ground bombing range, which is used by ground attack fast jets.
The RAF Spadeadam electronic warfare tactics range and the associated bombing range at Wiley Sike provide excellent training for our aircrew in defence and counter-measure tactics under simulated combat conditions. They are the only such ranges in the United Kingdom and they have proved invaluable in preparing our aircrew for operational deployments. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's kind comments about them.
Two low-level operational training areas overlie Northumberland. They are used to facilitate the training of air defence aircraft, which conduct combat air patrols in those areas above 2,000 ft, before descending to low level to conduct affiliation training with ground attack aircraft.
There are also a number of geographical reasons why LFA 12 sees more than average low flying training. Aircraft from the many air bases situated on the eastern side of the country, and from our bases in Germany, fly through LFA 12 on sorties to and from the Spadeadam range or low flying areas in Scotland. That is necessary because of the built-up areas and controlled air space in the midlands, Yorkshire and the north-east, over which they are not able to fly. They must also avoid conflicting with other military activity at RAF bases at Leeming, Linton and Topcliffe.
The increase in movements into LFA 12 since 1992 is also due, in part, to a change in the boundary between LFA 12 and the neighbouring LFA 17, which covers Cumbria and parts of Yorkshire and Lancashire. As a

847
result, a narrow band of air space north of the gap, between the controlled airspace around Teesside airport and the RAF Leeming military air traffic zone, known as the Leeming/Teesside gap, became part of LFA 12. In the past, aircraft flying through that gap had to fly through LFA 17; now, they must fly through LFA 12.
I hope that I have made it clear that there are compelling reasons why Northumberland will see more low flying than the United Kingdom average. However, there is a reduction in the overall number of flights.
Mr. Beith: The number of flights may not be much higher than the average, but it represents 301 per cent., which is way above any other figure. Given the specific reasons why some low flying is bound to take place in the area, does the Minister realise that, to give effect to the Secretary of State's intention to achieve a fairer balance, he will have to find ways of reducing the low flying over Northumberland that could take place elsewhere?
Mr. Speller: The right hon. Gentleman should not have been so precipitate, because I was coming to that.
We are sympathetic to the problems suffered by those in the area: we recognise the burden that they carry. We are not complacent, and we will examine carefully the distribution of activity each year. We do not assume that we can carry out flying training without regard to the intrusion that such activity causes to those on the ground. We will do all that we can to ensure that there is no more flying training than is absolutely necessary.
848
We said in the published paper that we will try to do better. We have now improved the way in which we routinely record statistics on the daily use of the low flying system so as to manage better the overall distribution of activity. We will say each year how well we are doing in achieving those aims. We will, of course, continue to look for overseas locations in which to train: the right hon. Gentleman mentioned Goose bay. We already make use of the facilities for low flying training in Canada and North America.
One of the results of the work undertaken was last summer's decision to reduce the amount of operational low flying in the Borders area. I am glad to say that we are already achieving that by doing more of that training in the Highlands area, which in the past saw less than its fair share of such activity, in spite of being relatively less densely populated. We will continue to control this activity carefully. I look forward to making available next year the information about the distribution of activity for 1997, and we will continue to provide it annually.
For the reasons I have given, it is simply not possible to promise the right hon. Gentleman that we will be able to distribute all low flying training on a fully equitable basis. Nor can I promise that things will change dramatically and noticeably in the short term. What I can say is that we hope to see a gradual and more even spread of activity. We shall take into account the considerable contribution made by Northumberland.
Low flying is an essential skill for our aircrews. It can be perfected only through rigorous training and continuous practice in a realistic environment. It is vital that our aircrews continue to do that.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minuses to Nine o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Committee on Standards in Public Life
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to receive the Third Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life; and if he will make a statement. [7541]

  The Prime Minister
  The Third Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, under the Chairmanship of Lord Nolan, is being published today as Command Paper 3702. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Vote Office and the Library of the House.

  We are committed to ensuring the highest standards in public life in this country. I am grateful to Lord Nolan and his colleagues for the significant contribution that they continue to make towards improving the standards of conduct throughout the public sector. Their Third Report covers local government in England, Scotland and Wales.

  The Committee received wide-ranging written submissions and heard extensive oral evidence in open proceedings. It has concluded that there are:
  "an enormous number of dedicated and hard working people"
  in local government. It has, however, identified that there is a lack of clarity about rules or expectation of proper behaviour, which it believes is because the responsibility for the maintenance of standards has moved away from local government.

  The Committee is, therefore, proposing that in the new climate of improved relations between central and local government, a new start should now be made on building an ethical framework for local government. This would take the best of what already exists, but place responsibility with local government itself. In this context the Committee has unanimously made some forty detailed recommendations. These, if implemented, would result in a radical restructuring of the ethical framework in which local authorities—their members and officers—operate.

  I welcome the Committee's careful examination and analysis of conduct—both of councillors and of officers—in local authorities. Their confirmation of the strengths of local government in Great Britain is reassuring, and demonstrates that there is a firm foundation on which we can build. We entirely accept the Committee's conclusion that now is the time to make a new start on the ethical framework for local government.

  Accordingly, we shall now be consulting widely on the Committee's specific recommendations, including with the Local Government Association, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Welsh Local Government Association, the Audit Commission of England and Wales, and the Scottish Accounts Commission. In parallel with this consultation the Nolan Committee will be consulting on a proposal for a new statutory offence of
  390
  misuse of public office, which would apply across the public sector, including local government. Copies of the Committee's consultation paper are available with the Report.

  Our intention is to work in partnership with local government to establish a framework for local authorities guaranteeing the highest standards of conduct. Such a framework will be central to achieving our manifesto aim of more independent but accountable local government.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Electoral System (European Parliament)
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to work towards a uniform electoral system for the 1999 elections to the European Parliament. [5735]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Government remain committed to the introduction of a proportional voting system for elections to the European Parliament but no decision has yet been taken on the timing of a change.

  Police Widows Pension Regulations
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the police widows pension regulations. [5777]

  Mr. Michael
  We will be giving early consideration to taking forward the recent review by the Home Department and the Treasury of the police pension scheme in general, including the question of a consultation exercise, but we have no present plans to extend the scope of the police widows pension.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers in the Metropolitan Police are currently awaiting a placement with a police station and assigned no other specific duties; and what is the estimated cost of these police officers in salary or costs. [6450]

  Mr. Michael
  The Commissioner informs me that there are no officers within the Metropolitan Police District currently awaiting a placement with a police station and assigned no other specific duties.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimates the Metropolitan Police Commissioner has made of the cost of providing the necessary retraining arising from his Career Management policy. [6451]

  Mr. Michael
  The Commissioner informs me that there will be no increase in the Metropolitan Police's training budget as a result of the introduction of the new tenure policy. Any additional demands for training will not be significant and will be met from within existing budgets.

  Policing (British Field Sports Rally)
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the cost of policing the British Field Sports Rally in Hyde Park on 10 July. [7125]
  391
  Mr. Michael
  The Commissioner informs me that the estimated staffing cost to the Metropolitan Police for policing the British Sports Rally in Hyde Park on 10 July is £119,374, on the basis of a complete eight hour tour of duty for all staff. The figure covers the cost of the normal duties the officers would have otherwise undertaken. No figure is available for the costs of support services, such as catering and transport. The extent to which officers are deployed to police a public order event is an operational decision for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

  Old Documents
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the date and title of the oldest document or archival unit retained by his Department which has not been passed on to the Public Record Office for release for public inspection. [7203]

  Mr. Straw
  The oldest documents retained in the Home Office under section 3(4) of the Public Records Act 1958 date from 1876. They are concerned with matters relating to national security. It had earlier been decided that it would not be in the public interest to disclose their nature. Now that the matter has been drawn to my attention by the hon. Member's question, I have asked that this decision be reviewed, given the antiquity of the files in question.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his Department's timetable for dealing with the Year 2000 Computer Problem; who is in charge of the project; how many staff are working on it; what is the projected cost of resolving the problem; and whether the project is on schedule. [7142]

  Mr. Straw
  The Year 2000 computer problem will impact directly on the business of the Department. For this reason, the Director of each business area in the Home Office has appointed a Year 2000 manager who is responsible for ensuring that computer systems within their area are Year 2000-compliant. Initial inventory and audits were completed by December 1996 and costed plans for resolving the problem are to be produced by each business area by October 1997. The aim is for all system changes to have been implemented and tested by December 1998, and for the cost of preventive and remedial action to be met from within existing provision. At present, the project is on schedule to meet these dates.

  The Corporate Resources Director is chairing a Year 2000 Steering Committee, the terms of reference for which include the monitoring of action taken across the Department to ensure that the timetable is met and the sharing of information to ensure that business areas benefit from experience elsewhere and that they co-operate where appropriate. My Department is represented on the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency's (CCTA) Year 2000 Public Sector Group and is using the guidance issued by CCTA "Tackling the Year 2000".

WALES

  Surgery
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what monitoring takes place of the quality of surgery carried out in general practitioners" surgeries in Wales; how this compares with the monitoring of similar surgical work in hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [5321]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Since 1 April 1996, GPs providing secondary care services in a primary care setting are required to obtain Health Authority approval to ensure the safe and effective provision of such services. Health Authorities must also satisfy themselves of a GPs competence to undertake and continue to undertake minor surgical procedures, as part of their normal general medical services commitments. Authorities must ensure the strict criteria for admission to their minor surgery list is met prior to agreeing to pay for these services, as with any other provider for whom it has a contract to purchase services.

  NHS Internal Market
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will set out the steps which are being taken by his Department to end in Wales the internal market of the national health service. [5874]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  I have deferred approval of the eighth wave of GP fundholding until July 1998 to allow breathing space to develop alternative commissioning models. I recently announced that I would be inviting proposals to pilot new arrangements for locality commissioning, supported by some of the savings generated by the postponement.

  Officials have notified health authorities and GP fundholders that revised budgetary arrangements will be developed to remove some of the disadvantages experienced by patients of non-fundholding practices. Detailed guidance will issue shortly.

  I have also asked the Welsh Association of Fundholding Practices (WAFP) and the General Medical Services Council (GMSC) for Wales to work with me to determine the direction of health care in the principality, building on current best practice.

  On 25 June the Government announced a White Paper on the National Health Service's internal market. It will be the subject of extensive consultation throughout Wales in the autumn.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will ensure that, in reviews of the common agricultural policy(a) the future of hill livestock compensatory allowances is safeguarded and (b) such allowances are at adequate levels to sustain the agricultural activity of the less favoured areas. [6388]
  393
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The Government will take account of the interests of sheep and suckler cow producers in less favoured areas during its negotiations on common agricultural policy reform in the EU Council of Agriculture Ministers: and in setting the annual rates of hill livestock compensatory allowances.

  Beef
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average market price of beef in Wales in the months of April and May; what were the corresponding figures for April and May in(a) 1995 and (b) 1996; and if he will make a statement on the impact of these facts on Government policy in relation to the beef sector in Wales. [6389]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The average market prices were as follows (in pence per kg liveweight for steers, heifers and young bulls):

  April

  May

  1995

  121.03

  119.44

  1996

  103.80

  102.43

  1997

  95.01

  89.75

  The Government will take account of all relevant facts in developing its policy towards the beef industry, and will negotiate positively with the European Commission and other member states in order to secure removal of the export ban.

  Velindre Hospital
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his statement to the Welsh Grand Committee of 30 June,Official Report, column 25, in relation to the replacement of radiotherapy machines at Velindre hospital, if he will list (a) the date on which the business case for replacement was sent to his Department by the Trust, (b) the date on which the PFI proposal is to be advertised in the Official Journal of the European Communities, (c) the approximate capital cost of the scheme, (d) the indicated length of contract for the PFI proposal and (e) the date on which he expects work to commence. [7211]

  Mr. Win Griffiths

  (a) 21 April 1996

  (b) 12 October 1996

  (c) £4 million

  (d) Not less than 10 years

  (e) Date unknown as yet. A business case IN being prepared for submission to the Welsh Office in the Autumn.

  Old Documents
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the date and title of the oldest document or archival unit retained by his Department which has not been passed on to the Public Record Office for release for public inspection. [7198]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Safeguarding of Airfield Site plan 1945.

  Educational Standards
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for raising educational standards in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [7644]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I have today laid before the House a White Paper, the first in modern times to focus exclusively on education in Wales. Called "Building Excellent Schools Together", it sets out our vision of improving standards through co-operation to create an education system designed to benefit the many, not the few.

  Central to the White Paper are our key principles. We have promised to make education and training the cardinal priority of government in Wales. We shall work with teachers, recognising their efforts and encouraging them to succeed in lifting achievement and attainment across the board. We shall focus on standards, rather than a damaging concentration on structures'and we will not tolerate underperformance. We shall also ensure that government policy is applied in a way that reflects the distinctive needs and circumstances of Wales.

  Raising standards of literacy and numeracy will be at the heart of our programme of reform. Following my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement to the House on 2 July, substantial extra funding will be allocated to education in Wales and we shall use this where we can achieve the best results. We shall also provide leadership and support to all those who have a contribution to make in the drive to raise standards overall. This will draw in the help of everyone with a stake in excellent education for all pupils at school in Wales; teachers, parents, governors, education authorities and business people alike.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Old Documents
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is the date and title of the oldest document or archival unit retained by her Department which has not been passed on to the Public Record Office for release for public inspection. [7205]

  Clare Short
  The oldest archival unit held in DFID, which will be eligible for eventual release to the Public Record Office, dates from June 1961, and is titled "Security Arrangements". The papers have been retained because of their Security significance.

  WaterAid
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will visit the offices of WaterAid to discuss the funding and activities of the charity: and if she will make a statement. [6771]

  Clare Short
  We welcome an active dialogue with WaterAid. We are currently co-funding 12 WaterAid projects with a total cost of £950,000 this financial year. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development met WaterAid's Director on 3 July. My officials are in regular contact. I have made it clear that access to safe water and sanitation is a priority
  395
  in combating poverty. I certainly intend to meet WaterAid, and the other NGOs active in developing countries as soon as possible.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's timetable for dealing with the Year 2000 Computer Problem; who is in charge of the project; how many staff are working on it; what is the projected cost of resolving the problem; and whether the project is on schedule. [7138]

  Clare Short
  We expect to have resolved problems relating to the year 2000 on information systems critical to the business of the Department by the end of 1998. We are working in parallel on smaller systems established by various sections within the DFID, and expect to resolve them by mid-1999. The identifiable cost of dealing with Year 2000 issues is around £200,000 although this figure is an underestimate of the total since other Year 2000 costs have been subsumed within the costs of rewriting critical systems for a new operating environment. The official in overall charge of dealing with the Year 2000 is the head of the Information Systems Department. The number of staff working on the project is around five, supplemented by resources brought in from consultants.

  Aid and Trade
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what was the total value of exports receiving aid and trade provision assistance over the past three years by country. [6883]

  Clare Short
  The following table lists by country the ATP projects with their total export value agreed during the last three years:

  Export value for Financial Year's 1994–95 to 1997–98

  Country

  £ million

  Chile

  2.37

  China

  104.57

  Ghana

  23.80

  Indonesia

  125.75

  Lesotho

  6.55

  Pakistan

  7.23

  Philippines

  41.48

  Sri Lanka

  0.09

  Thailand

  15.02

  Zimbabwe

  3.96

  Total

  330.82

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery Grants
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many national lottery grants have been awarded to organisations and groups in Blackpool, South; and what are the values of those grants. [6577]
  396
  Mr. Banks
  To date 13 grants totalling £1,681,676 have been made to organisations and groups in Blackpool, South. The details are as follows:

  Distributing body

  Award date

  Recipient

  Award amount (£)

  Arts Council of England

  21 February 1996

  North Fylde Music Cycle

  41,108

  Arts Council of England

  19 March 1997

  Blackpool Town Centre Forum Ltd.

  5,000

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  18 September 1996

  Furness Railway Trust

  97,500

  National Lottery Charities Board

  17 December 1996

  The Blackpool Fylde and Wyre Society for the Blind

  175,515

  National Lottery Charities Board

  23 October 1995

  Blackpool Wyre Fylde Community Voluntary Services

  110,000

  National Lottery Charities Board

  17 December 1996

  Disability Information Services, Blackpool, Wyre and Flyde

  97,300

  Notional Lottery Charities Board

  11 August 1996

  Home Start Grange Park

  69,140

  National Lottery Charities Board

  17 December 1996

  Age Concern Blackpool and District

  50,980

  National Lottery Charities Board

  11 August 1996

  Blackpool Single Homeless Project

  28,767

  National Lottery Charities Board

  19 December 1995

  Kensington House Trust

  6,000

  Sports Council

  5 June 1997

  Blackpool Borough Council

  884,200

  Sports Council

  10 October 1996

  Blackpool Borough Council

  68,000

  Sports Council

  19 June 1996

  Blackpool and Fylde No. 4 Sub Aqua Club

  48,166

  Total 13 awards

  1,681,676

  Mr. Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to discuss with the national arts councils ways in which greater regional input can be obtained in respect of their grant-making procedures, with particular reference to the Government's proposals for regional development agencies. [6574]

  Mr. Fisher
  The Government is committed to encouraging more decision making at local level. It is consulting on the potential role and functions of the regional development agencies and how they can work with other regional development agencies and how they can work with other regional and national bodies. Furthermore, we will be publishing a White Paper on Lottery distribution later this month which will set out the Government's thinking about ways to achieve a more strategic and co-ordinated system of Lottery distribution.

  Ryder Cup (Television)
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will ensure that highlights of the Ryder Cup will be available on terrestrial television. [6875]

  Mr. Fisher
  The Ryder Cup is not one of the events listed under Part 4 of the Broadcasting Act 1996. The arrangements for broadcasting the event are a matter for the rights holders and the broadcasters to determine. However, I understand that the owners of the rights to the European tournament are committed to the voluntary agreement on "unbundling" the various broadcast rights. The review of listed events will need to assess the
  397
  effectiveness of the present arrangements for "unbundling" as a substitute form of access to some events.

  Concessionary Television Licences
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what plans he has to review the entitlement to reduced television licence fees for retirement pensions; [6635]

  (2) what representations he has received concerning the position of retirement pensioners in sheltered housing paying a reduced television licence fee whose resident warden is replaced by a community alarm system. [6638]

  Mr. Fisher
  The Government will be reviewing the arrangements for funding the BBC from 2002 before that date and this review will include consideration of the concessionary arrangements. We have received approximately 160 letters on various aspects of the concessionary television licence scheme.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what reduction in television licence fees a registered blind person is entitled to; for how long this entitlement has been in operation at its current level; and if he will make a statement. [6611]

  Mr. Fisher
  [holding answer 7 July 1997]: The reduction in the television licence fee for registered blind people is £1.25. The reduction has remained at its present level since 1965. The Government will be reviewing the arrangements for funding the BBC from 2002 before that date and this review will include consideration of the concessionary arrangements.

  Sport Commentaries
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will place particular priority on local radio for live commentary in his review of the protected list of sports events; and if he will make a statement. [6869]

  Mr. Fisher
  The arrangements for listing under the Broadcasting Act 1996 refer only to live television broadcasts of major events. However, the review of listed events will need to assess the effectiveness of the voluntary arrangements for unbundling the various types of broadcasting rights as a substitute form of access to some events. In doing so, we may also consider whether more needs to be done to secure live radio commentary on major events.

  Office of the National Lottery
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) how many copies of the OFLOT annual report 1996–97 OFLOT purchased from The Stationery Office; and what was the cost incurred; [6776]

  (2) how many copies of the OFLOT annual report 1996–97 OFLOT distributed free of charge; and what was the cost incurred: [6777]

  (3) what percentage of OFLOT's annual budget has been devoted to the purchase and distribution of the annual report in each year since its establishment. [6779]
  398
  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 4 July 1997]: This is a matter for OFLOT. I have asked the Director-General, to write to the hon. Member, and copies of his response will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what guidance he gave to OFLOT regarding the production of the annual report. [6778]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 4 July 1997]: The Director-General of the National Lottery is required by section 14 of the National Lottery ect. Act 1993 to provide an annual report about the exercise of his functions during the year.

  The report is presented to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who lays it before Parliament. The content of the annual report is a matter for the Director-General.

TREASURY

  Advance Corporation Tax
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he spoke to journalists from the Financial Times concerning his budget proposals for ACT prior to the Budget statement. [7194]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  No.

  Budget (Leaks)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions in the last 14 years accurate disclosures of budget information appeared in the Press prior to the Budget; which media outlets they appeared in; and if he will make a statement. [7263]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  More than once. Speculation, of varying degrees of accuracy, is a traditional feature of the Budget process.

  The specific information sought could be assembled only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the(a) Crown servants and (b) other advisers to Ministers who (i) gave interviews to, (ii) made statements to and (iii) answered questions from journalists or representatives of the Financial Times in the period of 48 hours before the Budget Statement. [7266]

  Mr. Brown
  No pre-Budget briefings were given to the press on Budget measures. Details of the Budget were not given to journalists in advance.

  Sir Patrick Cormack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who in his Department was responsible for giving pre-Budget briefings to the press; how recently such briefings were given to the Financial Times; what specific subjects they covered; and if details of the Budget statement were given to any journalists before he presented them to the House. [7077]

  Mr. Brown
  [holding answer 7 July 1997]: No pre-Budget briefings were given to the press on Budget measures. Details of the Budget statement were not given to journalists in advance. However, I and my Ministerial

  399
  colleagues made clear that we would use the Budget to meet the promises before taking office. We delivered on those promises.

  Windfall Tax
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the port of Tilbury will be subject to the windfall tax. [7067]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  [holding answer 7 July 1997]: No. Details of those companies falling within the scope of the windfall tax were set out in the Inland Revenue press notice on the windfall tax issued after the Chancellor's Budget statement on 2 July.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will investigate the disclosure of information relating to the windfall tax contained in the Budget to managers of the privatised industries prior to the Budget statement. [7092]

  Mr. Robinson
  [holding answer 7 July 1997]: No. I see no reason for such an investigation as there was no such disclosure. In designing the windfall tax the Government deliberately sought representations from organisations on the technical aspects of the tax: over 50 responded. This process, and the extensive consultations with the regulators, helped the overall design of the tax. All this is public knowledge.

  Job Creation
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to Treasury press release 60/97 of 4 June 1997, which European institutions will have direct responsibilities for creating jobs for all those living in Europe. [3358]

  Mrs. Liddell
  It is for the Governments of the member states to have the policies in place which create the economic conditions which enable employment to flourish, rather than for European institutions to create jobs. But the European institutions do have important roles to play in extending and policing the internal market in the EU and in facilitating dialogue between the member States on how to tackle unemployment.

  Channel 4
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Chancellor of Exchequer if he will estimate the revenue which would be raised by the privatisation of Channel 4. [3324]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  The proceeds from any hypothetical privatisation depend on the method of sale.

  Euro
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what study his Department has undertaken of the likely effect on prices of the rounding up of the sterling-euro fractional differential if the United Kingdom adopts the euro. [6097]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My department has not undertaken any studies of the possible effects on prices, if any, of rounding the results of converting between sterling and the euro if the United Kingdom were to adopt the single currency.
  400
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much Nordic gold would be required if the United Kingdom were to join the euro: what the total requirement for the euro zone would be; and what the current stocks are. [6852]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The proposed Council Regulation (EC) on denominations and specifications of euro coins intended for circulation in countries which adopt the single currency has not been formally adopted. It proposes that three of the eight denominations of euro coins should be made of an alloy called Nordic gold. It is estimated that if this proposal were adopted, and if the United Kingdom were to participate in the single currency, approximately 20,000 tonnes of Nordic gold would be required to manufacture the necessary coins for circulation in the United Kingdom. The total required within the European Community if the proposal were to be adopted would depend on which countries participate in the single currency. Materials for coin production would be produced to order as required in such circumstances.

  Household Income
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of gross earned income for a married couple with average household income was taken by(a) income tax, (b) national insurance, (c) VAT and (d) excise duties, during the year 1996–97. [3349]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested can be obtained from Table 13.7b of the Tax Benefit Reference Manual 1997–98 Edition, a copy of which has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  EU Funds (Bank Deposits)
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what European Union funds have been deposited in banks that have subsequently collapsed; and what sums have been lost. [6770]

  Mrs. Liddell
  None in the United Kingdom or, so far as we are aware, elsewhere, but only the European Commission would be able to provide a definitive answer.

  Unemployment
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many people aged under 25 years in(a) Newham, (b) Tower Hamlets, (c) Hackney, (d) Redbridge, (e) Waltham Forest, (f) Barking and Dagenham and (g) the United Kingdom have been unemployed for more than six months; and, in each case, what percentage this figure is of all economically active people aged under 25 years; [6811]

  (2) how many people aged over 25 years in (a) Newham, (b) Tower Hamlets, (c) Hackney, (d) Redbridge, (e) Waltham Forest, (f) Barking and Degenham and (g) the United Kingdom have been unemployed for more than two years; and in each case, what percentage this figure is of all economically active people aged over 25 years. [6812]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 7 July 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to given.
  401
  Letter from Tim Holt to Ms Oona King, dated 8 July 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked use to reply as Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent questions on the duration of unemployment of under and over 25 year olds.
  The measure of unemployment, derived from the quarterly Labour Force Survey (LFS), is defined on a consistent and internationally recognised basis set out by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and counts as unemployed people who are: a) without a paid job; b) available to start work within the next two weeks and c) have either looked for work in the last four weeks or are waiting to start a job already obtained. However, largely because it is a sample survey, information is not available from the LFS in as much geographical detail as from the claimant count measure described below.
  ONS also publishes the monthly claimant count, which is based on the administrative system and includes all people claiming unemployment-related benefits (i.e. Jobseekers Allowance. Income Support or National Insurance credits) at Employment Service offices on the day of the monthly count, who on that day had signed on as unemployed and available to do any suitable work. Essentially, all people who attend an Employment Service office to sign are counted, irrespective of whether they are actually receiving benefit.
  The data you have requested for London local authority districts can only be derived from the claimant count, as the Labour Force Survey does not provide sufficient detail at this level. As the concept of "economically active" is an ILO one, it is not compatible with claimant count data, and therefore percentages are not given for claimant figures.
  The latest available data. April 1997, for under 25 year olds and over 25 year olds claiming unemployment-related benefits for over 6 months and 2 years respectively are shown in the attached table.
  The winter 1996/7 LFS shows there were 262,000 (5.7 per cent of economically active in the same age group) people aged 16–24 and 467,000 (1.9 per cent. of economically active in the same age group) people aged 25 and over who have been ILO unemployed for 6 months or more and 2 years or more respectively.

  Claimant count, April 1997

  Under 25 year old claimants

  Over 25 year old claimants

  Newham

  1,844

  2,839

  Tower Hamlets

  1,490

  2,540

  Hackney

  2,046

  4,516

  Redbridge

  728

  1,523

  Waltham Forest

  1,195

  2,363

  Barking and Dagenham

  615

  1,085

  United Kingdom

  179,569

  326,670

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) males and (b) females in the constituency of Stoke-on-Trent. North have been unemployed for (i) under six months, (ii) over six months. (iii) over 12 months and (iv) over 18 months. [6864]

  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 Ms. Joan Walley, dated 8 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 (6864) on the duration of unemployment of males and females in the Stoke-on-Trent North parliamentary constituency.
  402
  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 figures in the table below are for April 1997, the latest date for which figures are available.

  Stoke on Trent, North: Persons claiming unemployment-related benefits

  Males

  Females

  Claiming for under 6 months

  770

  226

  Claiming for over 6 months

  710

  174

  of which claiming for over 12 months

  452

  94

  of which claiming for over 18 months

  300

  59

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people aged 18 to 24 years have come off unemployment benefit in each of the last live years in the constituency of Stoke on Trent, North and into what activity they moved. [6865]

  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 Ms Joan Walley, dated 8 July 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on how many people aged 18 to 24 years left the claimant count in each of the last five years in the parliamentary constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North, and the reasons why they left.
  The information requested is not available for the exact areas of parliamentary constituencies. The estimates provided refer to claimants who are registered at the two Employment Service jobcentres situated within the Stoke-on-Trent North parliamentary constituency area.
  Total numbers leaving the claimant count from 1992 to 1996 are shown in Tables 1 to 3, but information on the destination of leavers from the claimant count is not available for 1992 to 1994.
  For 1995 and 1996, numbers of leavers from the claimant count are shown in Tables 2 and 3 according to the claim end reason categories identified in those years. The percentages shown in these tables are expressed in terms of leavers with a known destination.

  Table 1: Total number of leavers from the claimant count, aged 18–24 years, Burslem and Kidsgrove employment service Jobcentres, 1992 to 1994

  Total leavers

  1992

  2,298

  1993

  2,330

  1994

  2,172

  Source:

  NOMIS.

  Table 2: Reason for claim termination for claimants aged 18–24 years, Burslem and Kidsgrove employment service jobcentres, 1995

  Reason for leaving

  Leavers

  As a percentage of those with a known destination

  Ceased claiming

  45

  3.0

  Found work

  1,157

  76.4

  Gone abroad

  17

  1.1

  403

  Table 2: Reason for claim termination for claimants aged 18–24 years, Burslem and Kidsgrove employment service jobcentres, 1995

  Reason for leaving

  Leavers

  As a percentage of those with a known destination

  Claimed another benefit

  32

  2.1

  Full-time education

  43

  2.8

  Approved training

  1—

  0.1

  Claimed sickness benefit

  127

  8.4

  Transferred to government-supported training

  92

  6.1

  Total known destination2

  1,510

  100.0

  Not known

  1—

  —

  Failed to attend

  470

  —

  Total leavers

  1,990

  Source:

  JUVOS Leaving Marker File.

  1 Less than 5 claimants.

  2Totals are rounded.

  Table 3: Reason for claim termination for claimants aged 18–24 years, Burslem and Kidsgrove employment service jobcentres, 1996

  Reason for leaving

  Leavers

  As a percentage of those with a known destination

  Ceased claiming

  52

  4.0

  Found work

  1,010

  77.3

  Gone abroad

  27

  2.1

  Claimed another benefit

  28

  2.1

  Full-time education

  26

  2.0

  Claimant deceased

  1—

  0.1

  Claimed sickness benefit

  95

  7.3

  Transferred to government-supported training

  60

  4.6

  Working on average 16+ hours

  1—

  0.2

  Claimed Incapacity Support

  1—

  0.1

  Defective claim

  1—

  0.2

  Total known destination2

  1,310

  100.0

  Not known

  16

  —

  Failed to attend

  471

  —

  Total leavers

  1,790

  Source:

  JUVOS Leaving Marker File.

  1 Less than 5 claimants.

  2 Totals are rounded.

  Low Pay
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of people in(a) Newham, (b) Tower Hamlets, (c) Hackney, (d) Redbridge, (e) Waltham Forest, (f) Barking and Dagenham and (g) the United Kingdom who earn less than (i) £2.50, (ii) £3, (iii) £3.50 and (d) £4 per hour: and what this figure is as a proportion of all employees. [6814]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 7 July 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the
  404
  Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Stephen Holt, dated 8 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 earnings.
  The latest information, from the New Earnings Survey (NES) April 1996, is given in the attached tables. Data are provided for the Great Britain as information for the United Kingdom is not available.
  It is ONS practice for NES answers to be given as proportions earning below specified thresholds, rather than numbers, because of problems with obtaining appropriate grossing factors for the NES sample at a very detailed level of disaggregation (e.g. by industry and electoral ward).

  Employees on adult rates whose pay for the survey pay-period was not affected by absence, NES April 1996

  Percentage of employees with hourly earnings (excluding overtime) less than:

  £2.50

  £3.00

  £3.50

  £4.00

  Newham

  Full-time

  0.3

  1.0

  2.1

  3.4

  Part-time

  2.2

  2.2

  8.9

  15.6

  All

  0.6

  1.2

  3.0

  5.1

  Tower Hamlets

  Full-time

  0.0

  0.1

  0.6

  2.7

  Part-time

  1.4

  1.4

  4.1

  9.5

  All

  0.1

  0.3

  0.9

  3.3

  Hackney

  Full-time

  0.0

  0.0

  1.4

  3.3

  Part-time

  3.9

  6.6

  15.8

  17.1

  All

  0.7

  1.1

  3.9

  5.7

  Redbridge

  Full-time

  0.4

  1.1

  3.8

  6.1

  Part-time

  10.3

  11.5

  18.4

  29.9

  All

  2.9

  3.7

  7.4

  12.0

  Waltham Forest

  Full-time

  0.5

  1.9

  2.9

  5.8

  Part-time

  5.6

  9.9

  22.5

  28.2

  All

  1.8

  4.0

  7.9

  11.6

  Barking and Dagenham

  Full-time

  0.4

  0.4

  0.8

  1.6

  Part-time

  4.3

  4.3

  15.2

  26.1

  All

  1.0

  1.0

  3.0

  5.3

  Great Britain

  Full-time

  0.7

  1.6

  4.1

  8.4

  Part-time

  4.4

  7.5

  20.6

  36.9

  All

  1.5

  2.8

  7.6

  14.4

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in the constituency of Stoke-on-Trent, North earn(a) less than £4 per hour, (b) £3.50 per hour and (c) £3 per hour.
  [6866]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him lo arrange for a reply to be given.
  405
  Letter from Tim Holt to Ms Joan Walley, dated 8 July 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on earnings in Stoke-on-Trent parliamentary constituency.
  The latest available information, from the New Earnings Survey (NES) April 1996, is given in the table below for the parliamentary constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North.

  Employees on adult rates whose pay for the survey pay-period was not affected by absence, NES April 1996

  Percentage of employees with hourly earnings (excluding overtime) less than:

  £3.00

  £3.50

  £4.00

  Stoke on Trent North

  Full-time

  0.5

  1.5

  11.1

  Part-time

  9.5

  28.6

  52.4

  All

  1.4

  4.1

  15.0

  Employment
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of households(a) in Stoke-on-Trent, North, (b) by region and (c) nationally have no-one in full-time employment. [6868]

  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 lo be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Ms Joan Walley, dated 8 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 (6868) on what percentage of households have no one in full-time employment.
  Estimates available from the Labour Force Survey for non-pensioner households are shown in the attached table using the new Government Office Region (GOR) geography. This information is not available below county level.
  It is widely accepted that analyses of households with no one in employment or, in this case, no one in full-time employment, should exclude pensioner households. This area of analysis is relatively new for the LFS and the definition of non-pensioner or working age households is not yet firmly established. The table provided is based on the same definition of non-pensioner household as previous responses to parliamentary questions to this topic. The ONS has been assessing the various alternative definitions and expects to publish its recommendations in the September issue of Labour Market Trends.

  Non-pensioner households with no one in full-time employment, not seasonally adjusted, winter 1996–97

  Region

  Per cent.

  United Kingdom

  24.8

  Great Britain

  24.8

  England

  24.3

  North-east

  31.2

  North-west and Merseyside

  27.8

  North-west

  26.5

  Merseyside

  33.3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  26.2

  East Midlands

  21.7

  West Midlands

  23.9

  Eastern

  20.3

  London

  29.2

  South-east

  18.0

  South-west

  22.3

  406

  Non-pensioner households with no one in full-time employment, not seasonally adjusted, winter 1996–97

  Region

  Per cent.

  Wales

  29.1

  Scotland

  27.1

  Northern Ireland

  27.3

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey, Office for National Statistics.

  Labour Market Statistics
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to(a) publish and (b) introduce the outcome of the consultation exercise on the future presentation and dissemination of labour market statistics by the Office for National Statistics. [6867]

  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 Ms Joan Walley, dated 8 July 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question (6867) on when he plans to publish and introduce the outcome of the consultation exercise on the labour market statistics.
  Users were asked for comments on the consultation article to be provided by 14 June 1997. This information is in the process of being assessed by the ONS and an announcement of the outcome will be made by late summer.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on how many occasions an application for emergency legal aid to seek an injunction in a domestic violence case has been(a) granted or (b) refused in each of the last five years. [6375]

  Mr. Hoon
  The information requested is not available. The data gathered by the Legal Aid Board do not identify separately applications for emergency civil legal aid.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on how many occasions the decision to exceed the Green Form financial limit by a solicitors practice with developed powers under a legal aid franchise has subsequently been overruled by a legal aid area office in each of the last three years. [6377]

  Mr. Hoon
  This information prior to June 1995 has been archived and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. As a result, figures can be provided for each of the last two years only. It is set out in the following tables.

  Number

  1 July 1995 to 30 June 1996

  Total number of devolved powers to extend the financial limit on a Green Form exercised by solicitors

  23,020

  Number of occasions on which solicitor's decision was overruled by a legal aid area office

  276

  407

  Number

  1 July 1996 to 30 June 1997

  Total number of devolved powers to extend the financial limit on a Green Form exercised by solicitors

  28,481

  Number of occasions on which solicitor's decision was overruled by a legal aid area office

  273

  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many solicitors" firms have been granted a legal aid franchise and in what areas of law: and how many franchised firms have devolved powers in relation to(a) emergency aid, ( b) the Green Form scheme and (c) assistance by representation. [6376]

  Mr. Hoon
  As at 30 June 1997 there were 1,852 franchised solicitors" offices. The following table provides a breakdown of the franchise categories and the number of franchised offices with devolved power in emergency aid, the Green Form and assistance by representation.

  Franchise category

  1Number of solicitors offices

  Devolved Powers

  Emergency aid

  Green form

  2ABWOR

  Consumer and general contract

  816

  35

  225

  —

  Crime

  1,089

  19

  741

  36

  Debt

  568

  27

  266

  —

  Employment

  557

  33

  162

  —

  Housing

  634

  84

  333

  —

  Immigration

  93

  26

  49

  —

  Matrimonial and family

  1,671

  941

  1,379

  226

  Personal injury

  1,504

  79

  661

  —

  Welfare benefits

  277

  29

  74

  —

  1 Solicitors firms may have franchises in more than one category of law.

  2 Assistance by way of representation. Devolved powers apply only to the crime and matrimonial and family franchise categories.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Beef Ban
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for a new initiative to secure the lifting of the beef export ban. [7711]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  The Government has decided to adopt a twin-track approach of pursuing a revised Export Certified Herds Scheme, and developing a new proposal for a date-based export scheme. We have put our ideas to the Commission about both schemes, and will press both with equal vigour.

  The Export Certified Herds Scheme is being revised taking account of criticisms made earlier by the EU Scientific Veterinary Committee. Eligibility for the scheme would be more restricted than initially proposed, but it would still be open in principle to producers in all parts of the United Kingdom.
  408
  Details of the date-based scheme will be announced when exploratory talks with the Commission have progressed and the Government is ready to put forward a formal proposal.

  Specified Bovine Material
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what guidance SEAC gives to hauliers concerning the cleaning of vehicles carrying specified bovine material: and if he will make a statement. [6749]

  (2) how many inspectors are available to carry out examination of the cleaning of vehicles carrying specified bovine material: and if he will make a statement: [6686]

  (3) how many inspections have been carried out of the cleaning of vehicles used to transport specified bovine material since 1 August 1996; how many vehicles have failed such an inspection; and if he will make a statement. [6664]

  Mr. Rooker
  The cleansing requirements for vehicles transporting waste material form the slaughter of cattle, including Specified Bovine Material (SBM), were considered by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) in May last year. It concluded that decontamination and proper cleaning of vehicles was important but that given the extreme nature of the chemicals which had to be used if chemical disinfection were to be relied upon it was more important to use dilution and washing with large quantities of water and detergent to ensure that vehicles were returned to a suitable state for further use.

  The Specified Bovine Material Order 1997 requires any person transporting SBM to ensure that the vehicle, or part of the vehicle, in which it is conveyed is impervious and contains nothing but SBM. It must be kept covered at all times except for loading or unloading or inspection by an authorised officer of an enforcement authority. It also requires that any person transporting SBM shall ensure that the part of the vehicle in which SBM is carried is thoroughly washed and disinfected before any food, feeding stuff or other animal material or any cosmetic, pharmaceutical or medical product is subsequently placed in that part of the vehicle.

  Enforcement of the vehicle cleansing requirements set out in the Specified Bovine Material Order 1997 is the responsibility of local authorities. No central record is kept of the number of local authority inspectors that examine vehicles transporting SBM or how many inspections they have made since 1 August 1996 or how many vehicles failed local authority inspections and this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Rabies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that veterinary surgeons have unrestricted access to the inactivated rabies vaccines approved by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [6827]
  409
  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 7 July 1997]: The British Isles is an internationally recognised rabies free zone for terrestrial animals. We do not allow unrestricted access to rabies vaccine because its use, except for animals going for export or those going into quarantine, is unnecessary.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in concluding the revised protocol on the rabies antibody test referred to in the Official Report, 19 February, column 513; and if the mutual recognition of the test results referred to in the Official Report, 3 March, column 444, has been agreed. [6440]

  Mr. Rooker
  The International Office for Epizootics (OIE) has considered the revised protocol and published it as the OIE standard recently. Whilst this is a small step in overcoming the problems of test result variability, we understand that only two laboratories are using the new protocol. The OIE is also making arrangements for a new canine standard serum to be calibrated and validated for use with this test to ensure that different laboratories produce comparable results. As far as we are aware these arrangements are still being made and no timescale for completion of the work is known.

  BSE-contaminated Feed
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers have been found to have been in possession of BSE-contaminated feed since August 1996. [4863]

  Mr. Rooker
  Remnant work on the Feed Recall Scheme brought to our attention one farmer who has, since 1 August 1996, been in possession of feed containing mammalian meat and bone meal (MBM). The feed in question was not fed to livestock and has now been safely disposed of. It is impossible to say whether this feed was contaminated with the BSE agent but the controls on Specified Bovine Materials, which require the destruction of all tissues known to harbour BSE infectivity, mean that the likelihood of infectivity being present is very low.

  In another incident, a farmer was found to have been storing mammalian MBM in a farm store together with ingredients used in the production of livestock feed. The MBM was disposed of in landfill. Thorough sampling showed no evidence that cross-contamination had occurred, and the premises were not part of a livestock enterprise.

  The State Veterinary Service carries out a survey of feed mills and on farm feed mixers for evidence of breaches of feed controls. Since 1 August 1996, when the latest controls came into effect, no evidence of a breach of the legislation has been found.

  Biotechnological Inventions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has undertaken into the possible(a) agricultural and (b) animal welfare implications of the draft European Parliament and Council directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions; and if he will make a statement. [7353]
  410
  Mr. Rooker
  This draft Directive—which is still under discussion—would not in general either limit or increase the availability of patent protection as compared to that already provided in UK law. The Ministry has not commissioned research into the implications for agriculture or animal welfare. We do not consider that the patent system is the right approach for dealing with ethical and related issues arising from biotechnology. The purpose of patenting is to prevent others claiming to own or trying to use inventions. However, patent holders must also comply with all other relevant legislation and regulations which, for example, give protection to the welfare of animals.

  Delivery Targets
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food what progress his Department has made in meeting the service delivery targets set out in "Commitment to Service". [7544]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  The following table sets out the performance achieved by Regional Service Centres against the targets set in "Commitment to Service", second edition.

  RCS performance data percentage for financial year 1996–97 (unless otherwise specified)

  Total

  Arable Area Payments Scheme

  Main payments

  99

  Oilseeds

  Advanced payments

  99

  Final payments

  99

  Beef Special Premium Scheme

  Advance payments (1996)

  98

  Balance payments (1995)

  99

  CID applications issued (1996)

  99

  Premium paid CIDs issued (1996)

  99

  Suckler Cow Premium Scheme

  Balance payments 1995

  99

  Advance payments 1996

  99

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances

  Claims 1996

  97

  Sheep Annual Premium Scheme

  Claims marketing year 19961

  97

  Agricultural Improvement Scheme

  Plan claims

  100

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas

  Applications

  97

  Claims

  99

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas Conservation Plan

  Applications

  97

  Claims

  98

  Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme 1989

  Plan claims

  99

  Non plan claims2

  58

  Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme 1991

  Plan claims

  97

  411

  RCS performance data
  percentage for financial year 1996–97 (unless otherwise specified)

  Total

  Farm Woodland Premium Scheme

  Applications

  94

  Claims (1996)

  99

  Injurious Weeds

  Complaints

  99

  Pilot Nitrate Sensitive Areas Scheme

  Claims (1996)

  100

  New Nitrate Sensitive Areas Scheme

  Applications (1996)

  93

  Claims

  98

  Protection of Badgers Act 1992

  Licence applications

  99

  Five Year Set Aside Scheme

  Claims

  100

  Strychnine Permits

  Applications

  97

  Agricultural Wage Inspections

  Complaints

  91

  Wildlife and Countryside Act

  Licence applications

  98

  Correspondence

  Answered within 10 working days

  97

  Complaints

  Numbers receiving response within 10 working days

  88

  Notes:

  1 Final payments made by 30 April 1097.

  2 The relatively high failure rate for F and CGS 1989 non-plan claims is due to a large number of claims being received in the month before the scheme closed, making it impossible to meet the Charter target in many cases.

  1. The total percentage has been calculated by setting the entire number of applications or claims cleared within the target time, against the total number received. Applications and claims not cleared due to reasons beyond our control (incorrect information supplied by applicant, etc.) are not included as failures to meet target.

  2. The Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme (1991) Plan applications, the Farm Diversification Grant Scheme (Capital Items) Claims, and the Farm Diversification Grant Scheme (Feasibility and Marketing) Claims have all been omitted from the table, as the numbers involved are de-minimis.

  3. Three complaints were referred to the MAFF Adjudicator during the year. Two of these complaints were resolved, the other was referred to the Minister. One complaint from a previous year has been referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and is currently under investigation.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on her Department's timetable for dealing with the Year 2000 Computer Problem; who is in charge of the project; how many staff are working on it; what is the projected cost of resolving the problem; and whether the project is on schedule. [7141]
  412
  Mrs. Roche
  Following an impact assessment study in 1996, a programme of remedial projects and related activities was initiated earlier this year. The total cost is expected to be of the order of £2.7 million over the period to Spring 1999. The programme covers the core Department's IT systems and separate programmes are in place to deal with the issue in Next Steps agencies.

  The core Department's Year 2000 programme is being overseen by a steering goup chaired by the Department's Director of information Management and Technology. The resources involved vary according to the requirements of individual projects and will peak at 16 personnel in September/October 1997. Those resources are being provided by private sector contractors and the programme is being supervised by the Department's own Project Manager. All required parts of the core programme are currently on schedule.

  Business Links
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many Business Links have been set up. [6982]

  Mrs. Roche
  There are 89 Business Link partnerships and 241 separate Business Link outlets.

  Telecommunications Advisory Committees
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has for the future of local telecommunications advisory committees: and if she will make a statement. [6164]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  On 30 June the President announced an inter-departmental review of utility regulation which will include an examination of the various models of consumer representation currently operating in the utilities, including in the telecommunications industry. If the review concludes that changes are necessary we will publish a consultation document setting out the options and reasons underlying the case for change.

  In addition OFTEL is currently considering the responses received to its consultation document on the role of organisations who represent consumers on telecommunications matters, including the telecommunications advisory committees, and will publish a statement of its recommendations shortly. We will consider any recommendations on the telecommunications advisory committees as part of the inter-departmental review.

  Multi-level Marketing
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is her Department's policy towards multi-level marketing. [6252]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  Legitimate multi-level marketing schemes give people the opportunity to run their own small businesses and are therefore to be welcomed.

  We do, however, need to guard against those pyramid selling schemes whose structures and reward mechanisms are such that individuals can be exploited. My Department has taken action successfully to wind up companies which are running illegal schemes.

  Instruments of Torture
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has made to the Government's legal officers concerning the prosecution of United Kingdom companies involved in the export of instruments of torture. [6629]

  Mrs. Roche
  The investigation and prosecution of any breaches of UK export controls is a matter for HM Customs and Excise and we would urge anyone in possession of information which might suggest that offences have been committed to make it available to them.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received concerning the export by United Kingdom companies of electric shock devices. [6636]

  Mrs. Roche
  My Department regularly receives representations from individuals and organisations proposing that the Government should ban the export of such devices. We are committed to preventing British companies from manufacturing, selling or procuring equipment designed primarily for torture and to press for a global ban. Work is in hand on how best to take forward this commitment.

  Trade Union Subscriptions
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the requirement for employers to obtain re-authorisations from their employees every three years for the deduction of trade union subscriptions direct from pay. [7645]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Government believes this requirement is unnecessary and burdensome for employers and unions. We propose to repeal it by a deregulation order under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. After we have consulted with interested parties this summer on the scope and content of a deregulation order, we intend to start the Parliamentary stages in the autumn, and complete the repeal next year.

  Post Office
  Mrs. May
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the terms of reference given to those undertaking the review of the Post Office and the timetable set for the review; and what interim requirements have been set for the review. [7271]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The terms of reference for the review of the Post Office are to identify practical options for introducing greater commercial freedom in accordance with our election manifesto commitment. A scoping exercise is currently in progress to establish what changes can be introduced quickly and to set a timetable for addressing more complex issues. I hope to announce the results of the initial exercise in the Autumn.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects the review of the Post Office to be completed. [7270]
  414
  Mr. McCartney
  We are aiming to make good progress but it is too early yet to say when the review will be completed.

  Supervision
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what sanctions his Department is able to impose on individuals criticised in DTI inspectors" reports. [6470]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  A criminal investigation and/or disqualification proceedings may be commenced against individuals criticised in inspectors" reports. The reports may also be disclosed to recognised professional and regulatory bodies.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many individuals from accountancy firms criticised by the DTI inspectors are currently seconded to her Department; and at what cost to public funds. [6469]

  Mr. Griffiths
  There are currently 3 individuals seconded to the Department from accountancy firms which have in the past been criticised in Inspectors" reports. The annual cost is approximately £120,000 plus VAT. None of the individuals have been personally criticised by Inspectors. The criticism of their firms was in reports published prior to 1993.

  Resort Hotels
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will establish an inquiry into the auditing of Resort Hotels plc. [6059]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Resort Hotels plc collapsed in 1994 with substantial debts. The managing director of Resort Hotels, Mr. Robert Philip Feld, was found guilty on 1 April 1997 of fraud and forgery and was jailed for eight years; the audit of the accounts was referred to during his trial. Under Part II of the Companies Act 1989 the Recognised Supervisory Bodies (RSBs), are responsible for dealing with complaints against registered auditors. In the case of Resort Hotels the responsible RSB is the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales who are inquiring into the auditing of Resort Hotels in the light of Mr. Feld's trial. I shall write to my right hon. Friend when I hear the outcome of their inquiries.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will set out her assessment of the prospects for future inward investment in the United Kingdom. [5736]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The UK faces increasing competition to attract inward investment to and within Europe and I expect that to continue. Our record as Europe's number one location for investment from the US, Japan and Korea remains intact but we shall maintain it only by consolidating and building on the UK's attractions as an international investment location. The Invest in Britain Bureau's 1996–97 report will be published on 16 July and will contain further details of the UK's current performance.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Union
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet his EU and WEU counterparts to discuss closer links between the two organisations. [5746]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I expect to meet my EU and WEU counterparts, to discuss strengthened links between the two bodies, when we are ready to finalise a WEU Declaration which will complement the Amsterdam Treaty.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to consult the electorate before ceding further powers to the European Union. [5756]

  Mr. Henderson
  On 1 May the electorate gave its overwhelming support to the present Government and its manifesto which included a commitment to a fresh start in Europe.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment the Government have made of civil rights in Sri Lanka; and if he will make a statement. [5747]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Basic civil rights are enshrined in the Sri Lankan constitution. We hope that the Sri Lankan Government will continue to respect them.

  India and Pakistan
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with India. [5748]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We enjoy good relations with India as I discovered during my visit there last month. We look forward to strengthening this relationship still further.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to encourage improved relations between India and Pakistan. [5753]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We welcome the talks between India and Pakistan and support them in their desire to achieve progress. We are willing to provide our good offices if both sides want us to.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with Pakistan. [5761]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have good relations with Pakistan and look forward to strengthening them further.

  Burma (Human Rights)
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the steps being taken by his Department to improve human rights in Burma. [5749]
  416
  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) earlier in the House today.

  Middle East Peace Process
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he had whilst in the United States of America on the prospects for peace in the middle east; and if he will make a statement. [5750]

  Mr. Fatchett
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the Middle East peace process with his colleagues at the Denver Summit. The G8 expressed concern at the crisis faced by the Middle East peace process and determination to inject new momentum into the search for a just and lasting settlement.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Alan Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's role in the future of Hong Kong. [5751]

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's role in the future of Hong Kong. [5755]

  Mr. Fatchett
  As a co-signatory of the Joint Declaration, Britain has an enduring moral and political responsibility towards Hong Kong. We will continue to watch developments closely, in particular through the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group, which continues until 1 January 2000. We will report to Parliament at six-monthly intervals on the implementation of the Joint Declaration, with special reference to the protection of human rights in Hong Kong. We will also continue to remind the international community of its stake in Hong Kong's continuing success.

  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will list the departmental special advisers and parliamentary private secretaries who attended the hand over ceremonies in Hong Kong; [6965]

  (2) if he will list the publicly funded travel and accommodation costs incurred by individual departmental special advisers and parliamentary private secretaries who attended the handover ceremonies in Hong Kong; [6959]

  (3) if he will list the overall cost to the Exchequer of travel and accommodation expenses incurred by departmental special advisers and parliamentary private secretaries who attended the hand over ceremonies in Hong Kong: [6956]

  (4) how many departmental special advisers and parliamentary private secretaries attended the handover ceremonies in Hong Kong. [6961]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 7 July 1997]: The only Departmental Special Advisers or Parliamentary Private Secretaries to attend the handover ceremonies in Hong Kong were Mr. Alastair Campbell, Chief Press Secretary to the Prime Minister, and Mr. Andrew Wood, Special Adviser to the Foreign Secretary.
  417
  The Chief Press Secretary accompanied the Prime Minister at no additional cost to the taxpayer.

  Mr. Hood accompanied my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth affairs on the chartered plane which took the official British delegation to Hong Kong, at no additional cost to the taxpayer, his accommodation cost £2,581, which was met from public funds.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding his discussions in Hong Kong with his Chinese counterpart Qian Qichen. [7178]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The meeting in Hong Kong between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and his Chinese counterpart which I also attended was the first since taking office. This was an historic occasion and provided a unique opportunity to set the tone for future relations. Discussions focused mostly on Hong Kong issues but also covered a range of bilateral matters including human rights.

  Exports
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the assistance his Department provides for exporting to north America. [5752]

  Mr. Fatchett
  A wide range of services is available to British exporters through our network of twelve Diplomatic Posts in the US and four in Canada. The assistance available includes market research, customised contact lists, help with finding agents and distributors and help with publicity for new products and services. Support is also available for companies participating in trade missions and trade fairs in the region.

  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he proposes to take to promote Britain's export trade. [5760]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave, earlier in the House today, to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne).

  Nuclear Deterrent
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications of the treaty of Amsterdam on the future control of the British strategic nuclear deterrent. [5754]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We believe that the Treaty of Amsterdam has no implications for the British nuclear deterrent.

  Qualified Majority Voting
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the policy areas in the Amsterdam inter-governmental treaty in which he proposed the introduction of qualified majority voting, but failed to achieve agreement. [5757]
  418
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Discussion of QMV in the IGC was based on Presidency proposals. These included introducing QMV in areas such as industry and the environment, where the UK supported some extension of QMV, but on which there was ultimately no agreement.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on 23 June,Official Report, column 346, if he will make a statement on the impact of the extension of qualified majority voting under the Amsterdam Treaty. [5763]

  Mr. Henderson
  We fully support the modest extension of qualified majority voting agreed at Amsterdam which will help effective decision making in areas like fraud and research and development.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Ms Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further discussions he will be holding with United States of America authorities about the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. [5758]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I and my colleagues will take every opportunity between now and the Conference in Kyoto in December to press the US to make significant reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions in the post-2000 period.

  Immigration Rules
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements are being made to inform applicants for settlement in the Asian sub-continent of changes in the rules affecting their cases; and how long they may have to wait. [5759]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The abolition of the Primary Purpose criterion of the Immigration Rules has been widely publicised in South Asia. All visa applicants are provided with detailed guidance notes on how to make an application; these naturally include details of the current regulations. Posts in South Asia are now also offering specific advice to those whose applications are affected by the abolition of the Primary Purpose criterion.

  Maximum interview waiting times for first time settlement applicants range from three months for spouses of those settled in the UK to six months for other categories. The equivalent period for those who have been refused and re-apply is nine months.

  Prisoners of War
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the representations made by him over compensation for former British prisoners of war held by the Japanese. [5762]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer the hon. member to the answer my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) gave to the hon. member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) on 24 June,Official Report, column 462.

  BBC World Service
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State of Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial reduction has been imposed on the BBC World Service over and above those required by the reduction in Foreign Office funding: and if he will make a statement. [5833]

  Mr. Fatchett
  There have been no additional financial cuts. The restructuring is the responsibility of the BBC. This Department is monitoring its implementation particularly with regard to the special character, style, ethos and quality of the World Service.

  Entry Requirements (Children)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proof is required of a parent, resident in the United Kingdom and a United Kingdom national, that children, living abroad, whom they wish to bring into the country, are their natural children in the absence of a marriage certificate or birth certificate from the country of residence. [5053]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 1 July 1997]: In cases where documentary evidence satisfactorily establishing the identity of children seeking to join parents who are British citizens or UK residents is not available. Entry Clearance Officers have the option to interview the sponsor and applicants to try and establish their relationship. If such an interview proves inconclusive, the Entry Clearance Officer can invite the applicants and the sponsor to take a free DNA test under the government-funded scheme. The DNA test will satisfactorily establish the relationship between applicant and sponsor.

  Strategic Defence Review
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [6762]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  This Department's officials have attended a number of meetings in the FCO on the Strategic Defence Review. On 3 July my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs held a seminar in the FCO on the Strategic Defence Review with academics and other commentators. We do not keep records of dates and the participants of all meetings attended by officials within this Department.

  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the responsibility for the Defence Review will be divided between his Department and the Ministry of Defence; and what the arrangements will be far his Department's involvement. [7062]

  Mr. Lloyd
  The first phase of the Strategic Defence Review to establish the policy baseline, is being conducted jointly by the MOD and this Department.

  The MOD will lead the subsequent work, with continued involvement from this Department to assess roles, missions and capabilities required and the implications for equipment and support.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's timetable for dealing with the Year 2000 Computer Problem; who is in charge of the project; how many staff are working on it; what is the projected cost of resolving the problem; and whether the project is on schedule. [7144]

  Mr. Fatchett
  In accordance with central directives, this Department will submit costed Year 2000 plans to the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA) by October 1997. This Department is replacing Office Automation (OA) systems, thus avoiding some Year 2000 problems, and addressing other systems through its millennium programme. All major systems will be compliant by March 1999. This Department's Director of General Services is overseeing the work. Fourteen staff are currently working on the programme. This will increase. Our current cost estimate is £3 million (excluding OA replacements). We are on schedule.

  China
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the efforts being made by the Government to encourage improvement in China's human rights record. [7249]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The human rights situation in China is a matter of deep concern. We take every opportunity to raise the issue with the Chinese authorities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs did so most recently when he met the Chinese Foreign Minister in Hong Kong on 30 June. We are looking for a constructive way forward, both bilaterally and with our EU partners, that will bring about real progress.

  Indonesia
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet the Commander in Chief of the Indonesian armed forces. [6053]

  Mr. Fatchett
  None.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to report to the House the findings of the internal Foreign Office investigation into the use of British-supplied water cannons in Indonesia on 12 February 1997. [6054]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We are not aware of any such incident on 12 February.

  Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on preparations for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. [5725]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Arrangements for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Edinburgh in October are progressing well. We are working closely with the Commonwealth Secretariat, the
  421
  Scottish Office and local police authorities in Scotland to ensure a successful meeting, which will serve the Government's aim of strengthening the Commonwealth.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the consequences for Gibraltar of the Amsterdam summit. [5726]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I believe that the agreement reached at Amsterdam fully protects UK and Gibraltar's interests.

  Old Documents
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the date and title of the oldest document or archival unit retained by his Department which has not been passed on to the Public Record Office for release for public inspection. [7204]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The oldest papers withheld by this Department from release at the Public Record Office are some papers from Dublin Castle records in a register concerning judicial proceedings dated 1911–15 (File reference CO 904/36). These papers are being reviewed for release. My Noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will write to my hon. Friend when the outcome of this review is complete and place a copy of the letter in the libraries of the House.

  Law of the Sea Convention
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he proposes to take in respect of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. [7264]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Ministers are currently considering the issue of UK accession to UNCLOS. The House will be informed as soon as a decision has been made.

DEFENCE

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Eurofighter aircraft will be purchased in the United Kingdom. [6765]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) on 26 June,Official Report, column 627.

  Defence Budget
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for defence what representations he has received concerning the size of the defence budget. [6424]

  Dr. Reid
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has received a number of enquiries about the defence budget both from Members of this House and from others. Many of these enquiries have been framed in the context of the Strategic Defence Review.

  Strategic Defence Review
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will include submissions from the Labour Party Working Group on Defence in the Strategic Defence Review. [6843]

  Dr. Reid
  All outside inputs to the Strategic Defence Review will be taken into consideration as part of the Review process.

  Defence Sales
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the status of United Kingdom defence sales contracts. [6648]

  Mr. Spellar
  Contracts for the export of defence equipment are a commercial matter between the exporting company and the customer. The exporter has to apply for an export licence where the goods covered by the contract are licensable under the Export of Goods Control Order 1994 or regulations concerning the export of dual use goods.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of the UK military officers attached to the armed forces of Indonesia. [6747]

  Dr. Reid
  It has been the practice in the past not to release details of military assistance provided to other countries on the grounds that this information is confidential between governments and disclosure would risk damaging our international relations. This practice is now being reviewed against the background of the government's commitment to openness. I will write to the hon. Member once the review is complete.

  Roll-on/roll-off Ferries
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if contracts have been signed for the purchase of two roll-on/roll-off ferries by his Department. [6758]

  Mr. Spellar
  No contracts have been signed for the purchase of roll-on/roll-off ferries in support of the Joint Rapid Deployment Force (JRDF). Discussions with industry are underway and an announcement will be made as soon as possible once a decision is reached.

  Regimental Complement
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list, for each regiment, the number by which it was below complement on 30 April; and what plans he has to bring each up to its complement. [6817]

  Dr. Reid
  The manning level against the complement in each of the Regiments within the Household Cavalry, Royal Armoured Corps (RAC) and Infantry at 1 May 1997 is provided at Table 1. Corresponding information for the rest of the Army is not available by regiment but is provided by Arm or Service at Table 2. The Government fully recognises the seriousness of the situation we have inherited. To improve levels of manning the Army has introduced a number of initiatives; Recruitment, Retention and Re-enlistment bounties, the
  423
  introduction of NVQs, and the formation of an Army Foundation College from September 1998. In the short term, Gurkha Re-inforcement Companies have been deployed to minimise undermining in areas of particular concern.

  Table 1: Household Cavalry, Royal Armoured Corps and Infantry

  Deficit/surplus

  Household Division

  1st Battalion, Grenadier Guards

  -120

  N Company, Grenadier Guards

  -4

  1st Battalion, Coldstream Guards

  -54

  7 Company, Coldstream Guards

  +6

  1st Battalion, Scots Guards

  -78

  F Company, Scots Guards

  -22

  1st Battalion, Irish Guards

  -83

  1st Battalion, Welsh Guards

  -29

  Total

  -384

  Scottish Division

  1st Battalion, Royal Scots Guards

  -170

  1st Battalion Royal Highland Fusiliers

  -79

  1st Battalion, King's Own Scottish Borderers

  -70

  1st Battalion, Black Watch

  -66

  1st Battalion, Highlanders

  -74

  1st Battalion, Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders

  -87

  Total

  -546

  Queens Division

  1st Battalion, The Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment

  -128

  2nd Battalion, The Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment

  -38

  1st Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

  -56

  2nd Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

  -17

  1st Battalion, The Royal Anglian

  +16

  2nd Battalion, The Royal Anglian

  +3

  Total

  -220

  Kings Division

  1st Battalion, The King's Own Royal Border Regiment

  -89

  1st Battalion, The King's Regiment

  -3

  1st Battalion, The Prince of Wales's Own Regiment

  -7

  1st Battalion, The Green Howards

  -22

  1st Battalion, The Queen's Lancashire Regiment

  -90

  1st Battalion, The Duke of Wellington's Regiment

  +54

  Total

  -157

  Prince of Wales's Division

  1st Battalion, The Devonshire and Dorset Regiment

  -51

  1st Battalion, The Cheshire Regiment

  -80

  1st Battalion, The Royal Welch Fusiliers

  -4

  1st Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Wales

  -41

  1st Battalion, The Royal Gloucester Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment

  -93

  1st Battalion, The Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters Regiment

  +13

  1st Battalion Staffordshire Regiment

  +3

  Total

  -253

  Light Division

  1st Battalion, The Light Infantry

  -63

  424

  Table 1: Household Cavalry, Royal Armoured Corps and Infantry

  Deficit/surplus

  2nd Battalion, The Light Infantry

  -33

  1st Battalion, The Royal Green Jackets

  -87

  2nd Battalion, The Royal Green Jackets

  -59

  Total

  -242

  The Parachute Regiment

  1st Battalion, The Parachute Regiment

  -32

  2nd Battalion, The Parachute Regiment

  -77

  3rd Battalion, The Parachute Regiment

  -78

  Total

  -187

  Royal Irish Regiment

  1st Battalion, The Royal Irish Regiment

  -145

  Total

  -145

  The Brigade of Gurkhas

  1st Battalion, The Royal Gurkha Rifles

  -14

  2nd Battalion, The Royal Gurkha Rifles

  +13

  Total

  -1

  The figures shown at Table 1 exclude the re-inforcement by the Gurkha Re-inforcement Companies (GRC) which number some 400 men.

  Table 2: Soldier (trained) manning state by Arm Service as at 1 May 1997

  Army Service

  Number surplus deficit

  Household Cavalry/Royal Armoured Corps

  -80

  Royal Artillery

  -644

  Royal Engineers

  +183

  Royal Signals

  -782

  Infantry

  -2,156

  Army Air Corps

  -41

  Royal Logistics Corps

  -1,137

  Royal Army Medical Corps

  -175

  Royal Electrical Mechanical Engineers

  -323

  Adjutant General's Corps

  -57

  Intelligence Corps

  -79

  Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing

  Corps

  -107

  Corps of Army Musicians

  -91

  Others1

  +21

  Total

  -5,468

  1 Includes Royal Army Veterinary Corps, Small Arms School Corps, Royal Army Dental Service, Army Physical Training Corps, Long Service List.

  Figures at Table 2 represent total soldier numbers serving in the listed capbadges.

  Figures at Table 1 only show soldiers serving with their parent units.

  Export Credit Guarantees
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions his Department has had with(a) the Department of Trade and Industry, (b) the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and (c) the Department of International Development about the level of export credit guarantees. [6666]

  Mr. Spellar
  As a member of the Export Guarantee Committee chaired by H.M. Treasury, the Ministry of Defence has regular discussions about export credit guarantees with the Department of Trade and Industry, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the International Development Department together with the Export
  425
  Credits Guarantee Department. This committee reviews whether countries should be on or off cover and discusses the level of export credit guarantees that should be made available.

  Long-term Costings
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library his Department's 10-year long-term castings. [6754]

  Dr. Reid
  The Ministry of Defence's long-term costing is the process by which the Department re-costs its internal plans and adjusts them. The product of this process is not contained in any single document. It has been the policy of successive governments not to publish detailed information on the outcome of the lone term costing. The Department's internal plans represent projections and assumptions which inform advice to Ministers on the affordability of particular elements of the Defence programme. Accordingly, I am withholding the information requested, which constitutes internal discussion and advice, under exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. In addition, disclosure of some elements of this information could harm national security and international relations, prejudice the competitive position of the Department in future negotiations with contractors and reveal commercially confidential data. Accordingly, exemptions 1, 7 and 13 of the Code also apply.

  Old Documents
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the date and title of the oldest document or archival unit retained by his Department which has not been passed on to the Public Records Office for release for public inspection. [7206]

  Dr. Reid
  Service personnel records are routinely retained for about seventy five years so that my Department can respond to any administrative matters that may arise such as, for example, pension entitlement. The oldest such documents are Royal Naval ratings ledgers covering the period 1892–1923. These records will be assigned to Public Record Office class ADM 188 with transfer taking place during 1998.

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish his Department's submissions relating to freedom of information legislation. [6031]

  Dr. Reid
  [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.

  Shoeburyness Ranges
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State fur Defence if he has received a report from DERA about the future of the testing ranges at Shoeburyness; and if he will make a statement. [6446]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 July 1997]: I can confirm that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement has recently received a proposal from the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and
  426
  Research Agency about the test and evaluation ranges at Shoeburyness and Eskmeals. MPs and staff will be informed of the outcome shortly.

SCOTLAND

  Ayrshire and Arran Health Board
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much Ayrshire and Arran Health Board has spent on pursuing its legal appeals against the refusal of planning permission by Cunninghame district council and the Scottish Office for Ravenspark Hospital: what legal advisers acted for the health board in these actions; what monitoring his Department has undertaken of these actions; and if he will make a statement. [5433]

  Mr. Galbraith
  This is a matter for Ayrshire and Arran Health Board. I have asked the Chairman to write to my hon. Friend. The Scottish Office monitors the full range of health boards" activities and expenditure, and is aware of this ongoing issue.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the time scale and terms of his review of the requirement on local authorities in Scotland to set aside 75 per cent. of their housing capital receipts for debt repayment. [6275]

  Mr. Chisholm
  We hope to conclude this review, which is looking at the public expenditure implications of the set aside requirement, later in the year.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will list for each local authority in Scotland the annual targets estimated at the start of the financial year 1997–98 for capital receipts, indicating for each authority receipts from(a) right to buy. (b) stock transfer and (c) land sales. [6276]

  Mr. Chisholm
  No housing receipts targets were set for Scottish local authorities for 1997–98. The estimates made by local authorities of the amounts they expect to raise as capital receipts are set out in the table.

  £ million

  Authority

  Estimated right to buy receipts

  Estimated stock transfer receipts

  Other HRA estimated receipts1

  Aberdeen City Council

  11.718

  0.000

  0.900

  Aberdeenshire Council

  7.880

  0.000

  0.455

  Angus Council

  4.084

  0.000

  0.231

  Argyll and Bute Council

  3.230

  0.000

  0.015

  Clackmannanshire Council

  2.188

  0.000

  0.050

  Dumfries and Galloway Council

  6.414

  0.000

  0.505

  Dundee City Council

  2.600

  0.000

  0.720

  East Ayrshire Council

  5.400

  0.000

  0.050

  East Dumbartonshire Council

  2.477

  0.000

  0.020

  East Lothian Council

  3.235

  0.050

  0.192

  East Renfrewshire Council

  1.023

  0.000

  0.040

  City of Edinburgh Council

  6.627

  0.000

  1.107

  Falkirk Council

  4.776

  0.000

  1.040

  Fife Council

  11.188

  0.000

  0.703

  City of Glasgow Council

  17.943

  0.000

  2.190

  Highland Council

  9.042

  0.000

  0.252

  427

  £ million

  Authority

  Estimated right to buy receipts

  Estimated stock transfer receipts

  Other HRA estimated receipts1

  Inverclyde Council

  3.540

  0.000

  0.003

  Midlothian Council

  2.851

  0.000

  0.112

  Moray Council

  2.646

  0.000

  0.084

  North Ayrshire Council

  5.258

  0.000

  0.150

  North Lanarkshire Council

  18.915

  0.000

  0.915

  Orkney Islands Council

  0.810

  0.000

  0.005

  Perth and Kinross Council

  4.536

  0.000

  0.320

  Renfrewshire Council

  4.145

  0.180

  0.320

  Scottish Borders Council

  3.165

  0.000

  0.057

  Shetland Council

  0.945

  0.000

  0.025

  South Ayrshire Council

  3.113

  0.000

  0.000

  South Lanarkshire Council

  12.151

  0.000

  0.090

  Stirling Council

  3.711

  0.000

  0.060

  West Dumbartonshire Council

  1.725

  0.000

  0.045

  West Lothian Council

  7.141

  0.000

  0.320

  Western Isles Council

  0.426

  0.000

  0.038

  Scotland

  174.903

  0.230

  11.044

  1 Other HRA estimated receipts include: rent to mortgage receipts, loan repayments, and sale or disposal of land and other assets.

  Beaufort's Dyke
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will institute an independent inquiry into the extent of radioactive dumping in Beaufort's Dyke and the current condition of radioactive waste material; [6616]

  (2) what conditions and restrictions were set on the dumping of radioactive waste in Beaufort's Dyke; [6615]

  (3) what assessment his Department has made of the condition of metal drums containing radioactive waste dumped in Beaufort's Dyke. [6613]

  (4)which organisations have been given approval to dump radioactive waste in Beaufort's Dyke. [6614]

  (5) if he will investigate the accuracy of statements made by Scottish Office ministers since 1984 relating to the dumping of radioactive waste in Beaufort's Dyke. [6612]

  Mr. Dewar
  As indicated by my hon. Friend, the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—1 July,Official Report, columns 158–160—the discovery that radioactive waste had been dumped within the Beaufort's Dyke explosives disposal site followed a discovery of old papers in the Public Records Office. The lack of awareness of these papers and their contents led to previous Governments inadvertently giving inaccurate assurances.

  The papers located thus far reveal that radioactive waste was disposed of at Beaufort's Dyke during the 1950s on behalf of Edinburgh and Glasgow Universities. Babcock and Wilcox Ltd., Ferranti Ltd. and Luminisers Ltd. The accepted practice for dealing with the waste, which was regarded at the time as being non-hazardous, was to encase it in concrete in mild steel drums. If necessary the drums were also weighted with scrap metal to ensure rapid sinking at the disposal location. We cannot be sure of the current condition of the steel drums since it would be extremely difficult to locate them given the large quantities of debris that are present on the seabed.
  428
  However, the amounts of radioactivity that they contain are so small that release of the contents would be of no significance in terms of either public health or the marine environment. I therefore see no merit in initiating an independent enquiry.

  Of importance is the fact that regular monitoring of the area has been carried out since the early 1960s: the most recent report entitled "Radioactivity in Food and the Environment 1995" is available in the Library of the House of Commons. This monitoring has not detected any measurable effect on radioactivity levels in the Beaufort's Dyke area, which remain well within internationally agreed safety levels.

  My Department and others that were involved in the consultation and consenting procedures that were followed some 40 or so years ago, are currently carrying out an exhaustive check of records and archive material. Any relevant information which emerges will be made available to the House and the public at the earliest opportunity.

  Old Documents
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the date and title of the oldest document or archival unit retained by his Department which has not been passed on to the Public Record Office for release for public inspection. [7197]

  Mr. Dewar
  The records of my Department are specifically exempted from the Public Records Act 1958, and therefore are not passed to the Public Record Office. However, broadly similar procedures apply to the transfer of records to the Scottish Record Office (SRO). In 1994 a review was conducted within the Scottish Office to establish the number of files retained beyond the 30 year point, and this list has since been updated annually. All such files are reported to the Scottish Records Advisory Council (SRAC), with an explanation as to why they have been retained. The oldest recorded file in this category was opened in 1949 and is titled "Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948—Cottars". It has been held for administrative reasons as it contains papers relevant to the eligibility of a rare class of landholder for assistance under the Crofters Building Grants and Loans Scheme.

  Wildlife Protection
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) arrests, (b) prosecutions and (c) convictions have been recorded under the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 in Scotland since its introduction, broken down by local authority: and if he will make a statement. [5705]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 1 July 1997]: Information on the number of arrests is not collected centrally. The information requested on prosecutions and convictions is not separately identifiable within The Scottish Office Home Department's classification of crimes and offences.

  BSE
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of BSE were confirmed in each local authority area in Scotland in each of the first six months of 1997. [6829]
  429
  Mr. Chisholm
  [holding answer 7 July 1997]: Information is set out in the table. This shows animals confirmed as having BSE between 1 January and 27 June

  Farmer Scottish regional councils, and Islands councils areas

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  1June

  1997 total to date

  Borders

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  3

  Central

  1

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  3

  Dumfries

  5

  4

  4

  8

  4

  3

  28

  Fife

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  3

  Grampian

  6

  3

  4

  4

  4

  3

  24

  Highland

  2

  1

  2

  1

  0

  0

  6

  Lothian

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  3

  Orkney

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  2

  Shetland

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  3

  Strathclyde

  9

  3

  1

  4

  1

  2

  20

  Tayside

  3

  3

  1

  2

  5

  1

  15

  Western Isles

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Scotland

  Total

  28

  14

  14

  25

  18

  11

  110

  1 As at 27 June 1997. The statistics are not collected by the State Veterinary Service on the basis of the new local authority areas.

HEALTH

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what restrictions will be placed on consortiums involved in NHS PFI schemes in respect of selling or permitting the takeover of their PFI contracts with NHS bodies. [6553]

  Mr. Milburn
  We are currently considering the future shape of Private Finance Initiative in the National Health Service. Current guidance published jointly by the Private Finance Panel and Her Majesty's Treasury ("Transferability of Equity" (1996)) advises that the public sector should not seek to restrict the private sector's freedom to transfer its investments unless there are exceptional reasons arising from the special nature of a project.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those hospital projects currently under consideration as PFI projects and what stage in the PFI process each had reached at 1 May. [6792]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information on the stages reached in Private Finance Initiative projects is held centrally only for new hospital schemes which have reached preferred bidder stage, and for all PFI schemes with a capital value of £1 million or over which have had their Full Business Case approved. Information on the status of these schemes as of 1 May 1997 have been placed in the Library.

  Top Quality Care
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what are his definitions of(a) top quality primary care. (b) top quality continuing care, (c) top quality mental health and (d) an excellent information system; and if he will list examples of (a), (b) and (c). [6742]

  (2) pursuant to his oral statement of 20 June, Official Report, column 544–45, if he will define in (a) quantitative and (b) qualitative terms (i) top quality primary care. (ii) top quality continuing care and (iii) top quality mental health services. [6806]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Government believe that top quality health care is characterised by: fairness—with access to services based on need rather than ability to pay,
  430
  1997. Fifty-three of these animals were first identified as BSE suspects in 1996 but not confirmed by laboratory analysis until 1997.

  geographical location or registration with a particular general practitioner; efficiency—health care that makes the best use of tax payers money; effectiveness—health care that focuses on quality of treatment rather than quantity alone; and responsiveness—health care that is sensitive and understanding of patients needs and concerns.

  Information systems should provide the information that the health service needs to plan and deliver appropriate services and that patients and the public need to be assured that they are receiving good quality cost effective care.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his oral statement of 20 June.Official Report, Columns 544–45, what methods of measurement his inquiry panel will use to determine if a medical service is top quality. [6807]

  Mr. Milburn
  The independent Advisory Panel will decide the method it will use to assess services, within the terms of reference it has been given.

  London Implementation Group
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors underlie the reduction in spending by the London Implementation Group between 1996–97 and 1997–98. [6801]

  Mr. Milburn
  The London Implementation Group (LIG) was disbanded on 1 April 1996.

  The additional central resources for London previously allocated by LIG are now distributed by the NHS Executive. Comparative figures for additional resources for London in 1996–97 and 1997–98, and factors underlying changes between the two years, are as follows:

  1996–97 £ million

  1997–98 £ million

  Reasons for change

  Transition funding

  54

  47

  Reduction in central budget provision

  431

  1996–97 £ million

  1997–98 £ million

  Reasons for change

  Acute capital

  46

  41

  To match planned capital phasing of schemes

  London Initiative Zone (LIZ) funds (revenue and capital)1

  70

  46

  In line with original planned phasing of expenditure to match profile of schemes over life time of LIZ (1993–94 to 1998–99)

  Additional allocations for London health authorities related to mental health and from the special assistance fund

  22

  33

  Increase in additional resources for mentally disordered offenders and mental health Challenge Fund

  1 The above figures relate to centrally provided LIZ funds only. Total LIZ spending also includes Regional capital allocations and local funds.

  The above are all funds made available to London from central budgets and are in addition to London health authorities" integrated allocations which increased in real terms by £72 million in 1997–98.

  Financial Deficit (Northern Region)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 30 June to the hon. Member for Middlesborough, South and Cleveland East (Dr. Kumar),Official Report, column 29, on what date he plans to publish the information on trusts in deficit for 1997–98. [6805]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested from the revised plans of trusts will be placed in the Library in due course.

  Back Pain (School Children)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into back pain in school children; [6818]

  (2) what (a) discussion and (b) joint actions his Department has initiated with the Department for Education and Employment in respect of (a) research and (b) solutions for back problems in school children. [6834]

  Mr. Boateng
  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council. The Council is not currently funding any research into back pain in school children. Nevertheless, it always welcomes high-quality applications and these are judged in open competition with other demands for funding, and awarded according to their scientific quality.

  Both the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment are aware of the research which the National Back Pain Association is currently conducting into factors which might cause back pain in school children. Once the results of that research are available, we will be better able to judge what joint initiatives might be appropriate.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. .Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the time required to reduce 432
  waiting lists to meet patients charter targets (a) nationally and (b) in each (i) health authority region and (ii) NHS trust. [6832]

  Mr. Milburn
  There are no Patient's Charter targets for reducing the number of patients on waiting lists, The Charter does, however, guarantee that all patients will be treated within 18 months of being placed on a waiting list and sets a target of a 12 month maximum wait for heart bypass surgery and some associated procedures.

  NHS Priorities
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the medical conditions which are his current priorities for treatment in the NHS. [6744]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Priorities and Planning Guidance for the National Health Service, published annually by the NHS Executive, indicates the Department's priority areas for the development of services nationally. The needs of populations are assessed locally and services and treatments are matched to those needs. Individual clinicians decide the most clinically appropriate treatment and clinical priority for each patient based on their assessment of that patient's need.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the reasons for ending compulsory competitive tendering in the NHS; [6740]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the timetables for ending compulsory competitive tendering to the NHS. [6739]

  Mr. Milburn
  Apart from the requirement periodically to market test cleaning, catering and laundry services, all market testing in the National Health Service is and has always been conducted on a voluntary basis. A review of the operation of the present policy is currently being undertaken by officials and the requirement to market test the three named services is being considered as part of this review. No decisions have yet been taken.

  Nurses and Midwives
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors underlay the reduction in numbers of nurses and midwives between 1985 and 1995. [6799]

  Mr. Milburn
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) on 19 June 1997 at columns 290–91.

  Service Improvements
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the extra resources which he estimates will be required by 2002 to achieve the service improvements listed in his speech in Brighton on 25 June. [6743]

  Mr. Milburn
  The speech made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to the National Health Service Confederation on 25 June set out the Government's long-term vision for the National Health
  433
  Service. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has made it clear that spending plans for 1999–00 and beyond would be informed by the results of the Comprehensive Spending Review currently under way and would take account of all the Government's priorities and objectives.

  Research Projects
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the research projects currently paid for by his Department being carried out by (i) private agencies, companies or organisations and (ii) the NHS Executive or other public body reporting directly to his Department and, in each case, the date when this work will be completed. [6789]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department, through its Policy Research Programme (PRP), funds a range of research. Listed are the titles and end date of the projects being carried out by private agencies, companies and organisations within the PRP, chiefly as part of the MedLINK and LINK Medical Implants programmes. Most are carried out in partnership with universities:

  Project

  End date

  Vaccination, juvenile onset diabetes and autoimmunity

  31 December 1997

  Temperature rise from pulse doppler ultrasound equipment

  31 December 1997

  Use of Embroidery Techniques in the Manufacture of Textile Surgical Implants

  30 April 1999

  Computer Assisted Orthopaedic Surgical System

  31 August 1999

  Suspended Image Systems for Endoscopic Surgery

  31 August 1999

  3D Vision for Endoscopic Procedures

  30 September 1999

  An Integrated Multi-disciplinary Approach to the Development of a New Type of Heart Valve

  31 January 2000

  Development of a Rear Support Walking Frame

  31 December 1999

  Development of MRI Compatible Endoscopes

  30 April 1999

  Electronically Guided Knee Surgery

  28 February 1999

  Development of DLC Coated Prostheses

  31 October 1998

  Hydraulically Controlled Implantable Devices for Incontinence

  30 April 1998

  Tissue Regeneration by TOPOGEN

  30 June 1998

  Advanced Glaucoma Filtration Implant Development

  31 August 1999

  Medical Implants Exploitation Contract

  28 February 2002

  A full list of PRP projects is being prepared for publication. This will include all projects funded in the public and private sector and copies will be placed in the Library.

  The NHS Executive funds over 39,000 research projects throughout the service. It is estimated that over 3,500 of these projects are carried out in partnership with industry.

  The Department also oversees the research programmes of sponsored Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs). This research supports the NDPBs in performing their statutory functions.

  Intensive Care
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many emergency admissions to hospital requiring the use of intensive care facilities there were in each month from January 1995 to date; and if he will make a statement. [6750]

  Mr. Boateng
  This information has not been available centrally until now. However, trusts have been asked to collect data on intensive and high dependency care activity from 1 October this year as part of the National Health Service Contract Minimum Data Set.

  Review Bodies
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the remit which he plans to give to the review bodies which will consider the future pay of doctors, dentists, nurses and other health professionals. [6741]

  Mr. Milburn
  The remits of the Review Bodies remain unchanged.

  Inflation
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his department's estimate of health service inflation for 1997–98: and what was the level of the GDP deflator notified to his Department for 1997–98. [6800]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Department of Health does not forecast health service inflation. Her Majesty's Treasury has notified the Department that the Gross Domestic Product deflator is forecast to be 2.75 per cent. in 1997–98.

  Carers
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of carers have been assessed under the provisions for assessment in the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995; and what action is being taken to increase that figure. [6821]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is not possible to assess the proportion of carers receiving an assessment under the Act, as the total pool of carers who would qualify for assessment, if they requested it, is not known. A recent survey by the Carers National Association concluded that, to date, a relatively small proportion of carers had been assessed. We intend to monitor the Act closely, both through commissioned research and as part of the Social Services Inspectorate inspection programme, and will need to consider what action to take if this reveals that the Act is not being effectively implemented.

  Funding (North Essex)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was, in(a) cash terms and (b) percentage terms, the change in NHS funding for the North Essex health authority area in each of the last four financial years and the current financial year. [7078]
  435
  Mr. Milburn
  The cash and percentage increases in general allocations for North Essex health Authority and the former North Essex District Health Authority are shown as:

  Cash £ million

  Percentage

  1993–94

  6.7

  2.7

  1994–95

  13.2

  5.2

  1995–96

  18.0

  5.7

  1996–97

  20.0

  6.4

  1997–98

  15.2

  4.5

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if the formula used for allocating funds for the NHS in the North Essex health authority area in 1998–99 will be the same as that used for 1997–98; [7079]

  (2) what plans he has to change the formula used for allocating funds for the NHS in the North Essex health authority area; and if he will make a statement. [7080]
  436
  Mr. Milburn
  We will look at how resources are distributed across both secondary and primary care to ensure that these fully reflect local population needs and operate as fairly as possible.

  We are investigating the possibility of introducing further refinements to the weighted capitation formula in time for 1998–99 allocations but a longer programme of work will also be required.

  Old Documents
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the date and title of the oldest document or archival unit retained by his Department which has not been passed on to the Public Records Office for release for public inspection. [7195]

  Ms Jowell
  The oldest document retained by the Department of Health which has not been released for public inspection is thought to date from 1948 and is contained in a file entitled: "Civil Defence—Casualty and Other Ministry of Health Services: Working party on Medical Aspects". The file has been retained in the Department under Section 3 (4) of the Public Record Act 1958.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Payable Tax Credits
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment his Department has made of the cost to the Teachers" Pensions Agency of the abolition of payable tax credits. [7340]

  Mr. Byers
  Capita Business Services Ltd. (Teachers" Pensions) were awarded a contract to administer the Teachers Superannuation Scheme with effect from 1 October 1996. The scheme had previously been administered by the Teachers" Pensions Agency. There is no cost to Capita Business Services Ltd. (Teachers" Pensions) in relation to the Teachers Superannuation Scheme arising from the abolition of the advance Corporation Tax credit.

  Teachers (Select Committee Report)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the Government's response to the Sixth report of the Education and Employment Committee, Session 1996–97, on the Professional Status, Recruitment and Training of Teachers, which was published in March. [7646]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We welcome the report. The White Paper published yesterday sets out the Government's plans to tackle the issues raised by the report. Our plans to establish a General Teaching Council, raise standards in teacher training, and develop a framework of professional standards should raise the status of the profession and assist with the recruitment of good candidates for the teaching profession. We announced last month that we are introducing new standards for initial teacher training courses, and started consultation last week on proposals for employment-based routes into teaching that will also help to boost the supply of well-trained teachers.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will review provision for special educational needs; and if he will make a statement. [6876]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We shall publish in September a Green Paper setting out for consultation proposals to take forward our policies to raise standards for children with special educational needs. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set up a new National Advisory Group on SEN to help in the preparation of the Green Paper, and to oversee the subsequent process of consultation, and the resulting action programme for this Parliament. The Group will meet for the first time on 17 July.

  Careers Education
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to extend the legislation on careers education and guidance in 438
  schools to the independent sector; and if he will make a statement. [6933]

  Dr. Howells
  There are no plans at this stage to extend the legislation on careers education and guidance.

  Many independent schools have good careers education programmes and work closely with careers services. We will take active steps to support this voluntary agreement and promotion of good practice.

  Employment Chapter
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the consequences for British industry of the employment chapter negotiated at Amsterdam. [5745]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The new employment chapter has the potential to provide significant benefits to firms and individuals in the UK. It makes clear the importance of promoting a skilled and adaptable workforce and flexible labour markets responsive to economic change. The chapter will allow co-ordination of Member States" employment policies where appropriate, while restating that primary responsibility for employment matters will continue to lie with Member States.

  School Inspections
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what was the total amount of funds set aside by OFSTED for the inspection of settings where nursery vouchers were to be redeemed; [6932]

  (2) if OFSTED has met its expected outturn figure for 1996–97 in respect of schools inspected in 1996–97; [6929]

  (3) how many inspections were carried out by OFSTED in respect of (a) secondary schools, (b) primary schools, (c) special schools and (d) pupil referral units in 1996–97. [6931]

  Mr. Byers
  The funding of OFSTED, and the numbers of schools and nursery settings inspected, are matters for HMCI. I have asked him to write to the hon. Member, placing a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Primary Class Sizes
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are(a) the average and (b) the maximum numbers of children in primary school classes in Stoke on Trent, North; and how many are educated in class sizes of over 30 pupils. [7328]

  Mr. Byers
  The available information is shown in the following tables.

  The information in Table 2 puts into context the information on maximum class sizes in Table 1.
  439

  Table 1: Average and maximum class size and number of pupils in classes of 31 or more pupils for classes taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools in the Stoke on Trent, North Parliamentary Contstituency in January 19971

  Average class size

  Maximum size class

  Pupils in classes of 31 or more

  Stoke on Trent, North

  28.3

  37

  2,496

  1 Provisional estimates.

  Table 2: Numbers of classes and pupils by class size for classes taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools in the Stoke on Trent North Parliamentary Constituency in January 1997 (Provisional Estimates)

  Size of class

  Number of classes

  Number of pupils

  1–20

  10

  167

  21–30

  161

  4,300

  31–35

  65

  2,135

  36–40

  10

  361

  41 or more

  0

  0

  Total

  246

  6,963

  Assisted Places (Taunton)
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the schools in the constituency of Taunton with pupils on the assisted places scheme, indicating in each case the number of pupils and the income which the school receives under the scheme. [7050]

  Mr. Byers
  The number of assisted places taken-up and the cost of those places for each participating school in Taunton in the 1996–97 academic year are given in the following table:

  Assisted places scheme: Taunton

  School name

  Academic year 1996–97

  King's College, Taunton

  Number of assisted pupils

  20

  Cost of places £000s

  108

  Queen's College, Taunton

  Number of assisted pupils

  86

  Cost of places £000s

  387

  Taunton School

  Number of assisted pupils

  77

  Cost of places £000s

  427

  Company

  0–1 year

  1–2 years

  2–3 years

  3–4 years

  4–5 years

  5–6 years

  6–7 years

  7–8 years

  8–9 years

  Total

  Central

  1

  4

  5

  7

  1

  8

  7

  1

  0

  34

  North

  4

  1

  9

  4

  2

  8

  8

  7

  1

  44

  North-east

  8

  1

  13

  2

  3

  8

  12

  4

  0

  51

  South

  1

  1

  8

  9

  4

  5

  5

  1

  0

  34

  South-east

  6

  1

  10

  1

  3

  6

  8

  3

  0

  38

  West

  4

  1

  6

  0

  11

  4

  7

  4

  6

  43

  Total

  24

  9

  51

  23

  24

  39

  47

  20

  7

  244

  National Curriculum (Engineering)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for what reasons the study of engineering is not included in the national curriculum. [7056]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The National Curriculum aims to ensure that all pupils aged 5–16 at maintained schools benefit from a broad and balanced curriculum. It was not designed to train pupils for specialised careers such as engineering. There is, however, scope within the programmes of study for a number of National Curriculum subjects, including design and technology, maths, science and art, for schools to ensure that pupils have the opportunity to gain the knowledge, skills and understanding which they will need to study engineering.

  Parenthood Lessons
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to promote parenthood lessons in schools as part of his programme to meet the "The Health of the Nation" target for teenage pregnancies. [6825]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  As stated in the White Paper "Excellence in Schools" published yesterday, the Government intends that all secondary schools should have a role in teaching young people the skills of good parenting, both formally and through contact with good adult role models. Schools need to impress upon young people at an early stage the emotional, financial, social and practical responsibilities which parenthood entails and the lifelong nature of the commitment it brings. The Department will be considering with teachers and others how this might best be achieved and what parenting education programmes should contain.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Dial-a-ride Companies
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretarty of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many vehicales each dial-a-ride company operates; and what is the age of each vehical. [6907]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The answer is as follows:
  441
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what contribution London Transport made to the cost of replacing dial-a-ride vehicles in each of the last three financial years; and how many vehicles were replaced. [6908]

  Ms Jackson
  Dial-a-ride vehicles are purchased by London Transport on behalf of the dial-a-ride companies. The cost and numbers of additional vehicles are included as well as vehicles which were purchased as replacements.

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Total cost of additional replacement vehicles

  £2.03 million

  £0.11 million

  £0.81 million

  Number of additional vehicles that entered services

  26

  0

  9

  Number of replacement vehicles that entered service

  20

  17

  14

  The basic vehicles may be paid for in one year but the cost of conversion (including equipment such as a tail lift) and delivery may fall in the following financial year. In some cases all the costs may be incurred in the year before the vehicle enters service.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much each dial-a-ride company has paid to London Transport in depreciation costs in each of the last three years. [6909]

  Ms Jackson
  The answer is as follows.

  London dial-a-ride companies—depreciation charges

  Central

  North

  North-east

  South

  South-east

  West

  1994–95

  158

  177

  212

  167

  183

  197

  1995–96

  121

  148

  166

  128

  131

  127

  1996–97

  139

  151

  176

  133

  148

  136

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the staffing establishment in London Transport responsible for administering dial-a-ride companies. [6911]

  Ms Jackson
  I understand that there are three full time equivalent posts and one part time post (three days per week).

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimates he has made of the financial implications of his Department funding dial-a-ride companies directly. [6912]

  Ms Jackson
  None.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the recent decision by a major retailer to transport more of its goods by rail rather than road; and if he will take steps to encourage other retailers to do the same. [6558]
  442
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government wants to see more freight go by rail, and we welcome new initiatives which support that aim.

  Our White Paper on integrated transport policy, to be published next spring, will consider ways of increasing the proportion of freight carried by rail.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will consider including within future guidelines for transport policies and programmes submitted by local authorities a requirement to promote greater use of railways for freight, with special reference to the provision of inter-modal terminals. [7065]

  Ms Jackson
  Measures to promote the use of railways for freight transport are not funded through the Transport Policies and Programme (TPP) system and have therefore not been the subject of Departmental TPP Guidance to local authorities.

  Our White Paper on integrated transport policy, to be published next spring, will consider ways of increasing the proportion of freight carried by rail, including the role of the planning system.

  Roads Programme
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what method of appraisal of traffic generation has been used in respect of(a) each road scheme approved since May 1997 and (b) those road schemes currently under review; and if he will a statement. [6870]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No major trunk road schemes have passed an approval stage since May 1997. Local authority schemes subject to the Secretary of State's approval and the trunk road schemes currently under review are subject to appraisal for traffic generation in accordance with the "Guidance on Induced Traffic", published in December 1994, where appropriate or, where there are complex traffic interactions, using the updated Guidance incorporated in the "Design Manual for Roads and Bridges" in February 1997 (Volume 12 section 2 part 2).

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he will take to ensure that the current review of the roads programme will not result in delays to those schemes chosen to proceed. [6950]

  Ms Jackson
  We are undertaking an accelerated review of 12 trunk road schemes. For others, work is proceeding to the end of the current stage. This will minimise the delay to schemes should they be chosen to proceed and ensure that work done to date is not lost.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the DBFO road schemes for which tenders have been received will be able to proceed as planned. [6940]

  Ms Jackson
  These DBFO projects are being considered within the accelerated review of trunk road schemes which is currently underway. We are aiming to announce decisions on these schemes later this month.

  Private Hire Vehicles
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has following the case in the Queen's Bench Division between L. Benson and Copeland Borough Council to seek to restore the previous position whereby the spouse of a licence holder could use a private hire vehicle for any purpose other than for hire. [6766]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I am aware of the concerns of the private hire trade following the decision in the case of Benson v. Boyce and I am considering what should be dune in the light of this judgment.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the present regulatory arrangements provide a mechanism for Railtrack to be rewarded for improvements to railway infrastructure through the price review mechanism rather than having to recover all the costs from a train operating company during its franchise period. [7063]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The costs of enhancement investment do not have to be recovered from a train operating company over one franchise period. The treatment of access charges in respect of network enhancements at future periodic reviews should generally take account of any agreement between the funding body or bodies and Railtrack on the future basis of charging, while having regard to specific public interest concerns.

  Traffic Wardens
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review with the Home Secretary the duties and powers of traffic wardens, with special reference to offences involving moving traffic. [7064]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The duties and powers of traffic wardens are matters for the Home Secretary and Chief Officers of Police. Traffic enforcement is one of the matters I expect to be regularly discussed between my Department and the Home Office.

  Motorway Lighting
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the accuracy of the map of motorway lighting produced by the Highways Agency in June: [7106]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 24 June, Official Report, columns 521–22, for what reasons (a) the map supplied by the Highways Agency shows the M65 as unlit and (b) the list of motorways excludes the M65. [7107]

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

  Letter from Peter Nutt to Mr. Peter L. Pike, dated 8 July 1997:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the. Regions has asked Lawrie Haynes to reply to your recent questions about the accuracy of the map of motorway lighting prepared by the Highways Agency. Lawrie is away from the office at present, and has asked me to deal with correspondence in his absence.
  444
  The map of motorway lighting provided by the Highways Agency was produced to indicate the approximate distribution of lighting on motorways across England. Regional information was gathered and centrally collated onto a base map. Whilst every endeavour has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information, unfortunately an error occurred in the categorisation of the section of the M65 operated by the Highways Agency.
  I apologise for this error and confirm that the Agency's section of the M65 is completely lit. An updated list and map is enclosed for your information and updated copies of the map will be sent to the library.

  List of whole or part sections of lit motorway

  Junction to Junction

  Motorway

  Number

  Number

  M1

  1

  20

  M1

  21

  27

  M1

  46

  47

  M2

  6

  End

  M3

  Start

  1

  M3

  2

  3

  M3

  12

  End

  M4

  Start

  8/9

  M4

  10

  13

  M4

  20

  21

  M4

  22

  Wales

  M5

  Start

  9

  M5

  14

  19

  M5

  30

  31

  M6

  Start

  1

  M6

  2

  3

  M6

  3

  11

  M6

  15

  16

  M6

  19

  21A

  M6

  26

  33

  M10

  1

  2

  M11

  Start

  3

  M11

  5

  7

  M11

  12

  End

  M20

  4

  8

  M20

  11

  13

  M23

  7

  9

  M23

  9

  9A

  M23

  10

  End

  M25

  1A

  3

  M25

  6

  9

  M25

  10

  17

  M25

  18

  22

  M25

  23

  31

  M27

  3

  4

  M27

  5

  9

  M27

  11

  12

  M32

  Start

  1

  M32

  1

  3

  M40

  1

  2

  M40

  4

  5

  M42

  Start

  1

  M42

  3

  4

  M42

  5

  9

  M45

  Start

  1

  M50

  Start

  1

  M53

  Start

  3

  M54

  Start

  3

  M55

  Start

  3

  M55

  3

  End

  M56

  Start

  7

  M57

  6

  End

  M58

  Start

  1

  M58

  3

  4

  M61

  Start

  4

  M61

  9

  End

  M62

  9

  11

  M62

  11

  27

  M62

  37

  End

  445

  List of whole or part sections of lit motorway

  Junction to Junction

  Motorway

  Number

  Number

  M63

  Start

  End

  M65

  6

  10

  M66

  1

  End

  M67

  Start

  End

  M69

  Start

  1

  M69

  2

  End

  M180

  Start

  2

  M180

  4

  End

  M606

  Start

  End

  M621

  Start

  End

  Details are approximate and based on fully commissioned lighting installations.

  Belmont Stables, Barnet
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations his Department has received concerning the planning applications submitted by Belmont Stables for the Totteridge valley, Barnet area: and if he will make a statement. [6486]

  Mr. Caborn
  The application affecting the Totteridge valley submitted by the Belmont Riding Centre have been taken to appeal. The Planning Inspectorate are arranging a local inquiry into the proposals. Over 150 individual representations have been received by the Inspectorate all raising concerns about the proposals. A 450-signature petition in support of the proposals was received by the local planning authority. As the appeals are still to be heard it would not be appropriate to comment on the merits of the proposed developments.

  Mink and Arctic Fox
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he plans to list mink and arctic fox under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. [6548]

  Angela Eagle
  I have no plans to add mink and arctic fox to the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have lead responsibility for legislation concerning animals farmed for fur.

  Housing
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what structures exist at ministerial level to allow inter-departmental co-operation on housing matters. [6637]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Ministerial Committee on Home and Social Affairs (HS) considers housing matters. Other committees may also consider particular housing issues from time to time as necessary.

  Travellers
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will consider reintroducing the provisions of the Caravan Sites Act 1968, with special reference to the requirement on local authorities to provide sites for travellers. [6639]
  446
  Mr. Raynsford
  We have no plans to reintroduce a statutory duty on local authorities to provide gypsy caravan sites. Local authorities already have a discretionary power (in section 24 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960) to provide sites for gypsies if necessary. My Department's Circular number 18/94, "Gypsy Sites Policy and Unauthorised Camping" also advises local authorities to keep their existing gypsy sites open and well maintained, and to consider the provision of emergency stopping places for gypsies visiting their area.

  Humane Trapping
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has made to(a) his European counterparts and (b) other bodies in respect of the proposed international agreement on humane trapping standards discussed at the European Environment Ministers" meeting on 19 June. [6681]

  Angela Eagle
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State has met his opposite numbers from a number of Member States to discuss the Commission's proposals for a "Framework Agreement on humane trapping standards". We have made it clear that we do not support the Commission's proposal since we believe that it does not go far enough in banning the use of leghold traps.

  Ground Rents
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in which parts of the country the system of ground rents still exists; what representations he has received concerning abuses of the ground rent system; and what plans he has to review the legislation concerning ground rents. [7108]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to rent charges levied by landowners who have released their land for development, which are otherwise known as ground rents or chief rents, rather than to ground rents for leasehold property.

  The vast majority of rent charges are on properties in the Bristol, Manchester and Wearside areas. The Rentcharges Act 1977 enables some householders who are liable to pay rent charges to redeem them cheaply and easily. However, certain rent charges are excluded from the Act and we are actively studying suggestions that there may as a result be scope for abuse by owners of such rent charges.

  Biotechnological Inventions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research his Department has undertaken into the possible environment implications of the draft European Parliament and Council directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions; and if he will make a statement. [7354]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department has a research programme to consider the environmental implications arising from the release of biotechnological products, in particular to identify the potential hazards and assess the risks to the environment from the proposed release of
  447
  genetically modified organisms. The Department has no responsibility for the legal protection of biotechnological inventions.

  Abstraction Licences
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Government will be conducting its review of abstraction licences; if he will make a statement on the review; and if it will include a review of pricing mechanisms. [7331]

  Angela Eagle
  We shall be launching the review shortly. A key aim will be to ensure that the environment is properly protected, while providing fair and flexible arrangements for access to water resources to meet properly managed demands in a sustainable way. Economic instmments including pricing mechanisms will be amongst the measures to be studied.

  Water Companies
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Government plan to take steps to establish duties on water companies to(a) conserve water when carrying out their functions and (b) prepare and implement drought contingency plans. [7335]

  Angela Eagle
  We shall bring forward legislation on these matters when Parliamentary time allows. Following the Water Summit in May, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister asked water companies what steps they were taking to prepare and agree drought contingency plans voluntarily and he will be making an announcement on their responses shortly.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the replies he has received from the water companies in response to the Government's water summit will be available to interested parties. [7330]

  Angela Eagle
  The replies will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the timetable for the Government's review of water company charging systems. [7334]

  Angela Eagle
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment launched the Government's review of the system of charging for water in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) on 25 June 1997 Official Report, column 514. My Department has written to interested bodies seeking their representations on the full range of issues which will be considered in the review. A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library. The closing date for comments on the review is 31 July 1997. The Government intends to set out its proposals in the autumn. There will then be a period of formal consultation, with a view to reaching decisions fairly early in 1998.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those water companies that have agreed voluntarily to(a) offer domestic customers free simple devices to reduce toilet flushes, (b) offer free water efficiency audits to
  448
  domestic customers, (c) increase efforts to encourage water efficient gardening and (d) publish more performance and financial information [7333]

  Angela Eagle
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will be making an announcement on these matters shortly.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what assessment his Department has made of the reduction in the income of occupational pension funds administered on behalf of local authority employees from the abolition of payable tax credits; [7338]

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of the cost of local authorities of the increase in pension contributions following the abolition of payable tax credits. [7339]

  Ms Armstrong
  An assessment of the abolition of tax credits on the income flow of local authority pension funds will in the first instance be a matter for each of the funds to consider, in discussion with their actuaries, investment managers and other advisers. The findings can then be built into the 1998 valuation of the funds and used to inform decisions on employers" future contribution rates with effect from the financial year 1999–2000.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the value of the tax credits available on occupational pension schemes for local authority employees during the last financial year. [7337]

  Ms Armstrong
  The information requested is not collected in such a way that is readily identifiable to individual pension schemes.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what consultations he has had with the Local Government Association about the effect on occupational pension schemes of the abolition of payable tax credits.

  Ms Armstrong
  Liaison between my Department, the Local Government Association and the United Kingdom Steering Committee on local authority pensions continues on a regular basis on these matters.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of the impact on council tax bands of the abolition of payable tax credits. [7336]

  Ms Armstrong
  None. The council tax is based on a system of banded valuations according to the open market value of properties on 1 April 1991 and these valuations will be unaffected by the abolition of payable tax credits.

  Office of Water Services
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what Ofwat's environmental responsibilities are; and to what extent these will be included in the forthcoming price review. [7332]
  449
  Angela Eagle
  The statutory duties of the Director General of Water Services are set out in the Water Industry Act 1991. Subject to his primary duties, the Director General has a general environmental duty, set out in Section 3. The Director General will take all his statutory duties into account during the forthcoming review.

  Local Government Officers (Political Activity)
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to relax the rules in relation to local government officers and political activity. [7157]

  Mr. Raynsford
  These rules are currently the subject of a case before the European Commission of Human Rights, whose findings we will wish to consider carefully before deciding what action, if any, would be appropriate.

  Old Documents
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the date and title of the oldest document or archival unit retained by his Department which has not been passed on to the Public Record Office for release for public inspection. [7208]

  Ms Angela Eagle
  Under The Lord Chancellor's Instrument (LCI) number 28 dated 13 July 1995 the Department of Transport renewed its requirement to retain "Maps and plans (MNA series) relating to consents and proposals for work on foreshores and in tidal waters (1840–I990)". The dates were the best estimate before reviewing the collection.

  These records are in the process of being reviewed and the oldest record discovered in the collection to date is circa 1771 a survey map of the River Dee, Cheshire. The Public Record Office has the full catalogue of the material and advise that it is inappropriate to apply for another LCI showing (1771–1990) as the work should be completed and transfer effected by March 1998 latest.

  Ordnance Survey
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to change the 1997–98 cash limit for Ordnance Survey. [7542]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The cash limit for Ordnance Survey, Class VI Vote 8 has been reduced by £23,000 from £6,759,000 to £6,736,000 as a result of a transfer of provision from Ordnance Survey to the Department of National Heritage, Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments, Class X, Vote 1 for a rent on a jointly occupied property.

  CITES
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the outcome of the conference of the parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species which took place in Harare from 9 to 20 June. [7710]
  450
  Mr. Meacher
  A record number of 125 member countries attended the conference, the majority of whom favoured greater liberalisation of controls in favour of sustainable use in line with the agreements reached at the Earth summit in 1992 and since confirmed at the UN General Assembly Special Session last week.

  Three southern African countries, Botswana, Namibia, and Zimbabwe, secured approval to transfer their elephant populations from Appendix I to Appendix II with the intention of allowing a limited resumption of trade in ivory stockpiles, live animals, and hunting trophies. During the Conference it became clear that a majority of countries supported an immediate resumption of trade in ivory. The United Kingdom and other EU Member States, working with African countries, were instrumental in deferring a final decision until stronger controls, verified by an independent panel of experts, are confirmed to be in place. In consequence, there will be no trade in ivory for at least 21 months. If trade in raw ivory does resume, the stockpiles will be exported to a single country, Japan, in a one-off experiment, subject to review. The UK abstained on the final vote in line with the European Union's Common Position.

  After active interventions by the UK and other EU Member States, the Conference voted to maintain controls on a number of key species. Proposals from Japan and Norway to block the International Whaling Commission's primacy in matters concerning commercial whaling, whilst allowing trade to resume in several whale species, were rejected, as were South Africa's proposal for a limited trade in rhinoceros horn from their white rhino population, and a proposal from Cuba to resume trade in their stockpiles of hawksbill turtle shells.

  With support from the EU the Conference adopted Germany's proposal to include all species of sturgeon on Appendix II, thereby ensuring that future trade in these species will be monitored and controlled. Agreement was reached on increased collaboration between CITES and the Food and Agriculture Organisation to gather data on shark landings, but the Conference rejected proposals from the USA, strongly supported by the UK, to establish a marine fish working group.

  The Conference endorsed a major UK initiative to tackle the impact of traditional medicines on wild animals and plants. It agreed a resolution sponsored by the UK, Japan and Korea detailing actions to reduce over-exploitation of wild species for medicinal use though better communication with traditional medicine communities, the introduction of comprehensive legislation in consumer countries and range states, effective enforcement, and more research into substitutes for endangered species. The proposals were agreed by consensus following constructive discussions between the sponsor countries and China.

  Proposals from Argentina, Bolivia, and Peru for a limited and controlled trade in sheared wool, cloth, and handicraft products from wild vicuna were adopted, but with a zero quota for the Bolivian population and other safeguards. The EU supported the proposals on the basis of the scientific evidence and after detailed discussions with the range states on their internal controls.
  451
  Finland withdrew from a proposal, which they had submitted jointly with Bulgaria and Jordan, to transfer all populations of the European Brown Bear from Appendix II to Appendix I. Most range states, including Russia, strongly opposed the proposal. In a series of votes, the Conference rejected the original proposal and subsequent amendments which would have confined its application to specific populations. In the absence of a common position, the UK and other EU Member States abstained on the first vote. Member States opposed the amended proposals which would have been impossible to enforce.

  The UK and other EU Member States strongly supported a proposal from the USA and Bolivia to include Big Leaf Mahogany on Appendix II of the Convention. However, as in 1994, this was rejected by the Conference. Instead, a working group will examine ways of protecting this species from unsustainable logging.

  In total, conference decisions will result in stricter controls on 17 species; one of these will transfer from Appendix III of the Convention to Appendix II, three from Appendix II to Appendix I, and thirteen will be added to the Convention for the first time. Less strict controls will apply to six species which will move from Appendix I to Appendix II. A further eleven species, which are presently on Appendix II but not in international trade, will be removed from the Convention altogether. Controls will also be removed from over a thousand artificially propagated hybrid plants widely sold through retail outlets.

  With UK support, the Conference adopted an important initiative by tiger range states for stronger action to protect this critically endangered species. As the new Chair of the Convention's Standing Committee, we will ensure there are opportunities to discuss progress before the next Conference.

  A proposal by the USA to establish a permanent Enforcement Working Group was rejected despite strong UK support, but Customs and Police members of the UK delegation organised an enforcement workshop during the Conference to discuss training, information exchange and co-operation between agencies. Several other countries took part, including the USA, Canada, South Africa, Mexico and a number of EU Member States.

  The UK delegation also played an active role in discussions on other key issues, chairing a working group which produced an action plan to implement the findings of a report on the effectiveness of CITES, and a resolution calling for increased co-operation between CITES and other conventions, in particular, the Biodiversity Convention. The UK also brokered a compromise agreement on the Convention's budget over the next three years which will allow extra work to be done whilst limiting the overall increase in contributions to 5 per cent. An offer by the UK, strongly supported by the EU to host the next conference, was narrowly rejected in favour of Indonesia.

  The United Kingdom was elected to Chair the Convention's Standing Committee which will be taking major decisions on behalf of all the Parties in the period before the next Conference in two and a half years.

  Local Government Act 1988
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy in respect of Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988. [6895]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 1 July 1997]: The Government has long made it clear that we are opposed to Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988. We are therefore intending to repeal it; however, there is no legislative opportunity available at present.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has for a review of the structure and operation of the Child Support Agency; over what time scale and with what terms of reference; and if she will make a statement. [4889]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Over the coming months we will be looking closely at all areas of the Child Support Agency's operations, in particular to ensure that cases are processed faster, backlogs are tackled and fathers do not avoid paying maintenance.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the proportion of the new work intake of the Child Support Agency during 1996–97 and the number of live assessed cases on 31 March 1997 relating to persons with care(a) claiming (i) income support, (ii) income-based jobseekers allowance, (iii) family credit and (iv) disability working allowance and (b) not in receipt of means-tested benefits; if she will list the figures for the three previous years; and if she will estimate the proportion of maintenance collected which is not offset against means-tested benefits. [5265]

  Mr. Bradley
  We expect the Child Support Agency to provide an efficient and effective service to all its clients throughout the Child Support assessment process. We are looking for substantial and sustained improvements from the Agency in particular on getting more maintenance paid, reducing the backlog and improving customer service.

  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Mr. Archy Kirkwood, dated 7 July 1997:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about new work intake by the Child Support Agency.
  The Agency intake of new work in 1996–97 was 368,026. The intake for the 3 previous years was 356,317 in 1995–96; 398,584 in 1994–95; and 858,011 in 1993–94.
  Information is not available to break down each years new intake of work into the categories that you have requested. However, data relating to the Agency's live and assessed caseload is produced by

  453
  the Analytical Services Division of the Department of Social Security. Figures are not available, as at the month of March for each of the years you have requested; the nearest figures available are those at 30 June 1994, 31 March 1995 and 28 February for both 1996 and 1997. The table attached shows the total live and assessed caseload, and the number of cases with full maintenance assessments at the dates mentioned.
  The table also outlines the proportion of parents/persons with care claiming means tested benefits and those who are not. Data is only available for full maintenance assessments. The number of cases

  Child Support Agency live and assessed cases; full maintenance assessments (FMAs) and parent/person with care benefit status

  June 1994

  March 1995

  February 1996

  February 1997

  Number of live and assessed cases

  203,600

  345,400

  460,800

  579,200

  Number of FMAs

  152,100

  257,900

  369,100

  498,500

  Proportion of parents with care

  In receipt of income support

  86.2 per cent.

  83.5 per cent.

  77.0 per cent.

  73.1 per cent.

  In receipt of family credit and disabled working allowance

  8.9 per cent.

  10.5 per cent.

  13.2 per cent.

  15.2 per cent.

  Not in receipt of means tested benefit

  4.9 per cent.

  6.0 per cent.

  9.8 per cent.

  11.7 per cent.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many persons with care have received payments of interest on delay from the Child Support Agency. [5271]

  Mr. Bradley
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs Faith Boardman. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Mr. Archy Kirkwood, dated 7 July 1997:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the number of persons with care who have received payments of interest on delay from the Child Support Agency.
  The measure whereby persons with care are compensated for delays caused by the Agency in passing on maintenance payments was introduced in March 1996, and was applicable to payments made from 1 April 1995. At the 30 April 1997, the total number of persons with care who have received payments under this measure from the Agency was 835, from a live and assessed caseload of approximately half a million.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will give a breakdown of the level of Child Support Agency full assessment against absent parents" income in bands of £50 a week; and what

  Absent parents full maintenance assessments by net income for assessable purposes

  28 February 1997

  Absent parents net income

  Maintenance (£ per week)

  Total

  £0.00

  £0.01–£49.99

  £50.00–£99.99

  £100.00–£149.99

  £150.00–£199.99

  Total

  498,500

  203,500

  19,100

  28,900

  57,500

  80,100

  £0.00

  192,800

  155,700

  5,400

  14,800

  8,800

  6,400

  £0.01–£4.80

  77,200

  38,500

  13,800

  11,900

  10,100

  2,900

  £4.81–£9.99

  10,000

  300

  —

  1,400

  4,900

  2,600

  £10.00–£19.99

  25,000

  700

  —

  800

  12,900

  7,900

  £20.00–£29.99

  30,200

  1,500

  —

  100

  11,500

  11,200

  £30.00–£39.99

  34,000

  2,000

  —

  —

  7,100

  14,500

  £40.00–£49.99

  37,000

  1,400

  —

  —

  2,100

  18,300

  454
  where the parent with care is in receipt of Disabled Working Allowance is small, and these are included with Family Credit cases. Income-based Job Seekers Allowance cases are not counted separately, and they are included with Income Support cases.

  Of the £399.9m collected or arranged for payment by the Agency in 1996–97, £267.7m (67%) has been calculated as offset benefit spending. This leaves an estimated £132.2m (33%) which did not offset benefit spending.

  I hope this is helpful.

  proportion of absent parents have an assessment which is higher than the maintenance requirement for the relevant children. [5293]

  Mr. Bradley
  The formula provisions are designed to ensure that absent parents pay a reasonable amount towards the costs of their children, and contain a number of safeguards to ensure they retain a fair proportion of their income to meet other commitments. The additional maintenance payable when absent parents have sufficient income to meet the basic maintenance requirement helps to ensure that children share their higher standard of living.

  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Mr. Archy Kirkwood, dated 7 July 1997:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security regarding the level of Child Support Agency full maintenance assessments against absent parents net income and the proportion of absent parents that have a maintenance assessment that is higher than the maintenance requirement.
  The tables below outline full maintenance assessments of absent parents by net income as requested.
  The proportion of absent parents with a final maintenance higher than the maintenance requirement is approximately 12%.
  I hope this is helpful.
  455

  Absent parents full maintenance assessments by net income for assessable purposes

  28 February 1997

  Absent parents net income

  Maintenance (£ per week)

  Total

  £0.00

  £0.01–£49.99

  £50.00–£99.99

  £100.00–£149.99

  £150.00–£199.99

  £50.00–£59.99

  33,500

  800

  —

  —

  100

  15,400

  £60.00–£69.99

  23,900

  1,000

  —

  —

  —

  800

  £70.00–£79.99

  16,400

  800

  —

  —

  —

  100

  £80.00–£89.99

  9,400

  200

  —

  —

  —

  —

  £90.00–£99.99

  4,500

  300

  —

  —

  —

  —

  £100.00–£ 109.99

  2,100

  100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  £110.00–£119.99

  1,200

  100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  £120.00 and over

  1,200

  100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Absent parents net income

  Maintenance (£ per week)

  £200.00–£249.99

  £250.00–£299.99

  £300.00–£349.99

  £350.00–£399.99

  £400.00–£449.99

  £450.00–or more

  Total

  53,800

  29,700

  12,400

  6,800

  3,300

  3,300

  £0.00

  1,400

  200

  —

  —

  —

  —

  £0.01–£4.80

  100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  £4.81–£9.99

  800

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  £10.00–£19.99

  2,300

  400

  —

  100

  —

  —

  £20.00–£29.99

  4,700

  1,000

  300

  —

  —

  —

  £30.00–£39.99

  7,400

  2,300

  400

  200

  —

  —

  £40.00–£49.99

  9,600

  3,900

  100

  400

  100

  —

  £50.00–£59.99

  9,600

  5,300

  1,500

  700

  200

  —

  £60.00–£69.99

  13,600

  5,100

  1,900

  1,100

  300

  100

  £70.00–£79.99

  4,200

  7,200

  2,400

  1,000

  500

  100

  £80.00–£89.99

  100

  4,100

  2,700

  1,200

  600

  200

  £90.00–£99.99

  —

  100

  1,800

  1,100

  600

  200

  £100.00–£109.99

  —

  —

  300

  700

  500

  200

  £110.00–£119.99

  —

  —

  —

  300

  200

  300

  £120.00 and over

  —

  —

  —

  —

  200

  700

  Absent parents with a net income of £0.00 includes all cases where the absent parent is on income support JSA(IB). This includes a small number of cases where the maintenance assessment is greater than £4.80. These are normally suspended eases where the CSA is investigating the current status of the absent parent.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list for each quarter for which information is available since April 1993(a) the total debt in Child Support Agency accounts, (b) the debt attributable to interim maintenance assessments and (c) for both IMA-only cases and fully assessed cases, the number and percentage of accounts (i) fully paid up, (ii) partly paid up and (iii) without any payments made: and if he will add these data to the CSA performance statistical information placed in the Library. [5261]

  Mr. Bradley
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Mr. Archy Kirkwood, dated 7 July 1997:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the amount of debt in Child Support Agency accounts.

  Child Support Agency payment compliance via regular payment accounts

  Full Maintenance Assessments (including all categories—excluding suspended and deferred cases)

  Total

  Not applicable

  Sub total

  Full

  Per cent.

  Partial

  Per cent.

  Nil

  Per cent.

  November 1995

  341,500

  221,700

  119,900

  22,800

  19

  41,700

  35

  55,400

  46

  February 1996

  369,100

  238,100

  130,900

  30,200

  23

  43,500

  33

  57,200

  44

  May 1996

  395,500

  254,200

  141,200

  35,900

  25

  48,200

  34

  57,200

  41

  456
  The amount of debt, which includes final maintenance assessments and all interim maintenance assessments (except Category A maintenance assessments) remaining to be collected by the Agency at the end of March 1997 was £513,124,641.

  The amount of maintenance outstanding attributable to Category A assessments remaining to be collected by the Agency at the end of March 1997 was £613,765,094.

  Compliance rates are only available from November 1995. Prior to that date information available was of insufficient reliability to produce accurate results. The tables attached reflect the position from November 1995.

  We will not be including these statistics in the CSA Statistical Information report which is placed in the House of Commons Library, as these statistics are available to the public in the DSS Analytical Services Division CSA Quarterly Summary of Statistics.

  I hope this is helpful.
  457

  Child Support Agency payment compliance via regular payment accounts

  Full Maintenance Assessments (including all categories—excluding suspended and deferred cases)

  Total

  Not applicable

  Sub total

  Full

  Per cent.

  Partial

  Per cent.

  Nil

  Per cent.

  August 1996

  426,300

  277,500

  148,800

  31,100

  21

  56,400

  38

  61,200

  41

  November 1996

  462,800

  306,300

  156,500

  43,100

  28

  52,400

  33

  61,000

  39

  February 1997

  498,500

  333,100

  165,400

  52,200

  32

  52,100

  31

  61,000

  37

  Not applicable category includes those cases with nothing due or where payment is not via the collection service, as well as the majority of absent parents in receipt of income support.

  Due to rounding figures may not sum to exact totals.

  Nil compliance indicates that no payment has been made during the last three months.

  Interim maintenance assessments

  Total

  Not applicable

  Sub total

  Full

  Per cent.

  Partial

  Per cent.

  Nil

  Per cent.

  November 1995

  94,000

  20,400

  73,600

  400

  1

  4,100

  5

  69,100

  94

  February 1996

  91,800

  21,300

  70,500

  500

  1

  4,700

  7

  65,200

  92

  May 1996

  89,200

  21,000

  68,100

  500

  1

  4,600

  7

  63,000

  92

  August 1996

  86,200

  21,800

  64,300

  500

  1

  4,300

  7

  59,500

  92

  November 1996

  83,200

  22,600

  60,600

  700

  1

  4,500

  8

  55,400

  91

  February 1997

  80,700

  24,400

  56,300

  600

  1

  4,000

  7

  51,700

  92

  Not applicable category includes those cases with nothing due or where payment is not via the collection service, as well as the majority of absent parents in receipt of income support.

  Due to rounding figures may not sum to exact totals.

  Nil compliance indicates that no payment has been made during the last three months.

  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of child maintenance assessments were processed by the Child Support Agency (i) within six months, (ii) within a year and (iii) after more than a year in 1996–97. [5446]

  Mr. Bradley
  We expect the Child Support Agency to provide an efficient and effective service to all its clients throughout the child support assessment process. We are looking for substantial and sustained operational improvements from the Agency, in particular on getting more maintenance paid, reducing the backlog and improving customer service.

  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Mr. Chris Pond, dated 7 July 1997:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the processing of maintenance assessments. I am afraid that I am unable to provide precise information in the format requested, as we do not have a breakdown of the proportion of clearances within a year and greater than a year.
  The clearance of maintenance assessments is the subject of a Secretary of State target, which in 1996/97 required that 60% of new applications be cleared within 26 weeks. We therefore monitored the progress of applications with this target in mind.
  In 1996197, we reported that 54% of new applications were cleared within 26 weeks. This was the figure for the full year. Performance was improving as the year-end approached in February and March, the in-month achievement was 60% and 63% respectively.
  Performance this year shows a continuing upward trend in the clearance of cases.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the caseload of the Child Support Agency, in respect of(a) cases awaiting
  458
  assessment and (b) live assessed cases at the end of each financial year of its operation; and what estimates she has made of these figures over the next five years. [5280]

  Mr. Bradley
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Mr. Archy Kirkwood, dated 7 July 1997:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the caseload of the Child Support Agency.
  Details of the number of cases awaiting assessment at the end of each year of operation are as follows:

  1993–94: 550,000

  1994–95: 425,561

  1995–96: 409,659

  1996–97: 406,649

  Details of the Agency's live and assessed cases are provided by the Department of Social Security Analytical Services Division, and are measured for the Agency's Quarterly Summary of Statistics (QSS). The quarterly measurement has not always coincided with the end of the financial year: the following figures are therefore from the QSS nearest to the year-end:

  1993–94: 203,600 (June 1994 QSS)

  1994–95: 345,400 (March 1995 QSS)

  1995–96: 460,800 (February 1996 QSS)

  1996–97: 579,200 (February 1997 QSS).

  We would expect to have reduced work on hand to around 200,000 by the end of 1998–99. The Agency is constantly seeking to improve clearance times and taking this into account would expect to have around 150,000–200,000 cases on hand during the following three years.
  The number of live and assessed cases at the end of each of the next five years is expected to be as follows:

  1997–98: 730,000

  1998–99: 855,000

  1999–2000: 950,000

  459

  2000–01: 1,035,000

  2001–02; 1,115,000

  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of Sate for Social Security how many complaints concerning the Child Support Agency were sent in the last six quarters to(a) its customer services manager, (b) its chief executive and (c) Ministers; and when complainants were informed of the establishment of the office of independent case examiner. [5316]

  Mr. Bradley
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter front Mrs. Faith Boardman to Mr. Archy Kirkwood, dated 7 July 1997:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about complaints concerning the Child Support Agency. I am afraid that I am unable to provide precise information in the format requested.
  Most letters of complaint to the Agency are not dealt with centrally, but are handled by the Child Support Agency Centres (or, in a small number of instances, field offices) responsible for the complainants case. The number of complains received by the Centres (or the field) over the last six quarters is as follows:

  Quarter

  Number of complaints

  October to December 1995

  7,609

  January to March 1996

  6,257

  April to June 1996

  6,275

  July to September 1996

  6,259

  October to December 1996

  5,808

  January to March 1997

  5,870

  Whilst figures are collated on correspondence received by Ministers and Chief Executive offices, this is not broken down into different categories, and it is not possible to say what proportion of that correspondence relates to complaints. Details of the number of letters received by the Chief Executive and by Ministers over the last six quarters is as follows:

  Quarter

  Chief Executive

  Ministers

  October to December 1995

  2,322

  455

  January to March 1996

  2,412

  370

  April to June 1996

  2,338

  402

  July to September 1996

  2,102

  319

  October to December 1996

  2,333

  346

  January to March 1997

  2,266

  347

  It is important to consider the amount of correspondence, whether complaints or other matters, in the context of the Agency's overall business. From launch in April 1993 to the end a 1996/97, the Agency has taken on just under two million cases. A relatively small proportion of the Agency's workload. Therefore, results in complains or other correspondence.

  In response to a written Parliamentary Question, the then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State announced on 25 March 1996, that an Independent Complaints Examiner would be recruited for the Agency. This was followed by a press release, on the same day, stating his intentions to recruit an Independent Complaints Examiner, following a pilot to inform the guidelines within which the Examiner would operate. The appointment of Anne Parker as Independent Case Examiner was announced in a press release on 31st December 1996 and a leaflet explaining the service was published at the end of March 1997. Additionally, moves to
  460
  publicise the service have included meetings between the Examiner and stakeholder organisations, and correspondence from the Ombudsman to MPs.

  The Office of the Independent Case Examiner opened for business on 7th April 1997, but there were some restrictions on publicity during the General Election period.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many Child Support Agency cases have had initial period arrears of over six months deferred in each quarter since April 1995; and in how many of these cases the person with care has been compensated. [5254]

  Mr. Bradley
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Mr. Archy Kirkwood, dated 7 July 1997:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency initial period arrears cases.
  This measure was introduced to encourage absent parents to start paying maintenance where significant levels of arrears had accrued, as a direct result of Agency delays in processing initial maintenance assessments in the early period of the Agency. Under this arrangement, if absent parents continue to comply for 52 weeks, they would only be liable for the latest 6 months of arrears. Where this results in a balance of arrears being due to the person with care, this is paid by the Agency in the form of a special payment.
  The table attached shows the number of cases where initial period arrears have been deferred and the number of cases where the person with care has been compensated.
  Because of the 52 week qualifying period no payments were made during 1995/96. It follows that any agreements made for 1996/97 would not be actioned until the beginning of the following financial year, namely 1997/98.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Child Support Agency initial period arrears cases

  Period

  Initial period arrears deferred — number of cases

  Number of cases where person with care has been compensated

  April to June 1995

  14

  Not applicable

  July to September 1995

  76

  Not applicable

  October to December 1995

  304

  Not applicable

  January to March 1996

  382

  Not applicable

  April to June 1996

  303

  Nil

  July to September 1996

  200

  16

  October to December 1996

  191

  20

  January to March 1997

  266

  52

  Totals

  1.736

  88

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the Child Support Agency performance statistics for the final quarter of 1996–97 will be placed in the Library; and if the CSA met its performance targets and its charter targets for that year. [5288]

  Mr. Bradley
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to the hon. Member.
  461
  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Mr. Archy Kirkwood, dated 7 July 1997:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the performance of the Child Support Agency in 1996/97.
  Performance statistics for the final quarter of the year were placed in the Library on 4th June 1997.
  The Agency was given a demanding set of targets for 1996/97 by the Secretary of State, and performance indicated the good progress made in its main activities, with four out of five targets achieved in full. Full details of performance against the targets are shown in the attached table 1.
  The original Agency Charter was published in April 1993 to coincide with the launch of the Agency. It has now been revised, following consultation with Agency staff, client representative groups, DSS Headquarters, and the Citizen's Charter Unit. The new Charter was published in November 1996, and was the first Agency leaflet to be awarded the Plain English Campaign "Crystal Mark". Performance in 1996/97 against the revised standards is shown in the attached table 2.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Table 1

  Secretary of State Target 1996–97

  Performance

  £380m in £400m to be collected by the Agency or arranged for direct payment.

  £399.89 million

  To achieve continuing improvement in accuracy so that in at least 85 per cent. of cases checked during March 1997 the assessment value will be for the correct amount.

  87 per cent.

  95 per cent. of payments to parents with care to be made within 10 working days of receipt from the absent parent.

  98 per cent.

  Maintenance assessments:

  60 per cent. to be cleared within 26 weeks.

  54 per cent.

  At 31 March 1997, no more than 10 per cent. of all applications to be over 52 weeks old.

  12 per cent.

  Second tier reviews:

  55 per cent. to be cleared within 13 weeks.

  66 per cent.

  80 per cent. to be cleared within 26 weeks.

  88 per cent.

  At 31 March 1997, no more than 15 per cent. to be over 26 weeks old.

  10 per cent.

  Table 2

  Charter standards

  Performance Per cent.

  We aim to complete new assessments within 26 weeks.

  54

  We aim to pay parents with care their maintenance within 10 working days of receipt from the absent parent.

  98

  We aim to review assessments within 26 weeks.

  88

  We aim to send all the necessary information to the appeal tribunal within 13 weeks.

  82

  We aim to answer your telephone call with 20 seconds if you phone with a general enquiry during normal working hours.

  64

  We aim to reply to letters within 10 working days of receiving them.

  52

  We aim to see you within 10 minutes of your arrival if you have booked an appointment.

  100

  We aim to acknowledge your complaint within 2 working days.

  92

  We aim to send a full reply within 10 working days.

  62

  462
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many Child Support Agency cases(a) liability orders have been registered in the county court, (b) inspectors have been appointed and (c) category C IMAs have been made. [5258]

  Mr. Bradley
  The Government believes all children are entitled to the support of both parents, irrespective of where they live. We cannot tolerate absent parents not paying the maintenance that they owe. It is therefore right that the Child Support Agency should chase up fathers who avoid paying.

  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Mr. Archy Kirkwood dated 7 July 1997:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the enforcement of maintenance assessments.
  Legal action against an absent parent is a serious step, and is not taken lightly by the Agency. Nevertheless, if all other voluntary methods have failed, and if a deduction from earnings order is not a possibility, then a liability order is applied for. The Agency's intention in such cases is to secure maintenance—it is hoped that the threat of such action will be enough to ensure compliance.
  During 1996/7 the Agency initiated liability order action in 2101 cases. The number of cases where a liability order was granted during 1996/7 was 1136.
  Additionally, since May 1996 the Agency has been able to enter liability orders in the County Court Register of Judgments in England and Wales. In 1996/97, 110 liability orders were entered in the County Court Register. In the first two months of 1997/98, 78 liability orders have been entered in the Register.
  Under Section 15 of the Child Support Agency 1991, the Secretary of State may appoint a designated officer to act as an inspector, to visit an employer or self-employed absent parent in order to obtain relevant information on a specific case. The Agency does not employ staff specifically to undertake the role of an inspector. Where it is appropriate to utilise inspectorate powers, a suitably qualified and experienced officer is designated. We do not collate information on the number of cases where it has been necessary to invoke the powers of an inspector.
  Category C interim maintenance assessments are only used where a self-employed person is genuinely attempting to cooperate, but is having difficulty providing all the necessary information. Where a self-employed person is being deliberately uncooperative a punitive Category A interim maintenance assessment is imposed. Very few Category C interim maintenance assessments have been made since their introduction in April 1995; the numbers are as follows:

  1995/96: 10

  1996/97: 3

  1997/98: 1 (to 31.5.97)

  I hope this is helpful.

  Child Care Disregard
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Wales have been in receipt of child care disregard since April 1996; and how many are lone parents. [7155]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Our objective is to reduce poverty and welfare dependency and to promote work incentives. Work is the best form of welfare for people of working age.
  463
  There were around 1,600 family credit awards that included help with childcare made to people in Wales between 1 April 1996 and 30 November 1996, the latest date for which figures are available, Of these 1,400 were lone parents.

  Information on families receiving the help through disability working allowance is not available, and housing benefit information will not be available until later in the year.

  Source:

  Family Credit 5 per cent. sample of awards.

  Old Documents
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the date and title of the oldest document or archival unit retained by her Department which has not been passed on to the Public Record Office for release for public inspection. [7202]

  Mr. Field
  The oldest file in the Department of Social Security awaiting transfer to the Public Record Office is:Ministry of Pensions Hospital, Leopardstown Park, Dublin. Surrender by Mr. Bernard Dunning of his reversionary interests in the property to the Crown. The file was raised on 7 February 1932 and closed on 25 April 1933.

  Benefit Integrity Project
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the savings that will accrue from the benefit integrity project for(a) the current year and (b) subsequent years. [6326]

  Mr. Field
  One of our key aims is to restore confidence in the benefits system by tackling fraud and ensuring value for taxpayers" money. Questions on Benefits Agency operational matters are the responsibility of the Chief Executive, Peter Mathison. I have asked him to write directly and for his reply to be published with this answer.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Paul Burstow dated 7 July 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question regarding the estimate that has been made of the savings that will accrue from the Benefit Integrity Project for (a) the current year and (b) subsequent years.
  The estimated programme expenditure savings attributed to the Benefit Integrity Project for the current year are £27m. Savings for the years 1998/99 and 1999/2000 are estimated to be £40m and £35m respectively.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

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.

Lord Alton of Liverpool
David Patrick Paul Alton, Esquire, having been created Baron Alton of Liverpool, of Mossley Hill in the County of Merseyside, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Hylton and the Lord Weatherill.

Global Environment Facility: Funding
2.47 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What undertakings they gave on United Kingdom contributions to the global environment facility or to biodiversity funds at the United Nations General Assembly special session held from 23rd to 27th June.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, in his address to the United Nations General Assembly special session, the Prime Minister confirmed United Kingdom support for the replenishment of the global environment facility. He also stressed the importance of combating the loss of biodiversity and proposed enhanced co-operation with key developing countries in significant environmental areas, including forests. The text agreed by the special session calls for a satisfactory replenishment of the global environment facility.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply which, one hopes, bodes well for the future. But, as the special session was intended to review progress since the Rio Conference in 1992, are the British Government disappointed that, despite the good intentions of five years ago, world emissions of carbon dioxide have increased, large areas of forest have disappeared and many developing countries, whose co-operation is essential, seem disenchanted?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, at the United Nations General Assembly special session the Prime Minister reasserted the basic message from Rio that tackling poverty and protecting the environment are inextricably linked. Eliminating poverty is essential to caring for the planet and is a bridge which unites both the North and the South. Her Majesty's Government believe that improving the conditions of the poorest peoples helps look after the environment. I can assure the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government will do
528
what they can to go on persuading other nations, which may seem a little less enthusiastic than Her Majesty's Government, of the wisdom of that course of action.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the noble Baroness indicate the response to the Prime Minister's declaration that the United Kingdom would aim to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. by the year 2010? Were any other countries ready to follow us in that ambitious target?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Lord with a list of countries which are following the United Kingdom's lead in that respect. I assure the House that the United Kingdom will continue fully to support the global environment facility and that we are committed to its further substantial replenishment later this year. I shall write with the details of other countries' commitment on that front.
Lord Judd: My Lords, in view of the very interesting observations of my noble friend about the relationship between poverty and environmental policy, does she agree that if third world countries are to play an effective part they will have a very heavy economic burden placed upon them and that consequently environmental policy should be central to our development policy under the new Department for International Development? When it arrives, will the White Paper deal with the environmental dimensions of development?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I can assure the House that it will. Her Majesty's Government recognise the very considerable strains put on a number of emerging countries' economies in doing what needs to be done to support environmental issues. Her Majesty's Government believe that they have taken a lead on this matter and are encouraging other countries—both wealthy countries and those less economically advantaged than ourselves—to support the targets.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that concern about the lack of clear policy in the global environment facility in this country was first expressed publicly in this House in the debate conducted on the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on systematic biology research? Is she further aware that since then the Department for International Development has been in regular contact with the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and myself, and the department's representative on the global environment facility council has ensured that very considerable improvements have been achieved through his actions? Will she ensure that the Department for International Development will maintain the pressure which I am quite sure is necessary if the money is to be well used?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I can assure the House of the continuing pressure by the Department for International Development. The House

529
may wish to note that the United Kingdom is the fifth largest contributor to the GEF and has met all its commitments in full. To date we have contributed £130 million. Thirty five per cent. of the bilateral projects of the Department for International Development are aimed primarily or partly at protecting the environment. The commitments add up to some £285 million.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that there is to be another conference at Kyoto towards the end of the year. Can she say what extra environmental undertakings the United Kingdom may be giving at that conference?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is a little early for us to be able to make any specific undertakings. I wish that I could. However, Her Majesty's Government will continue placing considerable emphasis on, for example, the importance of the world's forests at that time.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, given the stress that the Prime Minister rightly placed on a satisfactory replenishment of the global environment facility in New York, can the Minister tell us exactly what figure the Government have in mind and therefore what contribution the Government are anticipating the United Kingdom can make? Can the Minister also tell the House when the final text of the special session will be available? That would greatly help this House and another place in answering these sorts of questions.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am unable to tell the noble Earl exactly when the special session record will be available. I shall arrange for it to be placed in the Library of the House when it is available. The extent of the replenishment is still a matter of negotiation. The negotiations began on 2nd May and the aim is to complete them by the end of the year. I am afraid that I cannot comment on the likely outcome at present, but I can assure the House that we are prepared to play a full part in reaching a satisfactory replenishment and to make a substantial contribution. We shall be encouraging other nations to do likewise.

Homes Owned by Central Government
2.55 p.m.
Lord Hyltonasked Her Majesty's Government:
How many houses or flats were owned by departments of central government; how many were vacant; and how many were derelict, at the most recent date for which figures are available; and what measures are in hand to let those properties.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the total number of homes owned by central government
530
departments at 1st April 1997 was 6,833. Of those, 1,009 were vacant, 28 of which were specifically identified as being derelict. As the House will be aware, MoD properties are owned by Annington Homes and are therefore not included in those figures. Guidance on securing better use of government empty homes encourages departments to let empty properties. We intend to look again at existing guidance to see what further action may be required to tackle government empty homes.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her helpful reply. Can she say how central government expect local authorities and housing associations to manage their properties efficiently unless a clear lead is given by the departments of central government?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I accept the point made by the noble Lord. It is important that government departments reduce the number of empty homes that they own, not only for themselves but in order to set an example to private, local authority and housing association landlords. That is why Nick Raynsford, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and myself have arranged a meeting with the Empty Homes Agency to discuss the issue and, I hope, take it further.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that traditionally government departments have a worse record of keeping empty properties than the local authorities, which were so badly berated by Members opposite when they were in government? Is it possible, now that funds are to become increasingly available to local authorities, for them or the housing associations, where they wish to do so, to enter into negotiations quickly to bring such empty properties into the mainstream for letting where they are so badly needed?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. It is incumbent upon the Government to put their own house in order—if I may use that phrase in this context—before lecturing local authorities, which have a better record than the Government in this area. We are exploring ways in which we can make better use of empty properties in the social housing sector. For example, if local authorities felt that, by applying their share of the additional resources released under the capital receipts initiative, they could use government empty properties to help meet priority housing needs in their area and it represented the best value for money, it would be possible to use the money in that way.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can the Minister indicate what effective action is being taken to ensure that unoccupied premises are now occupied? We shall not then have to face the ironic situation in which many people are short of housing and yet a lot of vacant houses are going spare.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it is policy, whenever a home is empty—particularly if it is awaiting disposal—that it should be let if at all possible. As I said earlier, the record has not been as good as it should have been and we are trying to improve upon it.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, bearing in mind that there is a shortfall of 350,000 houses or flats suitable for people who use wheelchairs, will the Government make certain that as many as possible of the units of accommodation that become available are adapted for wheelchair users before they are put on the market?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that suggestion. Bearing in mind that the capital receipts initiative may be used for upgrading and improving property, I shall make sure his point is transferred on.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, will my noble friend examine the report bearing my name, the Ewing Report on Housing for Wheelchaired Disabled, and follow the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, about adapting a number of these houses for the use of people in wheelchairs? Does my noble friend accept that this problem has not arisen since 1st May? May I congratulate her on the action she is taking to make sure that these empty houses are fully occupied as soon as possible?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for both those points. I shall certainly look at his report. It is true that the situation we inherited 10 weeks ago is not one of which anyone would be proud. We wish to make progress, but it will take time to put right some of the things that have gone wrong in this area for many years.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the noble Baroness indicated that a relatively small number of derelict houses were in the ownership of departments. Nonetheless, does the guidance given to departments include a recommendation that they keep all the houses and flats they own in good condition?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we intend looking again at the guidance that is given to cover precisely those kinds of areas. It is important that we do not define as derelict properties that are habitable but simply need improvements.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, will the Minister return to the question of local authorities? Will she pursue with great vigour the local authorities that have the greatest number of empty properties? Those were vacancies which existed at 1st May and many of them accumulated in authorities under the control of the Labour Party. Perhaps I may give one example. In 1996, 4 per cent. of the Islington stock was vacant. The seven local authorities with the greatest number of vacancies are all Labour controlled. The number of local authority vacancies greatly exceeds the total number of government department empty properties. Does she
532
agree that if the houses under local authority control were brought into use, that would be financially more cost-effective than releasing capital receipts, which would increase public borrowing?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it might take some time to de-construct all the elements of that question. It is inevitable that any list of local authorities will have a predominance of Labour authorities, given the inability of the party opposite to gain power in local government. It is important to recognise that in percentage terms local authorities have done far better in this area than national government. However, it is true that local authorities are greater owners of property and therefore overall numbers are higher in local authorities. Any home that is unnecessarily empty is a wasted resource and one that could provide a home for someone who needs it. Some authorities already have effective strategies for bringing empty homes quickly into use. We want to see the poorer performers brought up to the standard of the best. The noble Lord should not be so swift to rubbish the capital receipts initiative which will help in bringing substandard property in the local authority sector up to standard.

Millennium Celebrations
3.4 p.m.
Lord Eltonasked Her Majesty's Government:
How they will ensure that it will be clear to all those visiting the projected millennium dome that it was built to commemorate the anniversary of the birth of Jesus Christ.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we recognise that the millennium is both a Christian anniversary and an important landmark for everyone who measures time by the Gregorian calendar. The Secretary of State for National Heritage has emphasised spiritual and physical renewal as central to the New Millennium Experience at Greenwich. We are willing to work closely with the Christian Churches, and with those of other faiths and none, to achieve this.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise what comfort there is in his Answer for those who were guided merely by the statement of the Government's position in the press release issued by the Minister without Portfolio 11 days ago which described the event as simply a chance for Britain to make a big statement about itself and to the rest of the world? Would not the omission of any reference to the central event we are celebrating, either in the dome or in the national programme, therein described as a "reaffirmation of faith in the nation's future", be an omission of the solid rock on which that faith ought to be built and which should be revisited?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am slightly puzzled by that question. The commitment to the emphasis on spiritual and physical renewal was

533
made right from the very beginning and has never been abandoned. If it is not repeated on every single occasion, I think that is excusable.
The Archbishop of Canterbury: My Lords, is the Minister aware of how much I and other Church leaders appreciate the Government's public welcome of the Churches' desire, together with other faith communities, to be involved at every level of the nation's response to the millennium? Can he confirm that this also crucially applies to the planning of what is to take place within the dome?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I confirm not only what the most reverend Primate says but pay tribute also to his domestic chaplain who is the chairman of the Lambeth Group, which is the Churches' and other Faiths sub-group of the Millennium co-ordinating group. It is working closely with the Department of National Heritage in the planning for the millennium and for the dome. I can confirm that the group, composed not only of the Christian Churches but of other faiths, is playing an active part in the planning to which he refers.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, does the House agree that we begin our proceedings every day with Christian prayer? Does the noble Lord therefore agree that this is a Christian country and that the millennium should be approached in that spirit?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thought I had made our position clear. The emphasis of the millennium will be towards spiritual and physical renewal. That includes the emphasis on Christian prayer to which my noble friend refers. But, as will be recognised, that is not the only concern of the millennium celebrations.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, while I fully support the wise words of the most reverend Primate, will the noble Lord let the House know what exactly is going to be inside this so-called dome? Is it not in danger of becoming the best kept secret since the contents of Joanna Southcott's box? Will he further confirm that it is not a dome at all, which is a well-known architectural form supported from the inside and found at St. Paul's, St. Peter's and Santa Sophia, but is better described, supported from the outside, as a marquee, a tent or a wigwam?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, without accepting the pejorative implications of the noble Lord's description, I have to say that he is architecturally correct in his distinction between the millennium dome and a strict definition dome. As to what is going to be inside, and if I may concentrate on the emphasis of the original Question, it is for the Millennium company to decide what should be within the dome. I understand that consideration is being given not only to a place for quiet reflection but to the possibility of a chapel.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is it not somewhat inconsistent for Christian celebrations of this kind to be financed by the proceeds of gambling? Would it not be more in keeping with our Christian faith if the large sums of money which are to be expended on this exercise were to be distributed to people in need and suffering in our community?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I respect the views of my noble friend and of many noble Lords who, I know, will agree with him. However, I think he should remember that the National Lottery, whether one is for it or against it, has already collected £3.6 billion for good causes in this country, much of it for the relief of poverty and injustice. That should be taken into the balance.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, does the Minister gain the same impression as myself that, in view of the support given to the millennium dome, the Church of England is changing its mind about gambling, once a tenet of the Christian Church'?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am the last person who would seek to speak for the Church of England. I simply observe that the Lambeth Group of all Churches appears to be content with the lottery funding of the millennium.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the themes of physical and spiritual renewal which will run through the millennium celebrations are those which were identified by my right honourable friend the previous Secretary of State? Is the Minister aware of the considerable doubt about whether the millennium exhibition is actually going to take place? Can he reiterate my understanding that it definitely will take place? Will he also tell the House that it is going to be the best millennium celebration of its type anywhere on earth and that it will be a great success?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord seeks to trap me in his last remarks by quoting from members of my own party. As regards the earlier part of the question, I hope that I made clear that the theme of spiritual and physical renewal has been part of the intention of the millennium since the very beginning and that that was the view of the previous government.
Lord Elton: My Lords, given that the emphasis of the noble Lord's Answer has been so satisfactory as regards the Church and the future, may I remind him—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Elton: It is a question I am asking, if I may. If your Lordships say that I may not, then I shall ask the Minister whether he is already aware, as he should be, that the future does not begin today because, for us, it began 2,000 years ago?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I respect the noble Lord's faith and his views.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House how the millennium is to be celebrated in Wales and Scotland?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is rather wide of the Question. It is true to say that four-fifths of the expenditure on the millennium will be incurred outside the Greenwich dome. It will be used in all parts of the country and that will include Wales and Scotland.

Asylum Seekers: Support
3.12 p.m.
Earl Russellasked Her Majesty's Government:
How they intend to ensure that asylum seekers enjoy visible means of support pending a decision on their claims.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, we have made clear our concerns about the arrangements for asylum seekers made by the previous Government. Following a significant court ruling last October, support for destitute adult asylum seekers now rests with local authorities, in addition to responsibilities they already had under the Children Act. We will be working across Government to review the whole asylum seeker issue.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer, especially for the last sentence. Does she agree that while the present arrangement under the National Assistance Act is a small mercy for which we must be thankful, it is nevertheless ineffective in the relief of hardship, unfair in its incidence on local authorities and of an administrative coherence it would be generous to describe as makeshift? Does she agree that it is urgent to come up with a rather better system?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, like the noble Earl, I too believe that no one should be left destitute in this country in ways that they cannot remedy by any act of their own. Therefore, I was personally delighted when I learnt what the previous Government apparently did not comprehend at the time that, as a result of the National Assistance Act 1948 and the court ruling of last October, no one in this country need be left destitute when they cannot remedy their plight. But I agree with the noble Earl that the present situation of churning responsibility onto other bodies and the effectiveness of these arrangements needs to be reviewed. It is for that purpose that the Home Office is leading a cross-government review of all the departments affected by asylum seekers, including the Home Office, the Department of the Environment, the DSS and the Department of Health. The DSS is already preparing its preliminary work for that purpose.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, can the Minister give an indication of the size of the problem
536
as regards the number of asylum seekers and economic migrants coming into this country? What percentage is proving to be genuine or otherwise?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we know the raw statistics of admissions and refusals for the past few years. We know that last year (1996) about 28,000 people came into this country seeking asylum. Of that number 6 per cent. were granted refugee status; 13 per cent. were granted exceptional leave to remain and 81 per cent. were refused. But when the previous administration introduced their social security changes last year, they saw fit neither to conduct research before implementing their policy nor to set in place research to monitor its effects. Therefore my noble friend will understand why I cannot answer him as fully as I would wish.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the great difficulty that some local authorities are in? Although the responsibility has now fallen on them, they are not being given any special funding to meet the situation. From previous debates in which I have participated, the Minister will be aware that the asylum seeker and refugee problem varies very much, but is largely concentrated in London with particular boroughs being affected at different times. In those circumstances, what provision have the Government in mind to help financially the local authorities who are shouldering this great additional burden at the present time?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, so far the Department of Health has been reimbursing local authorities to the extent of a maximum of £140 per adult asylum seeker, or £280 a week for a couple, together with additional funds for children. That should represent a grant of £85 million for this year—a Department of Health reimbursement to local authority expenditure of some £85 million. In addition, local authorities may expect to spend in the course of a year anything between £5 million and £25 million. Therefore, of the original estimated savings of the department by the previous government, which were calculated at £175 million gross or thereabouts, nearly £100 million of that may have to go back to pick up the bill at local level.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I can promise the House that I shall be shorter than many of the noble Baroness's answers today. Does the Minister recall a debate which took place in this House on 30th January 1996 when, in describing the regulations which govern asylum seekers and benefits, she described them as "shocking, chilling and indefensible"? Therefore, can the Minister tell us why she is now waiting for a review to tell her what she told us she knew then and how to deal with the problem?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, with pleasure. I am so pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, saw fit to ask that question. The reason is that at the time the government introduced those regulations they were knowingly and deliberately—

537
although they had obviously not consulted their lawyers—refusing any means of support to adult asylum seekers without dependent children. The courts subsequently saw fit to rectify that government decision by explaining to them that the National Assistance Act 1948 applied to individuals in this country who should not remain destitute through no fault of their own. That is why we are now able to take the situation forward and not look back to where the government of the noble Baroness left us.

Wireless Telegraphy Bill [H.L.]
3.20 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Clinton-Davis): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Clinton-Davis.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Matters to be taken into account]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 21, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: In moving my amendments, I declare an interest as an adviser to the Federation of Electronic Industries. That body has helped me with the amendments. I apologise to the Minister and the Committee for not having taken part in Second Reading. I had not at that stage been alerted to the interests which the FEI had in this Bill. For me, this Bill returns to a subject with which I was concerned 35 years ago when as deputy director of the signals division in the Admiralty I had to defend the frequencies allocated to naval shipboard communications and radar from predatory moves by the Post Office and, in the 1960s, only a few commercial interests. The latter have certainly multiplied extensively since.
I turn to Amendment No. 1. I am delighted to note that the Minister has added his name to this amendment which is grouped with Amendment No. 2. I and FEI members are particularly concerned that as the Bill currently stands there is no explicit commitment to consult the radio industry when setting fees above cost recovery published in regulations. If the primary aim of this Government is to use administrative pricing as opposed to auctions covered in Clause 3 to ensure more efficient use of the spectrum rather than as a form of covert taxation on the radio industry, the reasons given in subsection (1)(a) to (c) of the clause are the only arguments in favour of fees exceeding cost.
If the Secretary of State is required to take into account the matters listed in Clause 2(2) it will be incumbent upon him to gather the necessary supporting information which will of necessity require consultation with the radio industry. Fears regarding the imposition
538
of a tax rather than administrative pricing were expressed by many of the organisations who responded to the previous Government's White Paper of June 1996. That being so, perhaps the Secretary of State will welcome the opportunity to ensure that there is support from the industry in the form of participation in the necessary consultation process. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I note the careful way in which the noble Lord has introduced this amendment. Both I and the Committee will note his own expertise and antecedent interests in this area of policy. As the noble Lord has pointed out, I have added my name to this amendment. I have also tabled an amendment in my name on this matter. I believe that the two must be closely linked together. Both amendments are acceptable to the Government on the understanding that they stand or fall together. I am glad to see that the noble Lord affirms that that is the position.
On Second Reading I said that I had carefully reflected on the question whether the Secretary of State should be required to have regard to the matters in Clause 2 when setting licence fees. It was the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, who made that suggestion in the debate. I am grateful to him for having done so because it has enabled me to reflect further on the matter. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for tabling his own amendment.
The intention of the Government is that spectrum pricing must be driven by spectrum management. I have said that on numerous occasions, and I believe that it has been accepted by your Lordships. I do not propose to argue that case in any detail. We believe that the noble Lord is right in principle. For that reason I have added my name to his amendment, subject to the addition of some words in the second of the two amendments. The drafting of Clause 2 is a matter of considerable legal complexity. That has been indicated by the representations that have been made on behalf of the industry to my department about these issues. Simply to replace the word "may" with "shall" has a very serious negative effect; namely, that the list of matters set out in Clause 2(2) will become closed. In the particular circumstances of this industry I believe it is undesirable that that should be the case.
In those circumstances, the Secretary of State would be required to have regard to the matters listed and would be foreclosed from making any allowance for changes in the market or technology. That situation is bound to occur from time to time. If that were to be the case, it might well be desirable to take other spectrum management considerations into account. Such changes are by their very nature unpredictable but also inevitable given the dynamic nature of the business that we are talking about here and the diversity of the services that are brought into question. Moreover, the replacement of "may" with "shall" would make the situation mandatory and prevent the Secretary of State from allowing fee concessions for deserving cases, for example safety of life charities, as such concessions are granted for broad social or policy reasons that strictly speaking are not directly connected with spectrum management. That situation

539
was welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on Second Reading. I believe that your Lordships would wish that that should continue to be offered under the Bill. I believe that most of all in this industry inflexibility and rigidity would be inadvisable.
It is for that reason that I have tabled a complementary amendment that adds the words "in particular". That would foreclose the problems about which I have been speaking. While emphasising the matters listed as those to which the Secretary of State should have regard, nonetheless this will provide an element of necessary flexibility which will enable the Secretary of State to respond to unpredictable changes in the circumstances that may prevail and allow for concessionary fees. I believe that both amendments will be acceptable to your Lordships but both stand or fall together.
I hope that the noble Lord will regard that as a helpful reply. Things can only get worse later this afternoon, but at least we start on a very helpful basis.
Lord Derwent: I declare an interest as a director of Orange PLC, which is directly affected by this Bill. In speaking to this and other amendments, I shall also be reflecting the reviews of all four mobile telephone operators and the Federation of Communication Services, which is their trade body.
My chief purpose in rising to speak on this amendment is to thank the Minister for the courteous way in which he listened to my suggestions at Second Reading. We believe that his Amendment No. 2 is an improvement and we enthusiastically accept the second amendment as well as the first.
Lord Inglewood: Perhaps I may enter into the spirit of the afternoon by saying that what has been proposed sounds eminently sensible. However, I should like to refer to one matter arising from the Minister's remarks. At Second Reading on 5th June, he gave an assurance relating to the emergency services when he said (col. 717):
"We are committed to ensuring the continued availability of spectrum to essential public sector users: the Armed Forces, emergency services, police, fire",
and so on. I should be grateful if the Minister could amplify that statement and make it clear whether that assurance relates also to providers of essential services, such as electricity, gas, water and sewerage, which are not only vital to modern life but which also have major safety implications. I shall, of course, fully understand if the Minister does not want to make a precise response now.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank the noble Lord for introducing the question of the emergency services. However, I should prefer to deal with that in its proper sequence. We shall come to that matter later. I believe that the noble Lord will get a pretty affirmative reply then.
Lord Mottistone: I am grateful to the Minister for his encouraging response to my amendment. I fully
540
agree that his amendment, Amendment No. 2, is totally complementary to it. In fact, it both strengthens and makes possible my amendment achieving what was intended in the first place. Therefore, I hope that other noble Lords will agree that that amendment should be accepted also. I commend Amendment No. 1 to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 21, after ("regard") insert ("in particular").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Derwent Lord Derwent moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 24, at end insert ("but he shall not prescribe sums which are greater than are in his opinion necessary to promote the optimal use of the electro-magnetic spectrum").
The noble Lord said: Both the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister on Second Reading and just now have stated that the powers in this Bill are intended to be exercised only for the purpose of improving spectrum efficiency and that the sums payable—I think that I quote the President of the Board of Trade correctly—should not be regarded as a tax. That is a very important and welcome assurance which is fundamental to the way in which the Act will be enforced. For that reason, we feel that the provision should be on the face of the Bill. This amendment is intended simply to do that. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank the noble Lord for tabling this amendment which helps me to clarify the situation and to underline the points that he has already stressed which have been set out by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade and myself on numerous occasions. The noble Lord is right to express the concerns that he has. However, I submit, with respect, that the amendment is unnecessary. Perhaps I may explain why. It is not a question of simply making assurances, although I hope that appropriate credence will be given to the assurances that have been given in this regard.
There are provisions in this Bill and elsewhere which safeguard the situation that the noble Lord is seeking to achieve. The commitment that we have given over and over again that the use of the new powers will be driven by spectrum management considerations is beyond doubt. I believe that the industry has noted that. The Government would be extremely imprudent if they were to go back on their word and, as far as I am concerned, there is no question of that happening.
Clause 2, as amended, sets out the matters to which the Secretary of State shall have regard in particular in setting fees under the clause. The factors listed, the demand for and availability of spectrum, spectrum efficiency, innovation and competition are all related to spectrum management. The amendments that have been made to Clause 2 underpin my assurances that spectrum management considerations will be at the heart of administrative pricing.
There is an additional safeguard in European law in the shape of the licensing directive, which also constrains the power to set licence fees above cost in

541
relation to telecommunications services. That is a very important provision. If fees were raised to a level higher than could be justified under Clause 2 or in contravention of the directive, the Secretary of State— the President—could be open to challenge in the courts. It is, therefore, wholly superfluous to state explicitly in statute that the Secretary of State should not act in a way that would conflict with the law. As a matter of law, the Secretary of State cannot legally exceed her powers.
I readily appreciate the concerns that the noble Lord has expressed on behalf of the industry. The further amendments that have been tabled to Clause 2 should, I hope, be sufficient to meet those concerns. If reinforcement is necessary, there is the licensing directive. That is why I do not believe that further belts and braces are necessary. In those circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I repeat that I readily understand why he tabled it.
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful for the Minister's remarks about spectrum management considerations being paramount in this context and for his confirming the link between pricing and administrative efficiency. It was helpful that he drew attention to the European licensing directive, to which, as he pointed out, it is not necessary in law to refer specifically in this context, but it is important at the same time to draw it to the attention of the wider public because some anxiety has been expressed outside the Chamber on that point.
Lord Derwent: I thank the Minister for his remarks. I should like to study particularly what he said about European law, on which I confess that I am not fully briefed. It would be churlish not to accept what the Minister has said by way of assurance, and at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Derwent Lord Derwent moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 32, after ("of") insert ("the part of").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 4, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 5. These amendments relate to the question of cross-subsidy between different users of the spectrum. As we read it, it is possible for the Government, using the powers under Clause 2, to apply price increases to one class of spectrum user in order to raise funds which would then be used to support spectrum management goals for a different class of spectrum user. A typical example might be cross-subsidies between that part of the spectrum used by broadcasters and that part used by mobile telephone operators. The amendments seek to prevent such cross-subsidies.
Under the Bill as drafted, it would be possible for a levy to be raised on profitable but very efficient spectrum users to enable grants to be made to less efficient users to re-equip their system. In such a case, the efficient users will have been penalised and the less efficient users will have been rewarded by such grants
542
or equipment subsidies. The amendments would remove the possibility of such cross-subsidies by directing the Government's consideration to the promotion of efficient use in that part of the spectrum subject to the price changes in question. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: It is right that the noble Lord should ventilate this point, although I hope that when he has listened to my explanation he will feel it appropriate not to press the issue. The amendment as drafted would not have quite the effect that the noble Lord postulates because it would remove the possibility of cross-subsidies from the factors to which the Secretary of State is required to have regard in setting fees, but it would not prevent her from taking that course.
In any case, all licence fee income has to be paid into the Consolidated Fund. The level of fees will be determined under Clause 2. The payment of financial assistance under Clause 5 is quite separate from that. That would be decided independently of those previous considerations. It would be done on the merits of the case for the additional expenditure contemplated. There is no necessary relationship between the two procedures, as I stated on Second Reading in these memorable words:
"There can be no question of direct hypothecation of spectrum pricing revenues".—[Official Report, 5/6/97; col. 721.]
In view of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord, who has, as I say, appropriately put down the amendment because it is useful to have the amendment and the discussion on the record, will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Derwent: I thank the Minister for that reply. I suspected that there might be what I would call accounting difficulties because the funds obviously belong to the Consolidated Fund. If the Minister could give me some comfort that when considering these various charges he will be regarding each part of the spectrum, as it were, by itself and that we need not fear as a matter of policy that the Government would seek to cross-subsidise, that would give me considerable reassurance.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I cannot go beyond saying what the Secretary of State is required to do. That is already set out. I do not want to say anything which would in any way depart from that state of affairs. The situation is clear. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will not pursue the matter.
Lord Derwent: I thank the Minister. It is useful to have this short debate on the record. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.5 not moved.]
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 37, leave out ("services which use wireless telegraphy") and insert ("telecommunication services").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 8 and 9. In Clause 2 we deal with matters to be taken into account when setting fees.
The amendments have been tabled to meet concerns expressed by the industry that the competition considerations to be taken into account in setting fees have been defined too narrowly. We have been listening. The present wording is restricted to the supply of services using radio, but it may also be relevant for the Secretary of State to consider modern developments such as competition between radio and non-radio telecommunications services; for example, the use of radio to make the final connection from a telecommunication network to subscribers in competition with a wired network.
The amendments are self-explanatory. The definition of "telecommunications service" is a broad one taken from the Telecommunications Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 38, at end insert?—
("() the interests of consumers, purchasers and other users in respect of the prices charged for, and the quality and variety of, services provided by means of wireless telegraphy or apparatus supplied in connection with such services.").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment which I believe is self-explanatory. It is supported by Oftel, the Consumers' Association and the NCC. If the Minister were to resist the amendment, I hope that it will be because he tells me that it is unnecessary bearing in mind the other wording of the Bill. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The noble Lord has put a powerful argument in favour of the amendment. I shall deal with it in a rather longer way than the noble Lord sought to deploy. The amendment raises some important issues. Among those important issues are consumer issues. They need to be taken clearly into account when setting fees. I argue that the amendment is unnecessary, and I cannot support it for reasons that I shall give.
The amendment is unnecessary because Oftel and the Secretary of State have a duty under the Telecommunications Act 1984 to promote the interests of consumers, purchasers and other users in relation to telecommunications services which cover the important business radio services. In fact, the proposed amendment is based on wording from that Act, as the noble Lord will recognise. After all, if he does not recognise it, who will?
The Act concerns the regulation of telecommunication services and networks. It is the appropriate place therefore for the duty and the powers to enforce it. The Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, on the other hand, concerns the management of the radio spectrum. Adding a similar duty to that Act could lead to duplication and there would then be a risk of confusing the roles of the agency and Oftel. My officials have consulted Oftel, which does not support the amendment. We consulted also the NCC, and it has no comments on it. I am not seeking to snub the noble Lord. He knows that well. However I think it right to point that out because concerns were not expressed by those organisations.
544
The amendment is not appropriate in the context of spectrum pricing which is concerned with the pricing of the raw material to provide a wide range of services. Some of those are self-provided—for example, private business radio—and others, such as mobile telephony, are provided for end customers.
Whether licence fee increases or reductions are passed on to radio users' customers, and how that is done, should surely be a matter for their own commercial judgment. For example, a mobile telephony operator may decide to absorb fee changes or to pass them on in the form of call charges or rental. The effect on subscribers will be different in each case. It would be difficult for the Secretary of State to predict and have regard to the interest of consumers, purchasers and other users in the degree of detail required by the amendment.
Consumers' and users' interests are already catered for in the context of spectrum pricing by Clause 2(2). For example, economic benefit in paragraph (c)(ii) includes the benefits to both consumers and users. Work carried out for the Radio Communications Agency on the economic impact of radio contains broad estimates of the quantity known as "consumer surplus" which measures the benefits for consumers and the efficiency gains accruing to users which could be taken into account.
In addition, consumer interests will be promoted by virtue of the duty to have regard to the development of competition which is a potent force working to consumers' advantage. The Government are fully committed to consumer protection and consumer interests within the Bill and under the existing provisions of the Telecommunications Act. The amendment is therefore unnecessary. It is not altogether appropriate, and I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful to the Minister for his full response to the points inherent in the amendment. If I have in any way misled the Committee or the Minister I apologise. I made my remarks upon the basis of information that I had, which I understood to be correct. Having heard all the Minister has said about the point, I shall agree with the advice that he gave me and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendments Nos. 8 and 9:
Page 2, line 39, leave out ("subsection (1)") and insert ("this section").
Page 2, line 40, at end insert—
(""telecommunication service" means a service falling within paragraph (a) of the definition of such a service in section 4(3) of the Telecommunications Act 1984").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: I wish to make a short, important drafting point. It occurred to me only while listening to the interesting discussions in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, rightly described Clause 2 as

545
giving rise to complexity. It certainly does when read in connection with Clause 1, where we find that there is power to make regulations. In the first line of Clause 2, we find that:
"In exercising his powers under section 1 to prescribe sums payable in respect of wireless telegraphy licences… the Secretary of State may have regard to the matters specified in subsection (2)".
However, it is important to note that Clause 1(3) refers to regulations which must be made and which affect the application of Clause 2.
I turn to my main point of difficulty. Clause 2(3), as amended by Amendment No. 8, now reads:
"In this section 'prescribe' means prescribe by regulations or determined in accordance with regulations".
It may be that I am speaking from ignorance, but I do not believe that I am. I do not recollect a phrase such as:
"prescribe by regulations or determine in accordance with regulations".
Whoever must determine the outcome may from time to time vary in opinion or from the opinion of other people who have to determine. The use of the expression "or determine in accordance with regulations" when used as an alternative to "prescribe by regulations" could give rise to uncertainty of legal effect. I do not ask for an answer now. I ask Members on the Government Front Bench carefully to consider between now and the Report stage the effect of lines 39 and 40 as now drafted.
I wish to make a further suggestion, which I hope is helpful. Clearly, the regulations mentioned in line 39 must be regulations under Clause 1(3) and not a fresh set of regulations made under Clause 2. Therefore, in order to remove the uncertainty, I suggest that after the word "regulations" in line 39 the words "made under Clause 1(3)" should be inserted. Those are my two specific suggestions. Of course, there may be better ways of dealing with the matter, but as it stands it may result in confusion.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I always pay close attention to the arguments of the noble Lord, who I know is assiduous in such matters. I frequently agreed with him when I was on that side of the House. I do not know whether on those occasions he wanted me to do so, but I frequently did.
I am not sure that the noble Lord has a good point, but of course I shall reflect on the matter. The regulations set out in Clause 1 specifically refer to "regulations under this section". Clause 2(3) states:
"'prescribe' means prescribe by regulations or determine in accordance with regulations".
That is an all encompassing situation. However, it is right that we should clear up any ambiguity that might exist. I am not convinced that the noble Lord is right, but, as he anticipated, it would be wrong of me to make up my mind on the spur of the moment. Consequently, I shall probably write to him before the Report stage, otherwise he has his remedy at that stage.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Bidding for licences]:
Lord Derwent Lord Derwent moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 8, at end insert ("except that regulations made under this section shall not apply in relation to any application for the renewal of any wireless telegraphy licence which is in force immediately before the passing of this Act").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is of great importance to the four mobile telephone operators. On Second Reading, I warmly welcomed the Government's reassurance that there was no intention to apply auctions to the four existing mobile operators in respect of the radio spectrum currently allocated to them. However, the industry would feel more secure if it could see that reassurance repeated on the face of the Bill. It would clearly state that auctions would not be applied to the current spectrum allocations.
The Minister will realise that that is fundamental to all the current operations and operators. If the Bill were to give such a reassurance all the operators would be allowed and encouraged to continue their extensive additional network investment. As the Minister generously acknowledged, that investment helps to maintain the UK's position in the forefront of world mobile telecommunications, providing employment and increased competitiveness. I therefore hope that in this instance the Minister will feel able to accept the amendment, which does no more than enshrine in the Bill what he has already assured us is the Government's policy. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Once again, I find it possible to express sympathy with what underlies the noble Lord's argument, but I am afraid that I must withhold my support. I hope that my reasons for that will be satisfactory to him.
I have given undertakings, which I am happy to repeat, that we do not intend to require existing licensees to enter an auction for the right to continue to provide current services within their existing spectrum allocation. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, was also concerned about that point.
As the noble Lord sought to underline, we need stability and certainty, especially when one is thinking of large investments in networks and systems, which is frequently the case. A technical and important issue arises from the reference in the amendment to the "renewal" of licences. The mobile telecommunications operators' wireless telegraphy licences will continue in force, so long as the appropriate fee is paid annually, until revoked or surrendered. The amendment could not apply to such licences because, technically, they are not renewed but continue in force from year to year.
I do not wish to quibble about the drafting of the amendment. That is not what we are about in a discussion of this kind. However, I mention the matter as an alternative way of meeting the noble Lord's concern that existing licensees might find themselves having to bid for the spectrum which they occupy in order to continue to provide their current service. To hold an auction, it will be necessary first to revoke the existing licence. Security against that may be conferred under Clause 4, as indeed it is under Section 3A of the Wireless Telegraphy Act which Clause 4 replaces.

547
The mobile telecommunications operators have been given certain assurances about the circumstances in which revocation or variation will be enforced without the consent of the licensees. I am happy to provide an undertaking that the operators will be given exactly the same security under Clause 4 which they currently enjoy. That will protect them effectively against having to undergo an auction in the circumstances which the noble Lord's amendment seeks to identify.
I hope that that will be sufficient to satisfy the noble Lord. I hope that the further undertaking which I have given will also buttress the position that he has sought to address. In those circumstances, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
4 p.m.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord sits down, and before my noble friend Lord Derwent withdraws the amendment, I must say that having listened to the Minister carefully I was hoping that he would give an assurance that the application of Clause 3 would not be retrospective in any way. The amendment would prevent it from being retrospective and that is its virtue. Will the Minister give an assurance that there will be no question of retrospection of effect?
Lord Clinton-Davis: The noble Lord has more experience than I of this Chamber. However, we are in Committee and it is not necessary for the noble Lord to say, "Before the noble Lord sits down" while we are still on the amendment. There is no intention here to be retrospective. I thought that I had said that, although perhaps not in quite the precise terms which the noble Lord wanted. But I think I am able to satisfy him now.
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I am grateful too to my noble friend for raising the matter. It seems to us that the issue we are discussing is of very considerable, practical importance. I am grateful to the Minister for what he said about that and for the undertaking that he gave to the Committee in relation to it.
Perhaps I may raise one consequential point. Were the position to appear unsatisfactory as regards possible security of tenure, if I can express it that way, of those holding licences, it seems to me that one would then logically have to consider what, if any, question of compensation there may be for what one might describe as the loss of legitimate expectations. I am sure that everyone would agree that the right way to proceed, if we can, is by not entering a world where one needs to consider that matter. That can be achieved by ensuring that everyone is clear, satisfied and happy with the legal and, if I may so describe it in a non-legal sense, the equitable position we are in.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The question of compensation is a very broad area. I believe that we should be opening a can of worms if we were to inject the subject of compensation here. There is no question that others would then seek compensation and there would be real problems, as I believe the noble Lord appreciates. I repeat that we have had intensive discussions. The
548
noble Lords, Lord Derwent and Lord Mottistone, are very well aware of that. The industry's anxieties were put to rest as a result of those discussions.
Lord Derwent: I am grateful to the Minister for the repetition of his assurances. However, I am very conscious also that, quite correctly, he has chosen his words extremely carefully in answering the amendment. I hope that he will not take it amiss when I say that, of course, I shall withdraw the amendment at this stage but I should like to study carefully in Hansard what he has said in case it seems wise to return to the matter on Report.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, perhaps I may say that I never take it amiss when someone says that he will consider what I have said.
Lord Derwent: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
GEOGRAPHIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION
(" . The Secretary of State may, subject to the interests of national security, make available on enquiry by third parties, and following payment of such charge as may be provided by regulations, geographic and technical details of licensed radio systems.").
The noble Lord said: I am advised from the Table that I am not allowed to move Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 13 because, as I informed the Committee on Amendment No. 1, I advise the people who provided it to me. I have been trying to help the House for the past 30 years by obtaining proper advice from outside in order to contribute to discussions on legislation. In that area I have had, to a certain extent, success over many years; in particular, when I was advising the CBI. I now find that the rules of the House are such that I cannot move my remaining amendments. I got away with it in moving Amendment No. 1 because, luckily, the Government liked that amendment. I am deeply sorry about this. I was not aware of the situation. The rules have been introduced in a way which does not give proper opportunity for Members of this Chamber to help industry and other spheres of activity outside the House. I believe that it is helpful to the House that Members should be advised properly when speaking to amendments. Therefore, I shall make arrangements for the amendment to be moved on Report. I obviously shall not be able to move the amendment and I shall try to find some splendid chap to do it for me.
Lord Inglewood: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to move the amendments instead of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I may not be able to describe the amendment with the exactness

549
and precision of my noble friend but the Minister would have an opportunity to respond and let us know what he would have said in response to the amendment.
Lord Derwent: Does anyone intend to speak to the amendment because I should like to make some comments on it?
Lord Inglewood: I have some understanding of the argument behind the amendment. I understand that there has been concern about the lack of transparency in the current licensing process, in particular as regards major users who self manage spectrum. While fees are known via the published fees order, it is impossible to assess the efficiency of spectrum use without additional technical information. For historical reasons, such information is currently classified as confidential, although if an organisation is prepared to invest the time and money it can be readily gathered using modern scanners and survey equipment.
I understand that for several years it has been the stated intention of the agency to facilitate access to fixed link and base station details by external spectrum management organisations in line with what happens in Australia. If that information is provided, then, along with publication of the fees for systems in different regions, the industry will have full visibility of fees being charged for a spectrum used, and, given the efficiency of spectrum utilisation that is achieved, will be able to identify opportunities for frequency sharing. It is believed that the change as proposed by the amendment would, on balance, be beneficial.
Lord Derwent: I understand the general sentiment behind the amendment with which we are not unsympathetic. However, we feel that the wording of the amendment may be too broad. The mobile telephone operators have some concern, both from a practical point of view and also because of commercial confidentiality. In particular, the companies would not welcome detailed information about each of our mast sites and what frequencies they radiate being made available so readily both to our competitors and, indeed, to possible protestors who may have objections to a mast for environmental or other reasons.
If the Minister is minded to accept something along the lines of the amendment, with which, as I say, we are in broad sympathy, we would welcome the opportunity between now and Report stage further to discuss, both with his officials and also with my noble friend Lord Mottistone, the possibility of a slightly more restrictive wording.
Lord Clinton-Davis: We have had an interesting debate. The last thing in the world that any of us would want is to see the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, in the Tower, or anywhere else quite as draconian, for offending against the rules of this place. I do not know the nature of the relevant sanctions, but I am sure that they would have been extremely draconian. Indeed, for one moment I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, was going to find himself in a similar
550
position when he singularly identified himself with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, by suggesting that he should move the amendment for him. As a result, he too would have ended up in the Tower. The debate has been made possible by the ingenuity of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent.
I am not unfamiliar with the arguments involved with this amendment because they have been postulated to my officials and, therefore, so far as concerns any further discussions which may take place, I think it would be better if I were to read into the record the position that the Government take on such matters. We can then forget the slight embarrassment suffered by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I must say that I sympathise with the noble Lord because the rules of this Chamber can sometimes be very arcane and he is obviously completely unfamiliar with them.
It is helpful that the amendment has been tabled, although I am not sure whether the noble Lord is even permitted to table it in the circumstances. However, it has at least been spoken to and that is good enough. It enables me to set out how the Radiocommunications Agency manages the radio spectrum in a transparent way. Transparency in the spectrum management process is a desirable objective. On Second Reading, I stressed our commitment to consultation on spectrum management matters. That would include the use to be made of the new charging powers that the Bill would confer. So far as concerns consultation, that is a matter which we can address later in our discussions in relation to other amendments. However, it is relevant to the question of transparency, which goes to the heart of the amendment.
The agency already undertakes extensive consultation via a network of standing consultative committees and ad hoc consultation exercises; and, indeed, such an exercise is currently under way in relation to the implementation of spectrum pricing. Each year the agency publishes and consults on a comprehensive survey of the use of the radio spectrum combined with its strategic plans for managing that spectrum. It has invested heavily in advanced mobile equipment to monitor the use being made of the airwaves and also makes available detailed reports of the results of its monitoring, which has concentrated in particular on congested areas in major cities—a point that I made during the previous debate. All those documents are available free of charge, whereas the amendment contemplates charging as the cost is covered by licence fees.
However, the agency is already able under common law to recover the costs it incurs in providing information if it is appropriate so to do. All that consultation necessarily involves making available a considerable amount of information about the current use of the spectrum and the agency's future plans. I reaffirm the commitment to consultation, openness and transparency. I believe that that is what the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, was seeking.
In future, the agency aims to make even more information available about the use of frequencies at specific sites. However, there are practical constraints

551
on the speed with which this can be accomplished. It would be necessary to hold the data in a format that is useful and easily accessible. The agency could not easily do that at present. It is in the process of implementing major developments in its information technology systems, but there is some way to go before the work will be completed.
I turn now to the amendment. The first specific comment that I should like to make is that, as drafted, it would do absolutely nothing to enhance transparency as it states only that the Secretary of State "may" make information available. The agency already has the power to disclose information from its databases, subject to overriding considerations of national security, law enforcement, commercial confidentiality—a point rightly made by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent— competition and the provisions of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information and the Data Protection Act. Therefore, it already makes copious amounts of material available and it intends to do even more in the future in that direction.
Secondly, the amendment does not allow for the legitimate expectations of licensees regarding commercial confidentiality and security. That is a most important point and one which has been underlined to us many times in our discussions. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, made the same point here this afternoon.
The question of greater access to the agency's database of assignments was one of the issues which arose in a wide-ranging consultation carried out under our predecessors back in 1994. The responses showed significant concern, not just about national security— and provision is made in the amendment for that—but also commercial confidentiality. It would be possible for a competitor to gain information from the database about frequencies used and the disposition of transmitters and hence the extent and nature of licensees' businesses. I believe that that could lead to very damaging commercial revelations. Regrettably, the amendment makes no allowance for it.
I do not wish to be unduly critical of drafting because I suffered from the same fate when speaking from the other side of the Chamber. However, I hope that the noble Lords who have addressed the matter will realise that this is a significant point; indeed, it could be very damaging if we were to ignore it. Moreover, the amendment does not provide for those licensees, such as security companies, which have a very good reason not to disclose details of their assignments in case the information could assist criminals. Many other users could have legitimate concerns if the agency made more information freely available, and it would not be right to proceed without full consultation to ensure that necessary safeguards can be provided. I am sure that the industry would wish me to make that point, and I do so readily. There are difficulties and complexities in legislating on this topic. However, I believe that what we have here is a careful balance between what can be achieved and the difficulties and the concerns that the industry has expressed about revealing too much.
552
I do not want my department—or, indeed, myself—to be unduly secretive when requests for information about spectrum assignments or use are made; quite the contrary. However, all requests for information about licensed radio systems, as for any government information, must be dealt with in accordance with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. Under the code of practice, information must be provided unless withholding it can be justified in terms of the exemptions in the code.
I have one further point to mention; namely, that we shall be considering a freedom of information Act in the relatively near future. The arrangements in the code in terms of openness are to be strengthened and placed on a statutory footing when that legislation is enacted. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that the agency does operate within the spirit of the amendment. I also hope that no one, although I am not sure who, will decide to press the amendment further today.
Lord Inglewood: I am most grateful to the Minister. I for one shall read his remarks with great care. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Restriction on revocation or variation of licences]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 36, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State shall, with the consent of the Treasury, consider making a grant to licensees whenever a licence is revoked or varied under subsection (5)(b) in a frequency hand where equipment has been installed within five years previous to the revocation or variation, and warning of the revocation or variation has not been given to the licensee prior to installation of the equipment.").
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Mottistone. In responses to both the consultative document published by the DTI and the White Paper of June last year, many respondents stressed the competitive advantage which could be gained for United Kingdom industry and operators on the global stage by rapidly "refarming" spectrum when it is allocated to a new use internationally. To encourage the heavy investment often necessary for new systems there is a need for "clean" spectrum for the incoming user. In the past the Department of Trade and Industry has attempted to clear bands for new applications by giving as much notice as possible of the change of use— sometimes up to 15 years. In the dynamic information technology and communications industry which exists today the timescales currently required to change use of bands can mean that the opportunity for an innovative service is lost.
While it is reasonable to argue that the new user of spectrum should pay the incumbent to vacate a band— an approach often advocated by the Ministry of Defence and at least one large foreign administration—there is also a strong argument in favour of the moneys paid by the industry above cost recovery being used to support refarming. In June last year the White Paper suggested in paragraph 4.17 that payments could be used to assist users to move to alternative frequencies and also that payments could be used to encourage users to re-equip

553
with more spectrally efficient equipment before existing equipment is fully depreciated. During all of the debates following publication of the White Paper it was understood that this was a benefit that would result from administrative spectrum pricing and as such it should be highlighted in the primary legislation. This subsection will oblige the Secretary of State to consider the use of a grant to facilitate refarming of spectrum when band use changes unexpectedly, for example owing either to Community obligations or international treaty. I beg to move.
Lord Haskel: I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, on the erudite way in which he proposed this amendment, particularly as he had only about 10 minutes' notice.
We understand the thinking behind the amendment and the concern that the speed of change in the radio industry may require speeding up the rate at which radio frequency bands have to be converted from one radio application to another, necessitating the clearance of existing users from those bands. However, Clause 5(2) already provides for the payment of financial assistance with the consent of the Treasury where the grant is likely to promote the efficient use or management of the radio spectrum. This power might on particular facts extend to circumstances in which it became necessary to clear a band to give effect to an international obligation or Community requirement. In the normal course of events the agency would hope to be able to give maximum notice of the change because such developments normally unfold over a period of years and involve full consultation and discussion with those affected.
Any application made to the Secretary of State would have to receive careful consideration as a matter of good administrative practice. Surely there is no need to oblige the Secretary of State to consider applications. Moreover, Clause 1(3)(c) would provide for licence fees to be refunded where this was appropriate. On a matter of detail I query the rationale for the cut-off of five years in the amendment. Differentiating in this way seems slightly arbitrary and risks creating anomalies. There is the further point that the amendment does not distinguish between equipment that has been installed for some time and is already depreciated, if not obsolete, and equipment that was installed just before the variation and revocation. Five years is a long time in a fast-moving industry such as telecommunications.
I appreciate that the amendment would not require the Secretary of State to make a grant in the circumstances postulated, but, nonetheless, it does seem excessively prescriptive. I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment and consider my explanation.
Lord Inglewood: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Promotion of efficient use and management of spectrum]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 4, line 45, at end insert ("and to provide for the training and education of radio engineers in efficient spectrum management techniques").
The noble Lord said: Some may argue that the existing subsection (5)(2) of Clause 5 covers the point which is the subject of this amendment. However, it is worth highlighting the need to ensure that there is a record of the Government's intent. Several members of the Federation of Electronic Industries are finding it increasingly difficult to recruit engineers with the correct skills and are having to look abroad for staff where previously they have been able to recruit locally. As this amendment is in line with the Government's declared intention to provide education for work, I hope that they may look favourably on additional wording in support of that policy. I beg to move.
Lord Haskel: The amendment as proposed narrows the scope of Clause 5(2). I am not sure how the noble Lord can doubt our commitment to training. That was the centrepiece of the Chancellor's Budget only last week. Clause 5 of the Bill provides the Secretary of State with power to make grants to persons where, in her opinion this is likely to promote the efficient use or management of the radio spectrum. This is a broad enabling power and there are a number of ways in which we envisage that it might be used. For example, it might, in certain circumstances, be used to provide assistance to businesses to enable them to adopt more spectrum efficient technologies. It might also be used to make payments to businesses which are required to relinquish spectrum where the Radiocommunications Agency, for whatever reason, is not able to provide the period of notice which it normally aims to provide in such circumstances. The power might also be used, as was explained during our Second Reading debate, to enable the agency to support courses provided by universities for the training of radio engineers in spectrally efficient techniques.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord is therefore fully in line with the way in which we envisage that the power may be used. However, his amendment covers only one possible form of assistance among the many which might be envisaged. Things change. There are also no doubt possible uses of the power which will emerge in the future which no one has yet thought of. For these reasons, therefore, I consider that it would be better not to seek to define narrowly the way in which the power is to be used. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: At the risk of being sent to the Tower I wish to thank my noble friend Lord Inglewood

555
for moving these three amendments standing in my name, and indeed the Government for giving such a full answer to all three.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope the noble Lord will forgive me but I understood that he was under an obligation not to take part in debates on these matters because of his consultancy arrangements.
Lord Inglewood: In the circumstances I hope that it will have been in the best interests of the Chamber for the matters discussed in response to my amendments to have been considered by the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Regulations]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 5, line 4, at end insert—
("(1A) Before making regulations under any provision of this Act, the Secretary of State shall—

(a) publish in the London, Edinburgh and Belfast Gazettes a noticex2014;

(i) stating that he proposes to make regulations under that provision,

(ii) setting out the general effect of the proposed regulations,

(iii) specifying an address from which copies of the proposed regulations may be obtained, and

(iv) specifying a time (not being less than 28 days from the date of publication of the notice) within which representations with respect to the proposed regulations may be made to him, and

(b) consider any representations which are made to him within that time.

(1B) Subsection (1A) does not apply in respect of any regulations if it appears to the Secretary of State that by reason of the urgency of the matter it is inexpedient to publish a notice under that subsection.").
The noble Lord said: On Second Reading I was asked by a number of noble Lords whether the Government would consider adding a duty to consult on the face of the Bill. I explained in reply that the Government believe in full consultation on spectrum pricing—I have asserted that over and over again—as indeed on other aspects of spectrum management. I undertook to consider that matter sympathetically. I hope the Committee will agree that I have done so. What I have decided is reflected in the amendment to Clause 6. Perhaps I may briefly explain the provisions of the amendment.
The amendment requires the Secretary of State, except in cases of urgency, to publish a notice in the London Gazette, Edinburgh Gazette and Belfast Gazette before making any regulations under the Bill. That applies both to fees regulations under Clause 2 and auction regulations under Clause 3.
The notice will state the intention to make regulations, explain the gist of such regulations, declare where copies can be obtained and set a deadline for those representations. This would have to be at least
556
28 days from publication of the notice. There is then a duty imposed on the Secretary of State to consider all representations made to her.
I understand that that is a standard form of consultation procedure. I asked whether businessmen and businesswomen actually read the notices in the various gazettes; I am sure they do little else. However, there are precedents. The Telecommunications Act 1984 provides such a precedent; and there are precedents relating to the making of regulations. I shall not go into the details of that. I simply state it. But I noted the extraordinary interest in the various gazettes.
There is no intention that this form of consultation procedure will in any way supplant or detract from the importance of existing extensive non-statutory consultation. In many ways that is as important as, if not more important than, statutory forms of consultation. This the Radiocommunications Agency carries out diligently already. As I said in relation to a previous debate, the agency has an established series of consultative committees. To complement these, officials are in discussion with the industry about establishing a high level committee to maintain strategic oversight of spectrum management overall. Such a committee would provide a useful reinforcement of current consultative arrangements.
There is no doubt—it is reinforced by discussions that my officials have had with the agency—that it will continue to consult very widely indeed. The agency will take appropriate steps to publicise prospective regulations more extensively, for example, by publishing consultative documents or drawing them to the attention of the trade press through press notices—which is a way of supplementing that which appears in the gazettes. The statutory procedure will provide a long stop to make sure that all proposals for regulations are placed firmly in the public domain.
I hope that the amendment gives the added reassurance that noble Lords sought when we discussed the matters previously. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Derwent: I should like to take the opportunity of expressing the industry's gratitude to the Minister for this firm commitment for consultation over pricing. The amendment meets all the matters for which I asked at Second Reading, and we are most grateful.
I am even more grateful for the undertakings in the Minister's remarks about the wider consultation. Clearly we should not be limited to statutory consultation. The kinds of issues on which we should like to continue to consult are spectrum allocation, spectrum management and international aspects.
I wish to mention one aspect as regards the international scene. We should avoid a situation where UK operators have their access to spectrum unnecessarily restricted by the reservation of spectrum in international treaties to satellite operators based outside the United Kingdom. Such operators would pay no UK spectrum fees and no UK taxes. That kind of issue does not arise out of regulations under this or any

557
other Bill. However, we might suddenly find ourselves limited by other negotiations outside the United Kingdom on which we would welcome the continuing consultation which we have enjoyed with the department.
Lord Inglewood: I wish to join with the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Derwent about the steps ' that the Government have taken to ensure wide consultation in this regard.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to ask whether the Government have any further thoughts about the possibility of the proposed spectrum management advisory group, an idea put to them, I understand, by the industry.
Lord Clinton-Davis: On the international matters to which the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, alluded, this Government have no wish to see our own industry impeded or embarrassed. Indeed, we wish to ensure its success. The very matters to which he has referred should be issues which are discussed openly in the consultation to which I have alluded.
The agency issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, referred, is still under discussion. Perhaps I may bring the noble Lord up-to-date on the matter by correspondence. That may be the most appropriate way to deal with the issue.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Derwent Lord Derwent moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 5, line 5, after ("Act") insert—("(a) in the case of regulations under section 1,").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 relate to the procedures as regards regulations. At present the Bill provides that all regulations under the powers of the Bill should be made under the negative resolution procedure. Such procedure may well be appropriate for regulations made under the powers of Clause 2 of the Bill because those regulations will consist largely of detailed technical considerations of one set of users' spectrum efficiency and therefore the appropriate fee level for that set of users. However, regulations made under the powers of Clause 3 of the Bill appear to be quite different in principle. These regulations will govern the establishment of new radio services in the United Kingdom—services that will form the basis of the future communications infrastructure of the country.
Moreover, the Government have indicated that they anticipate raising sums of as much as £1.5 billion through the auction powers set out in Clause 3. This is a considerable sum, comparable to that which could be raised through a reduction of 1p on income tax, which I believe is £1.8 billion. We therefore believe it appropriate that Parliament should have the opportunity of debating regulations issued under the powers of Clause 3 because of their fundamental and new nature.
These amendments provide for affirmative resolution procedures for regulations under Clause 3 only. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The noble Lord is right to be concerned about the issues raised in the amendments, in particular the introduction of spectrum auctions, in view of their possible impact on telecommunications services and the amounts that might be raised.
As I have frequently said, we are committed to full consultation before regulations are made under Clause 3 of the Bill. In addition, the government amendment to which I have referred will add a statutory duty to publish a notice of those regulations, including those under Clause 3, and we are under a duty to take those representations fully into account.
There will also continue to be extensive non-statutory consultation, as I have already said, and a consultative document on the introduction of advanced digital mobile telecommunications services—known as "third generation mobile" or the "universal mobile telephone system"—is to be issued which will put forward for comment options for spectrum auctions.
There should thus be ample opportunity for those who may be affected by auction regulations to be alerted in advance and to draw the attention of noble Lords to any aspects of concern. It would then be open to noble Lords to pray against the regulations if those concerns are not met.
I believe that this process of consultation, the statutory duty I have described and the negative resolution procedure should provide a sufficient and appropriate degree of parliamentary scrutiny of the use of the powers in Clause 3. I believe that that view is right because the delegated powers in the Bill were scrutinised by your Lordships' Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. In its first report, ordered to be printed on 9th June, the committee reported that:
"There is nothing in the Bill to which we draw the House's attention".
The committee clearly agreed with the memorandum which we submitted to the effect that the negative resolution procedure was appropriate for regulations made under Clause 3.
I hope that the noble Lord will feel that the way in which the committee dealt with the matter gives emphasis to my points and that the negative resolution procedure is suitable for auction regulations. I hope therefore he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Derwent: I do not doubt for a moment that there is adequate provision both for consultation with the industry and for the industry to make its views known. But that all lies in the future; it may even be some years ahead. We are not sure of the full ramifications of the regulations that will be made. In view of the very large sums of money that might be involved, it is important to ensure that there is a possibility of debate in Parliament as well as consultation within the industry. It is in a way paradoxical that I should be saying that it is not enough

559
to consult with us but that this is a question of wide political interest. Will the Minister explain why he would object to the affirmative resolution procedure for these important points of principle under Clause 3?
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thought I had explained why that is the case; I have obviously not satisfied the noble Lord. My experience indicates that if, in the course of following the consultation procedures which I have explained at considerable length, the industry comes to the conclusion that something has gone amiss to which Parliament's attention should be directed, it is rare that industry is slow to advise Members of your Lordships' House or honourable members in another place, with a view to their raising the matter. The fact that we are not arguing for the affirmative resolution procedure does not mean that we are against scrutiny; but it seems to me that it will be inappropriate, particularly where these are complex matters which will undoubtedly be the subject of full consultation with the industry, to deploy the affirmative resolution procedure in the circumstances.
Lord Derwent: I should like to study in Hansard exactly what the Minister said and the spirit in which he said it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Lord Clinton-Davis: I believe I owe an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. I had said that we would come to the question of the position of utilities. I am sure that it has some relevance to this which escapes me. Perhaps I may say, in case I am right about that, that it is not our intention that the introduction of spectrum pricing should affect the access of utilities to the radio spectrum that they require. That, I think, was the point that the noble Lord adverted to earlier.
Lord Inglewood: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I was congratulating myself on having got my point in. I thought he had more or less addressed it when we previously touched on the matter.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses and schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Satellite Television Service Regulations 1997
4.46 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeyrose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18th June be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these regulations have been laid before your Lordships' House under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. The purpose of the regulations is to implement a judgment of the European Court of Justice concerning
560
the UK's implementation of Articles 2(1), 2(2) and 3(2) of the 1989 EC Broadcasting Directive, perhaps better known as the television without frontiers directive.
The court found that the United Kingdom had failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive, first, by misinterpreting the basis on which satellite broadcasters fell within UK jurisdiction; secondly, by applying different licensing regimes to domestic and non-domestic satellite services; and, finally, by exercising control over broadcasts transmitted by broadcasters falling within the jurisdiction of other member states of the European Community.
The Broadcasting Directive is a single market instrument which governs transfrontier television broadcasting within the European Community. For it to work effectively it is essential that certain elements are implemented in a common manner by all member states. One such element is the determination of which country should have jurisdiction over a broadcaster.
In the United Kingdom the Independent Television Commission licences and regulates all broadcasters which come under UK jurisdiction, with the exception of the BBC and S4C. From the European Community perspective, the crucial factor is that each broadcaster should come under the jurisdiction of one—and only one—member state. In order to achieve that, it is clearly essential that a single system of determining jurisdiction is in operation throughout the Community. This is where a problem arose. The wording of the 1989 directive was ambiguous. When member states came to implement the directive at national level, differing interpretations of the provisions on jurisdiction were exposed.
In implementing the directive, the UK chose to use satellite uplink as the basis of jurisdiction. That was the criterion used in the Council of Europe's Convention on Transfrontier Television, which predated the directive and was to some extent a model for European broadcasting regulation. However, other member states used the broadcaster's place of establishment.
Establishment and uplink are fairly complex issues, but, in simple terms, a broadcaster's place of establishment is generally held to be the place in which it has its head office and where decisions about programming content are made. Uplink is the technical process whereby programmes are broadcast from a specific transmitter on the earth to a satellite, from where they are subsequently downlinked back to satellite receptors on earth.
The situation did not cause too many practical problems for the UK because the vast majority of services uplinked from the UK are by broadcasters also established in the UK. In 1992, however, the European Commission initiated legal action against the UK on the grounds that, by using uplink as the basis of jurisdiction, the UK had misinterpreted the Broadcasting Directive. That process culminated in the European Court of Justice's judgment last September which recognised that the existing directive was ambiguous but found that establishment was the correct basis for determining jurisdiction. We need now to implement that judgment and these regulations do so by changing the basis of jurisdiction from uplink to establishment.

561
We now also have the benefit of the revisions to the 1989 directive, including Article 2, where the ambiguity to which I referred is removed. The revised directive, which was adopted by both the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament earlier this month, states clearly that establishment shall be the basis of jurisdiction, and sets out a hierarchy of criteria for defining the place of establishment of broadcasters. These regulations can now be read alongside this detailed guidance in the revised directive.
I would emphasise that the practical effect of the change is minimal. According to the Independent Television Commission, of the 150 or more broadcasters currently holding satellite broadcasting licences, fewer than half a dozen will be affected.
In the second part of its judgment, the European Court of Justice found that the UK had unlawfully established two licensing regimes for satellite broadcasting. The 1990 Broadcasting Act established two different licensing regimes. Domestic satellite services were defined as those which used UK frequencies and were designed for general reception in the UK. Non-domestic satellite services were those which did not use UK frequencies and were intended for general reception in the UK and elsewhere. The domestic regime required broadcasters to ensure that at least 25 per cent. of transmission time was allocated to independent productions, whereas non-domestic satellite licensees were only bound by the provisions of the broadcasting directive, which requires at least 10 per cent. of independent productions, where practicable. The court's judgment found that the distinction between these two regimes was discriminatory and that the UK was favouring its own viewers by imposing a more rigorous content regime on domestic satellite service licensees.
That had not, in fact, been either the intention or the effect of the UK's distinction between the two regimes. The large majority of the 150 or more licensed non-domestic satellite services use non-UK frequencies but in fact broadcast wholly or mainly to UK audiences. The different domestic satellite regime merely applies to UK satellite frequencies the kind of procedure applied for commercial UK terrestrial broadcasting frequencies; bids for the use of the spectrum and controls on content reflecting the scarcity of the resource.
Nevertheless, under the revised directive the UK clearly must license all satellite broadcasters established in the UK on the same basis. These regulations accordingly remove the distinction between the two types of satellite service. The domestic satellite service will be abolished and the non-domestic satellite service will be known as satellite television service licences.
Here again, the real effect of this change on existing licensees is minimal. There are at present no domestic satellite service licence holders, and there never have been. The new integrated regime may encourage more services to emerge. In particular, the duration of domestic satellite service licences, which requires broadcasters to plan and broadcast for 15 years as opposed to 10 years for non-domestic services, may have acted as a deterrent to broadcasters from using
562
UK allocated frequencies. It is in the UK's interest to retain those frequencies and the Government hope that the reduction in the duration of licences will encourage future applications for this resource.
The Government are fully committed to complying with their international obligations. The making of these regulations will enable the United Kingdom to do so in respect of the EC Broadcasting Directive. They will not however have any material effect on the thriving UK satellite broadcasting industry. I commend the regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18th June be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for his full explanation of the background to the making of these regulations. When I had the honour and privilege of being the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of National Heritage in the last administration, I considered these matters and it was I who set the process in motion which led to tabling these regulations and our discussion of them this afternoon. I confirm that the noble Lord's description of what was involved was extremely clear, full and thorough. In the meantime, the Government have changed, the Conservative Party has changed and I am not quite the man that I was then. At least, my view has not changed. We on these Benches support the regulations.
I was grateful that the noble Lord referred to the television without frontiers directive. I believe that its recent revision has been a triumph for United Kingdom policy and represents the culmination of much hard and skilful work by officials of the Department of National Heritage and our officials in Brussels. It is right and proper that they should be given credit for what was a major achievement for the United Kingdom. It shows, if these matters are carried forward skilfully, how it is possible to end negotiations in the European forum with very considerable success. We support the regulations.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I consider it helpful that my noble friend made reference early in his remarks to the Council of Europe's model outline. Those of us who are delegates to that body spent many long hours in Luxembourg considering the detail and the difficulties of European implementation of the Council of Europe model. It is worth placing on the record, as my noble friend has done, that the Government see the Council of Europe model as a role which they are now supporting.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their welcome for the regulations. I acknowledge the parentage—perhaps it is the god-parentage—of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and his colleagues in the preparation of the regulations in response to the judgment of the European Court of Justice. I am delighted to hear from him that the Conservative Party is changing. I hope that that process continues for a very long time.

563
My noble friend Lord Kirkhill referred to the Council of Europe trans-frontier television directive. I acknowledge the work of the Council of Europe and the noble Lord's part in it in the origins of television without frontiers. But I have to tell him that the judgment of the Council of Europe that the basis of the regulations should be uplink rather than establishment has in fact been overturned by the European Court of Justice. It is the Council of Europe which is now out of step with the European Community.
With those words, I commend the regulations to your Lordships.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may say that he should make a distinction, which he has not properly made, between the Council of Europe and the European Union. The Council of Europe and the Union are often out of step but the Council of Europe's convention remains.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thought I had recognised that fact. The Council of Europe has a very much wider membership and its convention still applies to those members of the Council of Europe who are not members of the European Union. But members of the European Union have to abide by the EC directive, as revised, and by the European Court of Justice.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1997
4.59 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th June be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the draft order before us today authorises expenditure of £3,632 million for Northern Ireland departments in the current financial year. That is in addition to the sum of £2,941 million voted on account in March and brings total estimates provision for Northern Ireland departments to £6,573 million, an increase of 4.2 per cent. on 1996–97. The order also authorises the use of additional receipts to meet an excess vote in 1995–96.
I would remind your Lordships that the order does not cover the estimates for the Northern Ireland Office on law and order services. As it is a Whitehall department, the estimates for the Northern Ireland Office are dealt with separately. However, the public expenditure decisions underlying the estimates for the Northern Ireland departments and the Northern Ireland Office form part of the Northern Ireland block allocation. The Secretary of State has flexibility to reallocate resources within the block in the light of emerging pressures and easements and, as your Lordships will recall, the block benefited from the so-called peace dividend following the ceasefires of
564
1994. I regret that it may be the ordinary people of Northern Ireland who will suffer as a result of the need to meet the additional policing and compensation costs following the mindless violence of the past few days.
Your Lordships will appreciate that the draft order which we have before us today reflects the spending allocations of the previous government, although I was pleased that it was possible to find an additional £4 million for schools this year and that is reflected in the estimates.
Although our manifesto stated that departments will be expected to work within the 1997–98 and 1998–99 spending ceilings announced by the previous government, we will be reviewing allocations within those limits in the light of our own priorities. That is why the Government have launched a comprehensive spending review which will focus on the medium term. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be conducting a comprehensive review of programmes in Northern Ireland. The review will be a root and branch examination of every area of spending and will provide an opportunity for extensive consultation on public expenditure priorities.
I know that your Lordships continue to take a close interest in the prospects for economic development in Northern Ireland, and I should like to say a few words about the local economic situation before turning to the contents of the estimates. The latest official statistics show that the Northern Ireland economy is in good health and generally economic conditions remain favourable. All the main economic indicators have once again shown very positive results for the Province.
The output of manufacturing and production industries continues to rise at a rate well above that achieved nationally. Over the past five years, Northern Ireland's manufacturing sector has increased its output by over 18 per cent.—almost twice the rate of growth achieved nationally. Over a similar timescale there has been a significant improvement in the Province's gross domestic product relative to the United Kingdom, with GDP per head rising from 78.2 per cent. of the national average in 1990 to 83 per cent. by 1995. Indeed, of particular note is the fact that over the year to 1995 Northern Ireland's GDP per capita increased relative to the UK's, while that of both Scotland and Wales decreased.
International investment in Northern Ireland's tourism industry remains strong. In addition, the Northern Ireland Tourist Board believes that the new marketing initiative announced in November 1996 to market tourism to Ireland as a whole could generate a potential £27 million of additional revenue and 720 new jobs in the Province over the next three years. Despite being down on record 1995 levels, visitor numbers are still above pre-ceasefire levels, at 11 per cent. up on 1994.
At March 1997 the number of employees in employment in the Province stood at 580,500, the highest March figure on record. That is coupled with a rate of seasonally adjusted unemployment of 8.4 per cent. of the workforce, its lowest level for almost 17 years.

565
Allied to that are the survey results from the local business community. Despite a number of recent surveys reporting falling optimism among Northern Ireland business leaders, overall economic conditions are reported as favourable. Northern Ireland firms have experienced growth rates in output and exports and order books which have outpaced United Kingdom averages. Economic growth is set to continue in the future and further reductions in unemployment are anticipated.
All of that clearly demonstrates the impressive achievements of the Northern Ireland economy and I am confident that that performance will continue to be sustained. However, a brighter economic future will without doubt be put at risk if violence were to continue.
I now turn to the main items of expenditure covered by the order as detailed in the estimates booklet; all the figures are of course in pounds sterling. I shall start with the Department of Agriculture. The net provision in the two agriculture votes amounts to some £172 million. In Vote 1 net provision of some £30 million is to fund EU and national agriculture support measures. The net provision covers the pre-funded market support measures under the common agricultural policy which total £146 million. The vote includes some £4 million for various capital, environmental and other grants to assist structural improvements. Some £26 million is for the Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance Scheme to provide support for farming in special areas.
Vote 2 includes £142 million for regional services and support measures. That includes £60 million for the development of the agriculture and agricultural products industries and for scientific and veterinary services; some £30 million is for farm support, enhancement of the countryside and fisheries and forestry services; £24 million is for central administration, including information technology and specialised accommodation services; and some £5 million is for the rural development programme; £18 million is for the Rivers Agency and some £5 million is in respect of processing and marketing and fishing projects which are wholly funded by the European Union. That vote also contains net provision of £9 million in respect of the EU peace and reconciliation programme which incorporates agricultural, rural and water based projects.
In the Department of Economic Development's Vote 1, some £153 million is for the Industrial Development Board. That will enable the board to continue to attract and support industrial development in Northern Ireland, primarily through the provision of selective financial assistance to both new and existing companies. In 1996–97 the board supported some 35 inward investment projects offering 4,641 jobs.
In Vote 2, some £31 million is for the Local Enterprise Development Unit, Northern Ireland's Small Business Agency. That will allow the agency to maintain its excellent track record in developing, strengthening and improving the competitiveness of the important small firms sector in Northern Ireland. Finally, in this vote some £14 million is for the Northern Ireland Tourist Board to support the tourist industry in Northern Ireland.
566
In Vote 3, £196 million is for the Training and Employment Agency. That includes some £65 million to fund 14,700 training places under the jobskills training programme; £42 million is for the Action for Community Employment, Community Work Programme and Enterprise Ulster, which will provide some 7,400 places for long-term unemployed adults in projects of community benefit. Some £24 million is to assist companies improve their competitiveness by developing the skills of their workforce.
I now turn to the estimates for the Department of the Environment. In Vote 1, £177 million is for roads, transport and ports. That includes some £145 million for the development and operation of Northern Ireland's public road system as well as maintenance of the road system, which remains a priority.
Vote 2 covers the important area of housing. Some £220 million will provide assistance mainly to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and to the Voluntary Housing Movement. When net borrowing and the Housing Executive's rents and capital receipts are taken into account, the total resources available for housing will be some £610 million. That will enable the Housing Executive to start some 800 new houses while housing associations will start some 1,050 new dwellings.
In Vote 3 gross expenditure on water and sewerage services is estimated at £184 million. Some £79 million is for capital expenditure and some £105 million is for operational and maintenance purposes, as well as for administration costs.
In Vote 4, some £183 million is for environmental and other services. That includes provision for the Environment and Heritage Service, Planning Service, the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, Construction Service and Land Registers of Northern Ireland. Some £32 million is for urban regeneration measures targeted at areas of social, economic and environmental need. Those measures provide a catalyst for higher overall investment through partnerships with the private sector. Some £37 million will also be made available under the EU Peace and Reconciliation Programme, of which some £28 million will be funded from EU receipts.
The estimates for the Department of Education seek a net total of £1,408 million, a decrease of 1.8 per cent. on last year's provision. However, when account is taken of Northern Ireland's share of receipts from the national sale of the student loan debt, expenditure will increase by 1.8 per cent. Provision is included for the additional £4 million which the Government have made available to assist schools.
Vote 1 includes £887 million for recurrent expenditure by education and library boards, an increase of £8 million over 1996–97. This includes £843 million for schools and colleges of further education: £44 million is also included for libraries, youth, administration and other services. Vote 1 also provides some £34 million for boards' capital projects, some £42 million is for capital projects in voluntary and grant maintained integrated schools and £140 million is for recurrent expenditure by voluntary and integrated

567
schools. These amounts include £31 million for grant maintained integrated schools, an increase of £8 million over 1996–97.
Vote I also includes £113 million for local universities, £133 million for mandatory student support, £17 million for arts and museums and £4 million for community relations. Some £19 million has also been made available under the EU Peace and Reconciliation Programme, some £14.6 million of which is being funded from EU receipts.
In the Department of Health and Social Services Vote 1, £1,518 million is for expenditure on hospital, community health, personal social services, health and social services trusts, family health services and certain other services. This is an increase of 2.4 per cent. on last year.
In Vote 3, £27 million is for expenditure on grants to voluntary bodies, research, training, bursaries and further education and certain other services. The provision sought is 1.5 per cent. higher than last year's final net provision.
In Vote 4, £142 million is for the department's administration and other miscellaneous costs. This includes £93 million for the Social Security Agency, some £8 million for the Northern Ireland Child Support Agency, some £10 million for the Health and Social Services Executive and £4 million for the Health Estates Agency.
In Vote 5, £1,724 million is for social security benefit expenditure administered by the Social Security Agency. This represents an increase of 8.3 per cent. on last year. In Vote 6, £362 million is to cover expenditure on the independent living funds, housing benefits, the Social Fund and payments into the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund.
Finally, I turn to the Department of Finance and Personnel where, in Vote 3, some £5.8 million is sought for the community relations programme. In addition, some £1.7 million has also been made available through funding from EU receipts under the EU peace and reconciliation programme.
I hope that this short summary of the main components of the estimates is helpful. I commend the order to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th June be approved.—(Lord Dubs.)
5.12 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on the way he has presented the order and on his mastery of the figures, particularly those concerning my former department, the Department of Agriculture. Your Lordships will see sitting beside me some of my colleagues who know a great deal about Northern Ireland. Indeed, it seems that every second another of my colleagues appears. My former Secretary of State is here, who gave me a great deal of advice.
All noble Lords will admit that it has not been the best or the easiest time for Northern Ireland in recent days, let alone for the press, both in written and electronic form, which has been showing Northern
568
Ireland's face—one of the faces of Northern Ireland— around the world. Indeed, I am reminded—I think my noble friend Lord Gowrie may be able to assist me—of the education he and I received more than 40 years ago and of the Roman poet Ovid, who said:
"Video meliora proboque, Deteriora sequor".
In other words, I do see what I ought to be doing—the good things. Never mind, out of compulsion I have to follow the worst aspect.
With all the good things that the Minister has presented to us I am reminded that 100 human beings have been hospitalised over the past four days. Two hundred and twenty vehicles have been hijacked, including a mail van in, of all places, Dunmurry, which I know well. My noble friend Lord Prior will certainly know it. All noble Lords will be appalled by these incidents. There have been 550 attacks on the security forces. I read in today's paper that masked and armed men were seen in the lovely city of Downpatrick. There have also been 700 petrol bombings. One wonders what kind of face can be presented by various people in Northern Ireland. Indeed, I am taken back to a pale blue report which I have in my hand—the Cameron Report of 1969. What happened then seems to be happening today.
I hope the Minister will be able to convey my personal and heartfelt congratulations to the Secretary of State on all that she is trying to do with all her enormous humour, honesty and persistence. I hope that she, the noble Lord and the entire Northern Ireland ministerial team will be able to present the face of Northern Ireland that I, the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Prior, the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, and all the other noble Lords who are to speak today, know to be the real face of Northern Ireland.
I have looked at the order before us. I was delighted that the Minister mentioned the Department of Agriculture. On page 4, schedule 1, I am delighted to see that the Government are continuing to assist production and market development in the agriculture industry. On page 5, paragraph 2, the Government are continuing to ensure the pre-eminence of the Department of Agriculture in both scientific and veterinary research areas and indeed, in my old stamping ground, the Veterinary Research Laboratory in Stoney Road, which is just a few paces from the Minister's office in Dundonald House. I hope that the financial efforts the noble Lord has been pointing out will be pushed forward in this area of Northern Ireland's industry. I am also delighted to see that animal health and forestry are occupying a high priority in the activities of the department. They were singled out by the Minister. I am delighted that he is continuing to do that and I hope that he will be able to push on with it.
On page 5, paragraph 2 of the Department of Economic Development's Vote, your Lordships will see reference to expenditure to promote the development of tourism. Perhaps the Minister and indeed the entire ministerial department in Northern Ireland may feel something of the nature of the great classical figure Sisyphus in trying to push this vast burden up the hill. The noble Lord and others who know and love Northern

569
Ireland will admit that some of the images we have seen over the past day or two have not exactly promoted tourism in that lovely part of the world.
I conclude with a plea to the Minister and to the department. The Department of Agriculture has an unbeatable record in promoting agriculture, science and the production of every aspect of food and drink. However, earlier last month the Minister seemed somewhat unaware of the passage of the years. I wish to stress to him that in the odd years—1997, 1999 and 2001—the world's largest food and trade fair will be held in Cologne. It goes by the happy acronym ANUGA. I shall not try to weary your Lordships by explaining the acronym, but it is a very large fair. I know that it helps to promote the proper face of Northern Ireland. I had the luck to go to that exhibition twice and I went to two other exhibitions in Paris. I was able in some small way to persuade the buyers and those who are interested in the food, drink and hospitality industry that the face of Northern Ireland that we and the world have been seeing is only one face and that there is another face—the one presented by the department. I hope that the Secretary of State will insist that the noble Lord is at the exhibition and that he will use his enormous talents to promote the Department of Agriculture.
I commend him for his enormous fortitude in presenting the report today. I hope he will pass on my good wishes to the Secretary of State and her ministerial team.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, when the Minister was reporting on the strength of the Northern Ireland economy, the drop in unemployment and many other very desirable developments there, I am sure that many of us had in mind that period when the noble Lord, Lord Prior, was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. In a very real sense he laid the foundations for what we have been enjoying over the past year. He seemed to be extremely successful in persuading the Treasury to part with money at times when it had other ideas. I do not know whether it was peaceful persuasion, but it brought results. Many of those who now find themselves in permanent jobs, those who run businesses and the leaders of industry are grateful to him for what he did during those years.
Noble Lords will remember the exchanges in your Lordships' House yesterday as regards the weight limits on heavy lorries. The United Kingdom derogation expires on 31st December 1998. Is the Minister satisfied that haulage firms in Northern Ireland are sharing in the consultation initiated by the previous government, particularly in regard to the classifications existing in certain European countries which apply distinctions between what they term "international traffic" and "national traffic", which presumably means internal traffic? These definitions might be difficult to relate to Northern Ireland for obvious reasons, one of them being that we have one land frontier of the United Kingdom with another European state.
570
There follows the possibility of some confusion over the current bridge strengthening programmes. Are the standards and specifications based on the requirements of what I might call the post-derogation period? If so, how was it possible to decide on bridge strengthening standards so far in advance of the outcome and the result of the consultations, which are even now nowhere near completion?
In your Lordships' House yesterday it was pointed out that the very expensive bridge strengthening programme had been made necessary by European Union requirements. Will Her Majesty's Government press vigorously for European structural funding to meet the cost of what is, after all, their directive? As the European Union is not noted for speedy decision-making, I draw attention to the fact that here in Great Britain the Ministry of Transport meets the cost of all upgrading by local authorities. As the noble Lord, Lord Prior, and other noble Lords will recognise and remember, the relevant road authority in Northern Ireland is the Road Agency and the Department of the Environment, Northern Ireland. I wonder whether the Minister for Transport can provide the necessary funds in the short term until the European Union has subvention funds on stream, thus ensuring that the Treasury allocation for Northern Ireland is not eroded by these expensive demands of an external and, if I may say so, undemocratic body known as the European Union.
Finally, I draw the Minister's attention to a perceived unfairness in planning. There is some evidence to suggest that in the interests of the preservation of planning guidelines, domestic individual planning applications are often rejected, sometimes for very good reasons. But different standards appear to apply to powerful developers who proceed to breach the planning laws even before their applications are launched. Objections follow in a ritual way to the planning authorities, but unfortunately these are simply disregarded. Development continues and effective enforcement of the law is nil. That is the perception. Will the Minister consider amending the law to remove this truly glaring inequality?
5.23 p.m.
Lord Prior: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene for just a minute. I did not put my name down to speak, but the kind references made to me by the two earlier speakers have stimulated me into saying a few words. I start by telling an anecdote. When I was Secretary of State it was not very often that the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, came to Northern Ireland as Prime Minister, but I would not like to say whether that had anything to do with the fact that she sent me there. When she came she nearly always travelled by helicopter. On one unfortunate occasion it was too foggy to travel by that means and she had to come with me in the car. As we were going along one of the new roads and seeing all the new housing, she turned to me and said, "Jim, you know, we are spending too much money here". I mention this because we are dealing with the consolidated fund. My view—and I believe it was hers

571
also—was that we were spending a great deal of taxpayers' money in Northern Ireland. It was an honourable and right thing to do and it remains as such.
I have always been extremely proud of the fact that, given the difficulties of the Northern Ireland situation, British governments of both political parties have always done their best to act in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland and will continue to do so.
I go one step further and say that I have felt very deeply for the Secretary of State in the past few days because nearly every Secretary of State has experienced some of the very difficult situations in which the present Secretary of State finds herself. It has been made more difficult by what I consider to be the quite scurrilous use of a leaked letter or memo, which was several days old. If anyone knows the Civil Service, it could only have been a position paper indicating that something might happen under certain circumstances. To produce that as a vital document and to show it to people who, for one reason or another, were bound to react in the way that they did, seems to me to be thoroughly bad journalism and does no good to the people of Northern Ireland whether of the Nationalist or Unionist persuasion.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that we appreciate the present Government's difficulties. We are glad that we are in a position to support Northern Ireland as generously as reasonably possible. We wish the Government the success that I hope will be coming to them and give them the knowledge that they will receive as much support from these Benches as they will receive from their own.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, it has been a pleasure to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Prior, speaking and commenting on his time in Northern Ireland. He came in at a critical time—although all times are critical—in the development of industry in Northern Ireland. I know that the steps he took have helped towards achieving a situation whereby the Minister has been able to give a positive report tonight on the economy which it has been a pleasure to hear. As someone who is engaged in industry in Northern Ireland, that was not an exaggeration.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, has commented on it, but it is a pleasure to see tonight not only the noble Lord, Lord Prior, but two former Ministers, the noble Lords, Lord Lyell, Lord Gowrie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Denton—the most recent Minister— who was responsible particularly for the Department of Economic Development. They made a very large contribution to the state of the economy as it now is.
I fear that there is one cloud on the horizon with regard to the economy. I refer to the strength of the pound. Several important firms in Northern Ireland export all of their products and their effective return has decreased by about 15 per cent. in the past year. That must be borne in mind because one or two of those firms could have serious problems due to the strength of the pound, and there is some indication that it may strengthen yet further.
572
Perhaps I may now ask a few questions relating to the Appropriation Fund. I refer first to the Vote for the Department of Agriculture. Generally speaking, agriculture in Northern Ireland is prospering, but not in financial terms. The milk, beef and cereal sectors are considerably disadvantaged at present—again, due to the strength of sterling. That has meant that the green pound has been devalued and that farmers' support from the CAP has suffered considerably. There is an EU compensation fund which is intended to correct some of those deficiencies. I ask the Minister why the Government have not made use of the EU compensation fund which is available to meet devaluations of the green pound. Other countries in Europe have availed themselves of the fund, including the Republic of Ireland. I understand that if the compensation fund was drawn down, it would be worth £56 million to the agricultural industry in Northern Ireland.
Agriculture in Northern Ireland has suffered also because of the BSE-caused embargo on the export of beef. It will be helpful to know whether the Government have submitted a response to the EU's report on the proposed UK export certified herds scheme. If the Government have responded, it would be helpful to know what that response has proposed.
I move on now to the Department of Economic Development. The Minister may not yet have had an opportunity in his short time in office to learn of the very high costs of electricity in Northern Ireland. It is a considerable handicap to industry and is a burden on consumers which they should not have to bear. I am surprised to note that Vote 2 of the Department of Economic Development refers to,
"assistance to the gas and electricity industries"—
I cannot think what assistance they need; they are doing very well—
"(including residual costs in connection with the privatisation of the electricity industry in Northern Ireland)".
The generating companies were privatised in 1992, so I should like to know why there are any residual costs now.
Vote 3 of the Department of Economic Development is for training grants and "training in skills". There was recently a much regretted cut in the training grant. As everyone knows, it is most important that young people's skills are improved and that they are introduced to new skills. Can the Minister say how soon that former support will be renewed and even improved upon?
I turn now to the Vote for the Department of Health and Social Services. Everyone in Northern Ireland knows that there is an enormous administrative overhead in the health service. There are two tiers in the system before one reaches the hospital trusts. I refer to the Management Executive and to the four area boards. They are so large and so cumbersome that it is almost impossible for the trusts to get a reply to any application that they may make. It has been estimated that the administrative overhead costs are in the region of £80 million a year. It is not difficult to see how it might be reduced to between £10 million and £20 million a year. Can the Minister assure the House that that will be considered in the review that is about to be

573
undertaken? I hope that impartial outside consultants will be brought in so that we can ascertain how that enormous overhead can be reduced so that the savings can be passed on and used to provide additional patient care. I commend the order to the House.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, this is a somewhat distressing time to be speaking of and attending to the affairs of Northern Ireland. As we consider matters of funding for Northern Ireland, the amount of money that has been wasted in the past two or three days alone can scarcely have passed our awareness. One particular company, Translink, which is responsible for public transport in Northern Ireland, has, I understand, over a period of two or three days lost in excess of £10 million-worth of stock at replacement value in terms of train carriages and buses. Speaking of those losses, however, says nothing about the damage that has been done to the tourist industry, to which reference has been made, and to the general economy. Although extremely valuable work has been done, particularly by the previous administration and the noble Baroness, Lady Denton of Wakefield—as the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, mentioned, that work can be traced right back to the days of the noble Lord, Lord Prior, if not before—all of that is again put in jeopardy because of the violence of recent times.
Although I accept much of what the Minister said, I do not think that the violence should be regarded simply as mindless violence. Certainly, I accept that some of the behaviour and some of the decisions—the decision to exercise the right to march, for example— were not very mindful of what was wise and were even extremely ill advised, but some of the violence on both sides of the community was orchestrated with anything but mindlessness. It was considered violence. It was intended to cause destruction and damage. It was intended to destabilise the community. It is unwise to dismiss it as mindless and thoughtless. Knowing one's enemy, one should not dismiss them because if one does so, one ends up looking foolish. We are talking about considered stuff which is highly dangerous. I very much hope that we are not standing on the edge of a serious abyss in Northern Ireland. We have had very difficult times in the past few days and there is real danger in the days ahead.
However, the business of government must go on and all that is possible must be done to contain the situation and to retain a degree of normality in difficult times. I shall detain your Lordships for only a few moments when commenting on and asking questions about a number of matters in the Appropriation Order. In respect of the Department of Agriculture, I would find it helpful to know the Government's position in response to the European Commission's report. The noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, alluded to that. It is clear that in respect of BSE, Europe is prepared to consider Northern Ireland as a special region because of our island base and because we have a good system of tracing cattle and a good history of animal health. As it is clear from the report that Europe is prepared to
574
consider those factors, I should like to know whether the Government are prepared to consider that matter or whether it is to be held up again and again to the detriment not only of the industry but of government expenditure until the rest of the United Kingdom is ready to participate.
I know that the environment is dear to the Minister's heart, so perhaps I may pass on to him my thanks for, and the congratulations of many people in Northern Ireland on, the decision that was taken on the Magheramorne quarry. That may not have been an easy decision, but I believe that it was a wise one. It is a decision that has enormous support not only in that locality but in Northern Ireland generally. I welcome the decision of the Minister in regard to that.
I ask that the Minister continues his wise decisions. When the previous administration raised the question of water privatisation in Northern Ireland, they indicated that, because of the strength of public opinion in Northern Ireland, they would perforce put any decision on that matter beyond the next election. That election has come and gone and we now have a new Parliament. Can the Minister ensure that, particularly in the light of the opposition of all the parties in Northern Ireland and of his own party when in opposition to water privatisation, water privatisation, which was stopped in Northern Ireland, will not be continued under the administration of which he is a part?
I also lend my support to the planning matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead. He is right. There is a suspicion—sometimes more than a suspicion—in Northern Ireland that large commercial enterprises are dealt with differently from ordinary individual planning applications. When the Select Committee of another place visited Northern Ireland and looked at this matter, it was profoundly disturbed by a number of aspects of the planning service. I support the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, in his call for the conduct of the Department of the Environment in planning matters to be looked at.
I was encouraged by the recent comments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to health, education and welfare to work and the funding that was likely to be made available. However, I remained unclear as to whether Northern Ireland would benefit in health, education and welfare to work in the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom. I would welcome clarification from the Minister on that matter given that a little time has elapsed since the Budget and, it is hoped, the matter has now been fully discussed.
I conclude by thanking the Minister and his colleagues for all their work in difficult and tiresome times. I wish the Minister well in the next few weeks. Both he and his colleagues will find them strenuous and difficult times. All of Northern Ireland is fearful of what may emerge in the next few days. It is important that the Minister and his colleagues are aware that they have our support in trying to do what is wise and good. My goodness, in Northern Ireland it is not always easy to know what it is best to do for wisdom and for the good.
5.43 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, it would be wrong to stand at the Dispatch Box this evening and fail to express disappointment that the efforts of the Government and those of good will came to nothing over the past weekend and to express sympathy with the police and security forces; husbands and wives and, fathers and mothers who would have been at home had violence not been threatened. One saw how little that counted with the callous murder of two of their number in Lurgan. I believe that the greatest sympathy must go to the Secretary of State who yesterday, following tremendous efforts to find a compromise—which unfortunately is still all too often a dirty word in Northern Ireland—found herself facing the problems of a leak.
I hear the criticisms of my noble friend Lord Prior of the media in using this leak. However, I believe that that was only what could be expected. From where did this leak come? I am sure that that also concerns the Minister. This comes as no surprise to me. I was leaked against, to quote one of the radio journalists, "by the world and its mother". Officials then failed to follow the code of conditions of service in subsequent inquiries. They now choose to leak against Dr. Mowlam. I hope that this time any inquiry will follow the rules.
But whither now following the weekend and with difficult days ahead? The cost of this is appalling, not just in pounds but in its effect on tourism and inward investment. I had the pleasure of fronting a "make it back home" campaign to attract those who had left the Province to return with their skills and their children. Grandparents were saying that their grandchildren could return to Northern Ireland safely. Who will say that now? How many of the very bright children undergoing education will stay? If we lose that talent, will we also lose the companies that that talent attracted?
I take this opportunity to praise the group of 7, composed of businessmen and trade unionists, who have been brave enough to put their heads above the parapet to point out to people the cost of this terrible violence. This phenomenon has arisen in recent years and it is sad that even their voices are not heard. I praise the IDB. It was good to hear the Minister review our success over the past years. I am glad to hear that it continues but it is a difficult uphill task. Against all odds, tourism has continued its curve, which, with the exception of the ceasefire year, has moved in the right direction. But what now?
What follows the events of the past weekend is in the hands of the people. Anger, like forgiveness, runs to personal timetables not government ones. But I suggest that the Government should not allow politics to overtake normal life in Northern Ireland. On a good day it cannot be bettered. I believe that the Government have a duty to facilitate economic growth as smoothly as possible. There are tough economic times ahead. Other noble Lords have referred to the problem of BSE. One matter about which we can be certain is that the ban on entry to European markets will not disappear overnight. The noble Lord, Lord Cooke, referred to the problems of
576
the strong pound, particularly in Northern Ireland where business has been built locally on exports. With a population of 1.5 million there can be no other way.
Inward investment has been attracted to Northern Ireland as a gateway to Europe. One hears inward investors say how difficult it is to be based in the UK to service the European market. I hope that that is something that the noble Lord and his colleagues will also hear. I believe that there will be continuing hard competition from the south, where people living in a peaceful environment express views on the current situation that are not helpful. Ultimately, there will be an end to the peace and reconciliation moneys that the European Commission has so generously provided. I hope that when they do come to an end we will be able to say that this is what has been achieved with the £230 million.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, referred to the announcements of the Chancellor on health, education and welfare to work and their relationship to Northern Ireland. One makes the assumption, which one hopes is not misplaced, that that will extend totally to Northern Ireland. However, one wonders what the extension of the welfare to work programme implies for the ACE schemes and Enterprise Ulster. It is right that the Government should carry out a spending review. Obviously, they must know the facts on which to base future policy.
However, in relation to health matters, why is it necessary to review in great depth the decision on the rationalisation of the Belfast hospitals? Review the political decision maybe, but I do not believe that the thorough work that has been done for three years by the people involved in the hospitals and the experts from other fields justifies a review. I warn the Minister that in Northern Ireland there is a habit of putting reports in drawers, which brings no benefit.
I should also like to know whether the Budget covers future childcare policies of the Government. This is essential, as women play such an important part in the economy. I also hope that education changes will include opportunities for women returners, for which there is a great need.
On the economic front, I join with other noble Lords in arguing that, if the Government could be persuaded to go to the European Commission so that Northern Ireland farmers could take their product back to the market, that would be economically sound. It would take the pressure off other markets in Great Britain and we would all see the benefit. The important thing is to get the boat afloat, not that everyone should be in it to start with. I hope that the Minister will be able to persuade his colleagues that it is important for the fishermen of Northern Ireland that the problem of quota hoppers be resolved.
One of the problems which has not yet stopped inward investment into Northern Ireland but could at any time is the cost of energy. Will the Minister update us on the Scottish interconnector which would make a difference to the cost of energy? Will he explain why it has taken 18 months to review the £45 million which the Government hold and which should be returned to the public?

577
I always seem to disagree with at least one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. One issue is expenditure on the infrastructure for the water industry. I wonder how the noble Lord thinks that the money, especially after this weekend, can be made available from government funds. Would it not be wiser to privatise the industry so that the capital will flow in to make the improvements that the infrastructure needs?
What is the position with regard to the funding necessary to keep open the Omagh Veterinary Centre? Last year's budget left no space for it. It was agreed to keep it open on the basis that farmers would pay fees for the services that they receive, as they have for many years in the rest of Great Britain.
The investment scene has been good. It has been greatly praised by those attracted to it. The Minister talked about the current situation which offers over 4,000 jobs. I wonder whether he can tell the House how many of those jobs are in place and whether they could disappear. There are, as we read, many companies in difficulties. What will the cost of them be to the budget? There are enormous difficulties in that area as a result of the current images being sent around the world.
Perhaps the Minister will agree to look at the Arthur Andersen case. The only thing that may overtake the acceleration of DeLorean are the costs of the American lawyers' fees in the Government's case against Arthur Andersen. That problem may well need time spent on it.
Is it possible to examine why Northern Ireland needs to put every directive separately into legislation? Agriculture visibly suffers through not having a voice at Brussels. We have none of the benefits of being able to negotiate separately but we have the cost of legislating separately for every directive. I wonder what those costs are. Could they not be saved?
One of the problems brought home this weekend is that the Targeting Social Need programme has obviously not got through to the people, who believe they are not getting their fair rights and support. If noble Lords were aware of the amount of inward investment into West Belfast, they would wonder how people could so easily set light to vehicles in front of the factories. If there is no inward investment, how can social need be targeted?
It will not surprise the Minister that I join with other noble Lords who say that there is considerable criticism of the planning process. I look at it from a commercial point of view. It is estimated that there is some £100 million of potential investment waiting to go to Northern Ireland which is held up by the planning process. It is important to speed it up. Although it may cause this Government some difficulty, they should look at the speed at which development corporations dealt with planning matters. They should be copied.
The infrastructure is important. It has been looked at in isolation in the past. There is a great need for departments to work more closely together. If, as is hoped, the economy continues to grow, it will be difficult to get any goods out of Belfast harbour because it will be difficult to get them there. The PFI is needed in Northern Ireland almost more than anywhere else.
578
I have a colleague who used to describe the appropriation debate as a "bogweed" debate. I disagree because it gives noble Lords the opportunity to consider how Northern Ireland is run, who runs it and to whom they answer. We hear that health trust meetings in Great Britain are to be opened up. Will that happen in Northern Ireland? Will quango board meetings be open except when they are discussing commercially confidential matters? Will the Government's policy of sharing the operation of the economy with the electorate be spread to Northern Ireland? Will the recruitment changes planned for Great Britain be the same for Northern Ireland? Why does Northern Ireland have different arrangements with Peach on appointments for each department?
Northern Ireland is not the size of Greater Manchester, but each department has its own IT department and some of the budget was required for these. Will the Government continue to have a separate IT department for each area? Would it not be worth considering having just one department? One of the things I suffered was the fact that all the departments could not talk to one another through IT. At the moment the political ones can but the economic ones do not.
That highlights an important point which comes from the debate—political solutions in Northern Ireland will take a long time. The economic scene is and can continue to be one of growth. It is important that that continues.
I appreciate that I have asked the Minister a great many questions. I should be happy if he would write to me with the answers. This order covers homes, jobs, schools and hospitals—the concerns of everyone living in Northern Ireland. I ask that those matters are not considered to be secondary to the politics. For the people of Northern Ireland they are crucial.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank all Members of the House for their helpful and positive contributions to the debate. I have been asked many questions. I shall do my best to answer them. If any noble Lord feels that his questions have not been answered, perhaps I may give the answers in writing.
I thank noble Lords for the many contributions expressing support for the Secretary of State in her recent endeavours to deal with the difficult situation of the marches. I shall ensure that those words of support are passed to her. I also thank Members of the House for the support expressed for other Ministers working in Northern Ireland. We are grateful for those expressions of support. There are difficult times ahead of us. If common sense prevails, those difficulties will be overcome. We can only hope that the Secretary of State's efforts, plus common sense, will prevail over the difficulties that lie ahead.
I shall deal now with the questions that were asked. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, urged me to give support to agriculture. That is something I shall go on doing. He expressed concern about the future of tourism in the light of the recent images. That is a concern I share. If the difficulties through which Northern Ireland is going

579
can be overcome quickly, their effect on tourism will, I hope, be a small one. I realise that the television coverage and the newspapers are not helpful in presenting a positive image of Northern Ireland. That is a very sad comment that I have to make.
As regards the suggestion that I should travel to various food fairs, no doubt my officials will advise me on whether I should make so many journeys. I thank the noble Lord for the suggestion in so far as I share his motive to do everything I can in support of agriculture, which is the most important industry in Northern Ireland. I shall do so in any way that is appropriate and open to me.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, raised a number of questions, most of which related to the weights of vehicles and whether the roads and bridges of Northern Ireland are sufficient to sustain them. The haulage industry, through the trade organisation, has been and will continue to be consulted by the Department of the Environment in order that we can be certain of the industry's views as regards the changes to which the noble Lord referred. The bridge strengthening programme, which is currently underway in Northern Ireland, is being carried out in preparation for the EC requirement to permit 40 tonne vehicles to operate generally with effect from 1st January 1999. In other words, we are anticipating the likely changes and we hope to have them in place before the operational date.
An application for EC structural funds has been made and that is presently being considered in Brussels. We can only hope that the outcome will be positive. The noble Lord asked whether in the meantime grants would be made available to carry out improvements. Responsibility for bridge strengthening programmes in Northern Ireland fall to the Road Services Agency, which has allocated additional funding to facilitate the acceleration of the programme. I hope that that extra money will show itself in improved bridges capable of taking the extra weight of vehicles.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, and others referred to the planning process in Northern Ireland and some words of criticism were uttered about it. I am looking again at aspects of the process, but it might be helpful if noble Lords can provide me with specific examples of criticisms so that I can use them in assessing how the planning system operates or, perhaps in their view, does not operate as it should. Specific examples would be helpful as it is difficult to deal with planning in a general sense.
The noble Lord, Lord Prior, commented on the proper levels of expenditure in Northern Ireland and I share his sentiments. Notwithstanding the present financial difficulties, we shall continue to ensure that Northern Ireland receives the financial support that it needs in the present circumstances.
As regards the leaked letter to which the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, referred, I do not know how the leak occurred. It is being investigated, but we can hope only that the effect will not be as damaging as some of the newspapers have tried to suggest. I shall comment on the letter in a few moments.
580
The noble Lord, Lord Cooke, referred to compensation payments as a result of the strong exchange rate, particularly with regard to the needs of farmers. I acknowledge that the Government have received from the UK farming unions and other producer organisations a case for EU co-funded compensation in respect of the effects of green pound revaluations. They have made that case and I recognise that farming organisations are seeking an early decision. I must advise that these submissions are being considered very carefully as there are obvious significant public expenditure implications. The Government will announce their decision as soon as they are able to do so. I do not thereby wish to suggest that that is inevitable; we are simply looking at the case. There are great difficulties in dealing with it because there have been times when the value of the green pound has risen and we have not sought to balance that out. When the green pound has risen and there has been a benefit we have not sought to reduce its impact, so a balancing factor must be taken into account.
The noble Lord, Lord Cooke, and others, asked about the Government's approach towards the difficulties as regards BSE. The latest position was announced in another place in answer to a parliamentary Question. The Secretary of State, Jack Cunningham, stated:
"The Government have decided to adopt a twin track approach of pursuing a revised export certified herd scheme and developing a new proposal for a date based export scheme. We have put our ideas to the Commission about both schemes and will press both with equal vigour. The export certified herd scheme is being revised, taking account of criticisms made earlier by the EU Scientific Veterinary Committee. Eligibility for the scheme will be more restricted than initially proposed, but it would still be open in principle to producers in all parts of the United Kingdom. Details of the date-based scheme will be announced when exploratory talks with the Commission have progressed and the Government are ready to put forward a formal proposal".
That is the present position. Obviously, the Government are pressing as hard as they can to get the whole ban on UK beef lifted in line with the proposal that I have described.
Questions were asked about energy and assistance to the gas and electricity industries. The noble Lord, Lord Cooke, asked why there should be further compensation as regards the privatisation of electricity some years ago. Some minor residual costs remain in respect of the privatisation of electricity, such as agents' fees. All costs are met from the proceeds of the sale of the electricity industry in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord asked further questions in respect of the gas and electricity industries in Department of Economic Development Vote 2. A major element of that is the application of the nuclear levy read across; £20 million in 1997–98 and £25 million in 1998–99. That is to be used for the benefit of electricity customers in Northern Ireland. It is currently subject to negotiations with Northern Ireland Electricity PLC and interested parties. In relation to gas, there is minor provision for consultancy costs in extending the natural gas pipelines to outside the Greater Belfast and Lame areas.
The noble Lord also asked about cuts in training grants and how quickly they could be restored. The Training and Employment Agency is spending in the

581
current year some £127 million on training and employment programmes, providing some 25,600 places, mainly under programmes such as Jobskills, through Enterprise Ulster and various other training programmes. In addition, the welfare to work initiative announced by the Chancellor in his recent Budget Statement will provide further and significant resources to be targeted at the young unemployed and the long-term unemployed. This will provide a major and comprehensive training network for Northern Ireland which will more than redress the cuts made by the previous administration.
The noble Lord, Lord Cooke, also asked about savings that might be made in health service administration. Northern Ireland will play its part in the Government initiative to reduce bureaucracy costs in the health service. The savings made will be directed to patient care, particularly in the development of cancer services and the reductions in waiting lists in the Province. There was already a target in the current year of 1.5 per cent. cash savings for the HPSS in general. That included the commissioning costs of boards and the management costs of trusts, the target for which has now been raised to 2.5 per cent. and will apply to all HPSS bodies. The Government will be looking for further savings as we move to dismantle the Tory internal market and its wasteful bureaucracy.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, asked a number of questions. He asked me about the future of the water industry. I am not in a position yet to say very much about that because we are looking into it very carefully. It is clear to me that there has been under-investment for years in water and sewerage in Northern Ireland, particularly but not only in the Belfast area. I have asked my officials to look as quickly as they can at possible ways to ensure that we can improve the level of investment because there could well be a crisis in water and sewerage but particularly in the sewerage system in Belfast. We want to avoid that if we possibly can. Therefore, rather than dealing in detail with the questions asked by the noble Lord, I shall ask him to wait a little longer. I hope to be able to give him a more definite answer to the question that he put to me.
I welcome the words that he uttered about the recent decision on the landfill site near Larne, the Magheramorne Quarry development planning application. I thank him for that. We shall see what happens in the future as regards other aspects of the waste disposal industry which is being worked on at present.
The noble Baroness, Lady Denton, asked me a large number of questions and I shall do my best to do justice to as many of them as I can. She asked me about the leak in yesterday's newspapers. It may be appropriate to remind noble Lords of a very short Statement made by the Secretary of State yesterday about the document. She said:
"The document was an initial consideration by officials containing assessments and opinions of how the proximity talks should be approached. Neither I nor the Minister of State endorsed this document at the time or later. I insisted that the full range of
582
options should be kept under review. In the event, I explored a wide range of options at the proximity talks with no preconceived agenda and treating both sides completely even-handedly".
The Secretary of State went on to say:
"I worked until the last possible moment along with others to achieve a peaceful accommodation. As the document said, the Chief Constable had genuinely not taken the decision and he did not do so until the night before the march. All feasible options were genuinely under consideration until the very last moment".
The noble Baroness, Lady Denton, asked about welfare-to-work. The new deal will be implemented in Northern Ireland on the same policy basis as in Great Britain. Individual elements of the measure will reflect local economic circumstances and priorities and those existing Northern Ireland programmes and structures that can be developed to deliver specific measures.
In delivering the new deal, the Government intend to make the fullest use of existing programmes, services and structures so that we can make the most effective use of the new resources. Departments are currently considering how programmes can be developed and adapted to deliver the new measures. In addition, Northern Ireland has an extensive network of training providers, voluntary organisations and community-based groups which will be well placed to deliver the new measures.
I turn to the question asked by the noble Baroness And other noble Lords on expenditure going to Northern Ireland, to which I have already made some reference. Northern Ireland will receive its fair share of the additional resources to existing plans announced by the Chancellor on 2nd July. Northern Ireland will receive an extra £27.623 million in 1998–99 for schools and £31.143 million for the health service. In addition, the new deal will provide Northern Ireland schools with a further £2.6 million this year and £7.8 million next year for refurbishment and repairs. Northern Ireland will receive £140 million from the windfall tax. That reflects Northern Ireland's share of the young and long-term unemployed who will benefit from the welfare-to-work measures and will enable Northern Ireland to implement measures reflecting those in the rest of the UK. There will also be some help for lone parents. Northern Ireland will also receive this year and next year a benefit from the share of the capital receipts initiative.
A question was asked about the decisions in relation to the Royal and City Maternity Hospitals. The Government are fully aware of the controversy that has arisen in the wake of the decision by my predecessor to centralise maternity and associated services in the Belfast City Hospital tower block. We shall honour the commitment to review the decision and we are presently considering that as a matter of some urgency. I hope to be in a position to say more about that in the near future.
A question was asked about the Veterinary Investigation Centre at Omagh and whether it will be kept open. The introduction of charges for veterinary diagnosis is currently being considered and will be subject to consultation with the industry and other interests in Northern Ireland before introduction. Any further decisions will stem from the result of that particular consultation process.

583
I was asked also about expenditure on security in the light of the weekend situation. As I pointed out in my opening remarks, the Estimates that we are considering today do not cover expenditure by the Northern Ireland Office on law and order. However, as the noble Baroness will recall from her time in the Northern Ireland Office, expenditure on law and order, including the costs of the RUC and criminal damage and criminal injuries compensation are funded from within the Secretary of State's block allocation. As the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, made clear on many occasions during his time as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, resources would have to be restored to the law and order programme if terrorist violence returned to our streets. In such circumstances, economic and social programmes would suffer. The costs of the Army in Northern Ireland are met by the Ministry of Defence.
I was asked about the electricity inter-connector. The planned inter-connector project is being promoted jointly by Northern Ireland Electricity plc and Scottish Power—two private companies. The Government are supportive of the principles of inter-connection which will provide access to competitive electricity markets in both the rest of the UK and the rest of Europe in line with EU policy. Progress with the project is subject to the granting of planning permission in both Northern Ireland and Scotland.
A question was asked about quota hoppers. The Government believe that there has been a good outcome for the UK after tough talks in Brussels recently. What is good for the United Kingdom fishing industry is also good for the Northern Ireland fishing industry. There are close links between our fishing industry and the communities from which it operates. The Government believe that that deal gives us the opportunity to strengthen those links and ensure that processors have access to raw materials and that employment is sustained.
As regards Arthur Andersen and the DeLorean case, the Department of Economic Development is continuing its legal action for negligence, breach of contract, fraud and aiding and abetting fraud against the former DeLorean auditors, Arthur Andersen and Co. Government appointed joint receivers also continue to pursue recoveries from other parties involved in the DeLorean case.
As regards targeting social need, this Government will seek to develop the TSN initiative and so help to promote greater equality of opportunity. Through TSN, there is also the targeting of areas and people defined objectively as being in greatest need. An important effect of that should be to reduce community socio-economic differentials. TSN has been an important expenditure priority for several years and is an underlying principle which guides allocations across many departments.
A question was asked about agricultural directives and whether they have to be taken in separate legislation for Northern Ireland. Agriculture is a transfer matter which is traditionally handled through separate legislation. It is hoped that some day that will be done in a new Northern Ireland legislature.
584
As regards the PFI, the Government welcome Sir Malcolm Bates' review of the PFI/PPP and Northern Ireland Ministers will continue to pursue PPPs wherever that offers value for money.
As I said at the outset, the questions are very detailed and I have done my best to answer as many as possible. However, I shall do my best also to ensure that noble Lords who have asked questions which I have not yet answered will receive an answer in writing. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Inter-regional Framework Co-operation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States and the Southern Common Market and its Party States) Order 1997
6.19 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Deanrose to move, That the draft orders laid before the House on 23rd June be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall spend a few moments explaining why these agreements are important. The agreements are designed to extend economic and political co-operation between the European Union and partner countries in Latin America and the Mediterranean region. The European Union signed a Framework Co-operation Agreement with the Southern Cone Common Market—Mercosur—on 15th December 1995 and with Chile on 21st June 1996. The association agreement with Morocco was signed on 26th February 1996. It forms part of the EU's objective of creating a free trade area with the Mediterranean region by the year 2010. All three agreements aim to strengthen relations through increased commercial and economic co-operation. They include steps to liberalise trade and harmonise the partners' economic structures with the EU. That process should create new opportunities for trade and investment, bringing benefits to businesses and consumers in the European Union. They will also help to create the right climate for stable economic and social development in Latin American and Morocco.

585
The EU Mercosur Framework Agreement establishes a framework to strengthen links between the EU and the countries of Mercosur—that is, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay. The main elements are trade and economic co-operation. The agreement is a recognition of the growing potential of the region. Mercosur is the most dynamic of the regional groups in Latin America. It is already an important trade partner for the EU and, with a combined population of 200 million and a total GDP of almost 850 billion US dollars, the opportunities it offers are immense.
The agreement provides a framework for discussing ways in which trade can be liberalised in the future. It is a two-stage relationship. The first stage will lead to a second agreement involving progressing liberalisation of trade in accordance with WTO rules. The second stage could have a significant impact on EU/Mercosur commercial relationship and on the operation of the multilateral trading system as a whole. The UK therefore supports the thorough and detailed approach established under the agreement.
There is also provision for Foreign Ministers to meet regularly for political dialogue. That takes place twice a year in the margins of other scheduled meetings and provides an opportunity to discuss a whole range of issues of importance to both regions such as regional development, sustainable development, the environment, drugs and human rights.
The EU/Chile Framework Co-operation Agreement provides us with an additional means to deepen links with the EU and Chile. It provides for enhanced political consultation and economic partnership and foresees progressive and reciprocal liberalisation of trade in line with WTO rules. A joint declaration on political dialogue annexed to the agreement allows for the regular meetings of Heads of State and Foreign Ministers in the margins of other meetings on a range of issues of mutual interest relevant to the international agenda such as human rights, the environment and drugs. The agreement also envisages in the medium term a further round of negotiations on an association agreement with the EU.
The EU/Morocco Association Agreement is the third in the series of new Euro-Mediterranean agreements now being negotiated. So far, association agreements have been signed with Israel and Tunisia; and an interim agreement has been signed with the PLO. Other agreements are planned with Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Algeria and Syria. Europe has strong geographical and social ties with the Mediterranean. The new agreements aim to foster a new relationship with the region based on trade and mutual co-operation.
The long-term goal agreed at the Barcelona Conference in November 1995 is the creation of a Euro-Med free trade area by the year 2010. That will encourage economic transition and help to create lasting stability in the region. EU business will also benefit from the agreement. This can only improve under the new agreement which allows for progressive dismantling of Customs tariffs, further boosting trade between both sides. The Morocco agreement also
586
establishes enhanced political dialogue with Morocco in the form of an EU/Morocco association council which will provide a new forum for the EU to raise issues of importance with Morocco.
The agreements represent an important development in the EU's relations with Latin America and with the Mediterranean. Once implemented, they will provide the basis for a new level of communication and co-operation at all levels. I ask the House to support these important objectives by giving its approval to the principles behind the three agreements. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft orders laid before the House on 23rd June [5th Report from the Joint Committee] be approved.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I very much regret having to enter a note of scepticism into the purpose of these various agreements. Over many years in the past we have witnessed what I believe to be a surfeit of newly-formed institutions and organisations, all of which appear to have a very advantageous purpose when studied at first sight. However, when it comes down to it, what do they all really mean? So far as concerns the European Community, it is composed of nations and the nations themselves have trading relationships with their counterparts in other parts of the world.
The activities of the UK commercially and manufacturing-wise, or, indeed, in the provision of services, are not carried out by governments; they are carried out by individual firms and individuals. Those relationships continue despite whatever grandiose exchange of views there may be between the various organisations that purport to represent groups of state. I certainly would not wish to enter into prolonged argument about the pros and the cons, the advantages and disadvantages, of being a member of one of these important associations. Indeed, that is not my purpose.
I have had the benefit of studying this entire matter as regards the UK for the past 34 years. Therefore, I am no novice in the field. United Kingdom firms, whether or not they are providers of services or manufacturers— or, indeed, a whole series of other tradable activities— act as firms as such. Their relations continue day after day, buying and selling, manufacturing, importing, and so on, irrespective of what their governments do.
We have before us three orders. In each one the European Community and its member states are made party to a collective agreement apparently, but put in order so far as concerns the UK by the European Communities Act 1972. The agreements are made on behalf of the Community and on behalf of its member states with other individual states—as, for example, with Chile. In the case of Morocco it is an association agreement and in the case of the Southern Common Market it is centered mainly around Argentina and South America. They are all made in accordance with a framework agreement.
If one reads the framework agreements one wonders what they amount to in commercial terms. How do they affect the day-to-day commerce which takes place by telephone, fax and possibly now the Internet, despite the

587
flood of words incorporated in proposals, draft treaties or Orders in Council, all of which make much work for everyone? Indeed, I can assure your Lordships that it takes a very prodigious amount of time in order to study and check them. But what is the ultimate effect of them? How do they do any good? What does it matter to the average British trader, manufacturer or provider of services whether these measures are concluded or not? Of one thing we can be quite sure—I can tell your Lordships this from personal experience—they will most certainly result in a flood of proposals, recommendations, reports, the formation of committees travelling to and fro, questions being asked in the European Parliament and the production of vast tonnes of paper in order to explain them to everyone. But what will be the ultimate effect on the ordinary activities of individual people, their companies and even their governments? The answer, I venture to suggest, is very little.
However, I am well used to the activities of the Commission. I have been associated with it closely for four years and from afar for much longer. I can tell your Lordships that once it gets its foot in the door you can bet your life the whole body corporate will follow sooner or later with some regrets that the door was opened, even ajar, in the first instance. Your Lordships may say that coming from me this means little. I most certainly sympathise with anyone who at this stage may hold the view that my views are old hat and therefore not worth troubling much about. I accept that immediately and without any kind of rancour; in many ways I welcome it.
However, I should like an assurance from Her Majesty's Government on one point only. Can Her Majesty's Government tell me and tell the House that nothing in these agreements affects the existing activities of existing companies, individuals, partnerships or firms carrying out their lawful trade in various countries of the world, and that nothing in them would permit the Commission at any stage, directly or indirectly, to effect anything which is inimical to British interests? If they can give me that assurance, I shall at least be happy with these measures because as far as I am concerned, on the face of it, they are much ado about nothing.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this short debate. However, I wish to make a couple of remarks. I am tempted to invite the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, to come across to our Benches because I have heard such a wonderful conversion to the doctrine of pure international free trade and the argument that government should not in any sense be involved in international commerce. However, these agreements are important. It was not the European Community itself which initiated many of these discussions, it was the countries concerned. The Euro-Mediterranean strategy is one of the more important elements of the European Community's foreign policy.
As the noble Baroness mentioned, there is a substantial budget under the Euro-Mediterranean agreements agreed by the Barcelona conference which
588
is intended to provide a substantial amount of aid over the next few years towards the countries of the southern Mediterranean littoral. This is not just a matter of commerce; it is a matter of foreign policy and security policy. Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and others—the noble Baroness mentioned our agreement with Palestine—are countries with close political relations with western Europe. All of them supply substantial flows of migrants towards western Europe which we struggle to contain. We all therefore have a direct interest in their continuing stability. I therefore welcome in particular the agreement with Morocco in those terms.
I hope the Minister will say a little more, now or later, on how the broader Euro-Mediterranean agreements are being put into effect. Certainly many of us had the impression that this was an initiative of the Spanish and Italian presidencies in connection with the French Government to which other member governments of the European Union did not attach much importance. However, it seems to be rather important in terms of the long-term stability of the Mediterranean periphery of the European Union.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, was being a little modest. I can match neither his eloquence nor certainly his experience of, I believe, 34 years on this subject. As my Government—as they were then—were party to negotiating these agreements, the noble Lord and the House will not be surprised to hear that we are supportive of the three framework co-operation agreements before the House today. Nor do we believe that there is anything in them that is inimical to British trade interests abroad. On the contrary the thrust of all three of these agreements is to take progressive steps towards freer, more open trade and to permit greater opportunities for companies which need to exercise their business acumen within the countries concerned and in their relationship with the European Union in order to undertake business, make a profit and create employment.
I give one example to show why these agreements are a considerable step forward and are not much ado about nothing, to use the noble Lord's phrase. I refer to the negotiations that took place between the European Union and Morocco. The negotiations were not easy; they were protracted and painful. The reason for that is that it took a long time to move forward to a more liberal and open approach to agricultural exports coming from Morocco into the European Union. I think the Moroccans were rightly aggrieved in the early stages of the negotiations that the agricultural arrangements seemed to fall short of what they wished, which was the much more open market sought after both by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington.
Many observers thought that both France and Spain were being unduly protectionist on the question of agricultural exports. What was needed was a detailed negotiation culminating in a reasonable decision and a step forward which would allow far greater opportunities for companies to do business from Morocco into the European Union and vice versa.

589
Morocco would much prefer to have seen a system of free competition as it quite rightly maintained that its consumers were happy with its agricultural products, as were European consumers. It argued that market access was important. Agreement could not be reached to the extent that Morocco wished, but the final agreement was a significant step forward and I hope there will be further openings of the door towards a wider, more open market and towards open free trade in due course. That is one of the long-term objectives of this agreement and the surfeit or plethora of agreements. The noble Lord referred to that surfeit of measures in his speech. The agreement is a step forward in removing the barriers to trade and in enhancing competition.
The motive underlying the agreement is the same as that which underlies the other two orders that are before the House today. Far from being inimical to British or European Union trading interests, I argue that these three agreements represent significant and important steps forward to more open trade and ultimately, I hope, to a global free trade organisation which has appropriate regulation but which enables much wider more open trade with significant trading partners. As was rightly pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, this all emerged from the Barcelona process launched in 1995. I believe that process has been significant in developing closer co-operation between the European Union and the Mediterranean region. Tunisia was the first Mediterranean country to sign an association agreement with the European Union.
The agreements before the House today concern Morocco, Mercosur and Chile. However, that is not the end of it. I welcome the commitment given by the Minister today that further agreements are also due to be ratified with Egypt, Jordan, the Lebanon, Algeria and, as I understand it, Syria. Those are all important and welcome steps forward. Just as we have developed and broadened our relationships with the Mediterranean region, it is also important that the European Union begins to develop its already thriving links with Latin America through the two additional agreements, first, with Chile, and, secondly, with the Southern Common Market—or Mercosur, as it is better known to your Lordships' House.
In these agreements, Europe not only advocates freer trade, but also looks to the need for self-determination and territorial integrity. I welcome the Minister's comment that the agreement will also lead to opportunities for policy developments for the environment. I should like to learn more about that from the Minister. The agreements add a secondary dimension to the critical core issue: the realities of global trade and inter-communication. That is what the three development frameworks seek to achieve.
The effects of the frameworks should not be seen to be limited simply to successful trading alliances. I hope and believe that there will be other diplomatic advantages to the Government. I refer to the extension of the European Union's influence in regions of disturbance, and the welcome measures that we have heard—we shall look forward to seeing them in practice—in regard to human rights and human rights
590
abuses in those countries where, as a result of closer trade relations, we shall have an opportunity to exert greater leverage in order to develop sensible and practical solutions to the problems of the day.
When we discuss trading links with Latin America, and in particular the Southern Common Market, we are referring to some of the largest economic engines in the world. Brazil's GDP is of the same order of magnitude as that of China, and 50 per cent. larger than that of India. The Argentine province of Cordoba alone has a GDP equal to that of Bulgaria. The Southern Common Market already accounts for 7 per cent. of the national product of the world. I suspect that it will grow very fast—far faster than the more mature economies of Western Europe. We have already played a key role in this region's success story, in particular through the privatisation initiatives which have dominated domestic policy throughout the region. So the strengthening of the economic ties with Europe forged by this agreement are welcome, important and positive steps forward.
My noble friend Lady Hooper, who has considerable well-known expertise on South American politics, had intended to be present to speak on the draft order regarding Chile. She asks to be associated with my congratulations to the Government of Chile on the work that they have done both in the negotiations on this agreement and as an economic paragon in Latin America. It has become a remarkable example of a country where free trade policies and privatisation can fuel economic growth and create jobs. Chile's economy grew by 7.1 per cent. in 1996. It was the largest growth rate of any of the major economies in the Americas.
I seek to praise Chile for the remarkable success of its pension programme. In practice what that pension programme achieved is a lesson to all development economists. It created a strong enfranchised middle class. Through that pension provision, and through the creation of a strong middle class, one no longer has the traditional problems of a ruling elite and a disenfranchised working class. But with the creation of a middle class, one has a strong springboard to growth—exactly the same springboard as created success, for example, in Taiwan. The strength and courage of the Chilean politicians and economists in creating that is a model. It is a model that is widely acclaimed around the world. The orders present a useful opportunity to praise the Government of Chile for the success of their free trade policy and their openness towards foreign investment. It is noteworthy that Chile's major trading partners include the United Kingdom and Germany. The agreement before your Lordships' House today develops and nurtures that trading link. It is a further step towards free trade with this successful nation and will, I hope, create a framework for continued prosperity between us.
I also believe that the agreement will help fulfil the ambitions expressed by all speakers in this short debate for global free trade in the future, in our case we hope early in the next century. Chile has become an entrepôt between a number of key trading groups. Although not a member, it has close dealings with NAFTA, and as an associate member of Mercosur it will undoubtedly be instrumental in developing a free trade zone across the whole of the Americas.

591
But Chile is also a member of the APEC grouping which brings together the countries of the Pacific Rim. I envisage a future where freer trade groupings of the world are able to unite to create less inhibited global markets. I stand short of a global free market zone. I think that that aspiration is probably beyond my lifetime, although it is one that I would welcome.
The agreement is important to us politically because as an entrepôt in those trading organisations Chile can be important as a key to unlocking the potential of closer working relations between the trading groups.
Finally, on Morocco, it is incumbent on the European Union to develop bilateral agreements with those closer to home. Of all the regions with which I believe we need to develop a closer understanding, the Mediterranean is perhaps the most important. It is, after all, on our doorstep; and, moreover, it is politically turbulent. I believe that the Barcelona process which is keen to develop closer integration between the European Union and the countries of the Mediterranean can play a very active part in the Middle Eastern peace process. I look forward to agreements being ratified with Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Algeria as well as Syria. Morocco is, happily, in a more stable situation than most. Nonetheless, just as we can prosper by developing our markets with Morocco, so we must ensure that Morocco has access to the markets of Europe.
I mention the specific example of the lengthy and protracted negotiations over agriculture. But this agreement is welcomed by the Government in Morocco. It is welcomed by the nation states, the countries, the members of the European Union. It is an important step forward. All those who have worked to achieve this agreement deserve our support and recognition of their success.
The agreements vary considerably. The agreement with Morocco steers us towards a closer political dialogue. It concentrates on the liberalisation of trade in goods and services, and capital, and the expansion of economic social relations. It will also encourage the integration of the Maghreb group of countries. In contrast, the agreement with Chile, although also primarily concerned with trade and political dialogue, will ultimately lead, I believe, to the establishment of a political and economic association between the European Union and Chile.
Finally, the agreement with the Southern Common Market, the Mercosur, is perhaps the most wide-ranging of the three agreements. It will seek to strengthen existing relations, and, I hope, prepare the ground for the creation of an inter-regional association. It will seek co-operation and progress on trade liberalisation and other areas of mutual interest including energy, transport, science and technology, telecommunications and, as the Minister mentioned, the environment, education and training.
I had warned the Minister that I intended to ask her a number of questions today. I have not done so not only because I know that she will be extremely confident in answering any questions that I ask, but because I believe that it has been useful to try to answer the important point made by the noble Lord,
592
Lord Bruce of Donington, as to why these three agreements are important today and why a great deal of time has been put into negotiating them. I hope that my comments will find at least some agreement with the Minister. I believe that these important steps forward are beneficial trading opportunities for European companies and the three areas of the world about which we have been talking. The agreements are important steps forward to free trade. They will be seen by history as door openers to further economic, political and trade policy.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I thank noble Lords who participated in the brief debate this evening. I shall try to answer some of the points raised.
My noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington added what he described as a note of scepticism to the debate when he asked what the treaties meant and whether in fact they mattered. They do matter because the agreements are aimed at reducing bureaucratic barriers to trade, not increasing them. As the UK is part of the EC Customs Union, third-country agreements are now negotiated on behalf of the European Union as a whole, but that does not prevent us from continuing to promote bilateral UK trade with the region. These agreements are a clear example of what Britain supports most in the EU: progressive removal of barriers to trade, leading to increased long-term prosperity on all sides.
My noble friend asked some specifics in relation to the three treaties. Latin America is a key emerging market. It is a place of huge opportunities. We do not want British companies to lose out. The UK has significant interests in the region. We are the third largest investor, with capital flows per annum of £3 billion. We need to protect those interests.
As regards Chile, the UK has significant interests there, too. We are the third largest foreign investor, again with investments with a book value in the region of £3 billion. UK exports to Chile in 1996 were worth £185 million.
The new Morocco agreement allows for the progressive dismantling of tariffs, opening the Moroccan economy for EU business and making Moroccan products available to EU consumers.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, raised a number of questions. As far as the Government are concerned, as I said in my opening remarks, the importance of the agreement is primarily in the liberalisation of trade. But as the noble Lord himself said, we should not put on one side the other advantages open to us. In being able to discuss human rights issues, much has improved in recent years, but there are still problems in these countries which we shall wish to discuss. We shall wish to pursue the environmental issues; and we shall wish to discuss with those countries the consolidation of their newly found democratic systems.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised questions about agricultural market access in Morocco. He raised issues—if not specific questions—about delay. It is important to remember that, on the one hand, the EU has a commitment to provide assistance to its Mediterranean neighbours in the form of trade concessions. On the other hand, the southern member states of the EU have

593
problems in accepting trade liberalisation in Morocco's main agricultural products since those who are the main producers of southern member states own the farming industries. The package offered to Morocco reflects the balance between those factors. That is also the case with the other Euro-Mediterranean agreements; I know that the noble Lord had some concerns about Mediterranean agricultural issues.
I listened with interest to the points raised; I hope I have been able to answer them satisfactorily. I give my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington the assurance that he sought that these agreements will not lead to any detriment in the trade of individual UK companies with the countries concerned.
The European Union agreements with Morocco, Mercosur and Chile represent an important development in the European Union's external trade and economic relations and are consistent with the Government's policies towards those countries. We should therefore give our firm support to these new agreements. I commend the orders to the House.
On Question, Motions agreed to.

Scottish Seed Potato Development Council (Dissolution) Order 1997
6.54 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th June be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the draft order is presented in accordance with the requirements of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947. Its purpose is to wind up the affairs of this purely Scottish body in recognition of the recent establishment of a new GB Potato Industry Development Council.
It might be helpful if I first briefly rehearsed some of the background to this issue. The Scottish Seed Potato Development Council was first established in 1981 to promote and develop the market for Scottish seed potatoes both at home and overseas. Since that time it has given excellent service to Scots seeds growers and merchants, promoting this extremely high quality Scottish product world-wide. Uncertainty over the Council's future began in December 1993 when the then Ministers agreed to dissolve the Potato Marketing Board. Resultant restructuring in the potato industry has ultimately led to the dissolution order now before you.
A statutory review of the SSPDC (as it is more commonly known) took place in 1995 and extended the Council's life for a further two years while proposals for a successor body to the Potato Marketing Board were discussed. This allowed Scottish growers and merchants time to consider whether their interests would be best served in the future in a GB context or by a separate Scottish body.
A poll of Scottish-registered seed growers carried out in April of last year voted 61 per cent. in favour of a GB body.
594
In February this year your Lordships approved an order establishing a new GB potato industry development council, now called the British Potato Council. This body has now taken over some of the functions of the Potato Marketing Board, which was dissolved on 30 June this year.
To protect the often separate and largely Scottish interests of the seed potato sector, Ministers agreed to provide for a statutory seed sectoral group as part of the new council. This group will offer advice and recommendations to the main council on all seed issues. It is chaired by a specialist Scots seed grower and has helped to offer reassurance to the Scottish industry that their needs will be adequately catered for in this new GB body.
As required by Sections 8(1) and 1(3) of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947, a consultation exercise was carried out requesting views on the dissolution of SSPDC. I can confirm that all representative Scottish bodies consulted, including the chairman and members of SSPDC, have agreed to dissolution in favour of the British Potato Council. Credit for this unanimity must go to the Potato Marketing Board and other industry organisations who for more than three years put immense effort into developing proposals for a successor body which would be acceptable to all industry sectors.
I will now turn briefly to the dissolution order itself and bring two points in particular to your Lordships' attention.
First, although a power has been provided in Article 5 which would allow the Secretary of State to impose an additional levy to cover any shortfall in funds, I should point out that this power is unlikely to be utilised since SSPDC is currently in the position of carrying a small surplus of funds
Secondly, Article 6 provides for those surplus funds to be transferred to another development council for the industry. In practice, that will be the British Potato Council. I understand that that body has agreed to use the funds for the specific benefit of the Scottish seed industry.
The SSPDC has provided a valuable service to the industry, which I am pleased to acknowledge today. However, the industry is undergoing major structural change and the Scottish seed growers recognise that their interests would now be better served by the British Potato Council. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th June be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sewel.)
Lord Lyell: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene in this debate for 30 seconds. I am glad to see my neighbour, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, waiting to succeed me. I shall not delay him for long. I was delighted to hear the Minister say that in the winding up there is a small surplus. Since by training I am a humble accountant, I looked at Articles 5 and 6.
The Minister said that there is a small surplus. It seemed encouraging to me that it will go for the specific benefit of the Scottish seed potato industry. Can he confirm to me—perhaps at a later stage—whether that is

595
what I would call "material". I am impressed to learn that there is a small surplus in the winding up. After all that has been done for the industry over the past 14 or 15 years, I am pleased that we have come to this satisfactory conclusion. I thank the Minister for introducing the order so nicely.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I hope that this dissolution order will not cause the havoc to which the dissolution of the Potato Marketing Board contributed. We have the lowest prices today due to a surplus, which again was largely due to the lack of any control of acreage by the Potato Marketing Board.
I also hope that the Minister will confirm—can he confirm?—that no pressure was exerted on the 61 per cent. who agreed to the dissolution and the 100 per cent. who welcomed the British Seed Potato Marketing Board, if that is what it is to be called. I very much doubt whether it is a good move. Scots seed potatoes are "the" seed potatoes in Britain. We supplied the English market. We were in the healthiest area and the freest from aphids. The reputation of Scots seed potatoes is exploited by a number of people from Scotland in various markets in Europe today. We are not nearly so good at it as the Dutch, but I must say that the name of a Scots board would do a great deal more for sales than would a British name. Previously, the largest part of England was in fact a ware producing area and not a seed potato producing area.
Obviously, this is a fait accompli but I doubt whether it will be for the good of the Scottish seed potato industry in the future. It may well be. But with the Scots name and Scots direction, it would have been much better.
Furthermore, the order is totally against the trend that we have been discussing for the past few days in this House. Surely, one of the things of which the Scottish Parliament should be in control is the development of any export trade for Scottish produce. I shall not vote against the order but it does not look all that good to me.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I welcome the introduction by the Minister of the dissolution order. I confess that I recognise some of the history that he described as the background to it. This is an important moment for a vital industry. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said, in Scotland the seed potato industry has become of especial importance in terms of job creation, exports and so forth.
The only point that I wish to raise with the Minister tonight reflects perhaps the sentiment expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, when he spotted the difference between the major legislation with which we are dealing in this House at the moment concerned with Scotland and England and the somewhat contrary Motion that this dissolution order seeks to express.
If, in a few years' time, the Scottish seed potato industry decides that it made a mistake in voting to amalgamate its interests with the British Potato Council and have its interests represented merely by a committee of that UK-wide council, will it be possible for the Scottish seed potato industry to resurrect a Scottish seed potato development council? Will that be possible in both theory and practice?
596
We hope that circumstances will not arise in which the seed potato industry in Scotland decides that it has made a mistake and that its interests are compromised. But should such a circumstance arise, I am sure that the House would be interested to hear the practicality of the Scots re-establishing their own council.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, let me refer to the specific points raised during the course of our brief debate. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, asked about the surplus. One of the strongholds of the seed potato industry is the north-east of Scotland. One would expect a small surplus to be generated because of that itself. I understand that the size of the surplus is £30,000, which is not bad. It offers a chance; it makes a start.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, referred to the dissolution of the Potato Marketing Board. I share many of his views on the wisdom, or lack of it, of the dissolution of the Potato Marketing Board. But I can assure him that no pressure was exerted to secure the 61 per cent.
It is important to recognise that, within the GB context, there is recognition of the specific contribution of the Scottish seed industry and statutory recognition of the establishment of a seed sector group, which, as I said, is chaired by a specialist seed grower from the north-east of Scotland, Mr. Jim Cruikshank. So that gives the Scottish industry some identity and some comfort that its specific interests will be looked after.
We have now had a little reference to yesterday's business. The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, perhaps misunderstands devolution. Devolution is about devolving to Scotland the ability to make decisions. That is exactly what has happened in this case. The decision was taken by the Scottish industry. Once power is devolved, it is perfectly possible and rational in many circumstances to seek administrative arrangements on a GB or UK basis. That sensible way forward has been followed on this occasion.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, may I raise just one point? Will the Minister give us an assurance that he will not promote any move to sell British whisky abroad?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I do not think it would be a very good seller, in fact. I do not think it would achieve a great deal.
The very fair point made by the noble Earl was the possibility of resurrecting a Scottish body if, in time, it proves that the present arrangements have not worked out successfully. There will be a statutory review of the GB council in three years' time and that will provide an opportunity to review the arrangements. In those circumstances, I should have thought that, if the Scottish industry expressed dissatisfaction with the arrangements, modifications would be put in place. But at the moment it is a little premature to prejudge the success or failure of the new body.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) Order 1997
7.10 p.m.
Lord Sewelrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th June be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order before the House today seeks your Lordships' approval for an emergency order made on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland to ban fishing for certain types of shellfish in waters around the Orkney Isles. The order is almost a hardy annual. It comes before your Lordships' House on an almost annual basis. The order was made as a result of a build-up of the naturally occurring paralytic shellfish poisoning toxin—or PSP as it is known.
The decision to make this order was based on test results from the Government's PSP monitoring programme which were over the internationally agreed safety levels of 80 microgrammes of toxin per 100 grammes of flesh. The essential purpose of the order is the protection of public health.
PSP in humans develops approximately 30 minutes after ingestion of toxin. It is characterised by tingling, numbness and dizziness. Paralysis may follow. Gastro‹intestinal symptoms may also occur, with diarrhoea, nausea and vomiting.
The order was made on 20th June as a result of tests showing elevated levels of toxin in a variety of species, including a level of 339 microgrammes per 100 grammes in queen scallops taken from within the prohibited area. That is over four times the agreed safety level. The species affected by the order are mussels, queens and scallops and razor clams.
The routine PSP monitoring system is based upon testing at 43 fixed sites around the Scottish coast, supplemented by additional test locations when rising levels of toxin require more data to establish the extent of an outbreak. The order which we are discussing today is based upon a scatter of high results. In Scapa Flow we were able to use data from shore- based sites and from vessels fishing in open water. Over such a large area we could not be sure if the toxin was spread evenly or, perhaps more likely, occurring at random hot spots which were unpredictable. The scale of the results was too high to ignore. It would have made no real sense to close small areas around the highly affected locations that we had detected because algal blooms are not static. A piecemeal approach would have been inadequate in safeguarding public safety. Accordingly, the area extends over a considerable stretch of water around the Orkney Isles which takes in the whole of Scapa Flow and a substantial stretch of open water to the north and east or Orkney mainland.
Of course the closed areas must be monitored. When areas of open sea are closed to fishing, the Scottish Office must authorise vessels to go out to take samples from the banned areas for testing. Samples from the closed area continue to be monitored so that we know as soon as it is safe to re-open the fisheries, which I trust will not be too far distant.
598
I must emphasise that our aim in taking this action is to ensure effective protection of the public from PSP toxin. The order will be revoked as soon as the results of continued sampling and medical and scientific advice indicate that it is safe to do so. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th June be approved.—(Lord Sewel.)
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I advised the Minister earlier of my question. He said that the order was a hardy perennial. I seem to recall Ministers from previous administrations introducing this measure. Can the Minister say whether the date tends to fluctuate?
The Minister mentioned the date of 20th June in his remarks. Does that date fluctuate one week to another? Is it dependant upon the temperature of the water, or is there some good reason why it is 20th June? Does the Minister expect the period of the order to be roughly the same as last year or previous years?
Can the Minister say whether the area described around the Orkneys has changed this year or whether it is broadly the same as in previous years? If the Minister can let me know in due course—not necessarily tonight—I shall be more than obliged.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I wish to ask a similar question. The Minister said that he hoped the order would not be in existence for too long. Can he say what gives the Government that hope? Why or how will that come about? The answer will be interesting to us all.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his eloquent description of the order and the symptoms of PSP poisoning. Taking into account the topical nature of global warming and rises in sea temperature, how much research is being carried out to tackle the problem?
Is the Minister aware of any shellfish fishermen disregarding the order in the past? Also, if the area bounds onto the coastline, is it dangerous for families—I am sure that some noble Lords visit the Orkneys with their families and take time on the coast—to take mussels off the beach and eat them? The Minister nods. If that is the case—obviously it is—is there any way of warning holidaymakers and fishermen that that danger exists?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, again, perhaps I may try to reply to the specific points made in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, asks about date and timing. I understand the usual closure is from May to September, over the summer period. To respond to part of the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, during the at-risk period monitoring takes place and as soon as we see an indication of a decrease—two clears—then the fisheries can reopen. That is what I meant when I said that I hoped it would not be too long. However, it may be through to September before we are able to reopen the fishery.
It is interesting that nobody knows what is behind the phenomenon. It is an algal bloom but nobody knows what sets it off—whether it is something to do with water

599
temperature and so forth. It goes back to the 18th century, so we cannot blame it on modern pollution. It is an aspect of nature.
The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, asked about research. That is running at a level of £112,000 per year. It is a significant research programme to try to get to the bottom of the problem. That is an indication of the importance that the Government recognise concerning the economic significance of this type of closure. If we could somehow limit it, it would have significant economic implications for those who fish that industry.
The noble Earl also made a good point in relation to warnings, particularly on sea beaches. Notices are placed on sea beaches where appropriate and it would be hazardous for individuals to go round picking up mussels, razor clams and so forth and eating them. The means of informing people is through local authorities, trade associations and the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency. I believe that I have covered all the points raised in the course of the debate. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATO
7.18 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltairerose to ask Her Majesty's Government how they propose that the European members of NATO should most effectively develop the "European security and defence identity" to which NATO is committed.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I tabled my Question in a spirit of inquiry and puzzlement. I should say, before the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, leaves the Chamber, that his attempts to suggest that agriculture has more acronyms than defence is very brave but entirely unsuccessful. We shall talk perhaps about the ESDI, WEU and the European pillar, but I know that we can all spatter our speeches with more acronyms than any farmer has ever dreamed of.
The European security and defence identity is something which has been contained in NATO communiqués and ministerial speeches for some time. Digging around in what the last government had been saying, I note that Douglas Hurd had been talking about the need for much closer European defence co-operation as a necessary part of the consequence of the end of the cold war, back in December 1990. He said that a stronger WEU within a stronger European defence co-operation would,
"build bridges to the Twelve",
and create truly a proper European pillar within the Atlantic alliance. In July 1994, Mr. Heathcoat-Amory, a Minister in the previous government, wrote in The World Today:
"Britain has consistently made clear its support for the development of a European Security and Defence Identity".
My question partly is: what do the new Government think their commitment to a European security and defence identity is? Do they yet have a settled policy on ESDI? I am conscious that in defence, as in many other areas, governments often sign documents committing
600
Her Majesty's Government to objectives in multilateral declarations which they never expect to be fulfilled. Mrs. Thatcher was famously amazed to discover in December 1989 that her government had for very many years signed NATO declarations supporting German unification. Indeed, she herself had done so. However, I am told she said that she never really meant it. My question therefore is: when Her Majesty's Government sign documents like the NATO/Russia Charter which repeat the ESDI commitment, do they really mean that they want it, or would they be shocked and surprised if progress was actually made? What do the Government understand by a European security and defence identity?
I think what I understand by it—I have been asking friends not only in this country but in others what they think they understand by it—is Western European Union plus a stronger network of bilateral and multilateral patterns of defence co-operation within western Europe; a European pillar of NATO; sorting out the mess which is currently WEU, CFSP, European Union foreign policy, which we so signally failed to sort out in the Amsterdam treaty; and moves forward in terms of practical co-operation.
After all, we have made a number of practical moves forward in the past few years. It was a British government initiative—a Conservative initiative—that the Western European Union should be made more effective by moving it from its two half-headquarters in Paris and London to Brussels in 1993. The NATO communiqué of January 1994 specifically declared NATO's commitment to a European security and defence identity and followed that on by proposing that the Europeans should be encouraged to develop combined joint task forces for European autonomous operations, for which the United States would provide material assistance but in which the Europeans themselves would take the lead.
British engagement in integrated forces on a European scale is high. The Dutch-British marine amphibious force is one of the oldest integrated forces and one of the most effectively integrated. Since 1990 we have taken part in the multinational division in Germany—under British command—and we have British command of the allied rapid reaction force. We take a leading part in standing naval forces in the Channel and the North Sea. There is a new Franco-British air wing and we collaborate actively on European arms procurement and are taking a leading part in suggesting that co-operation in the European arms industry should go a great deal further. All those are practical and positive steps forward. It seems to be very much in Britain's interest that they should be taken further.
It would be in Britain's interest to raise the question of the balance of spending among west European countries. After all, Britain contributes a great deal more than some of its partners. If we are to hold up the defence efforts of smaller European countries, such as Belgium, we have to encourage them to lock their national defence efforts into a broader multilateral context. If we are to bring pressure to bear on the Italians to take greater responsibility for their own defence as part of a common defence, similarly, a

601
stronger European framework is in our interests. We must train together, with common equipment whenever possible, and operate together.
My spirit of inquiry as to what Her Majesty's Government think they mean by ESDI is also accompanied by a spirit of concern at the tone of Labour in opposition, of the Labour Party manifesto and of some of the statements of Ministers and some of the briefings which officials have given in the short period since the Government took office. One has a certain impression of Atlanticists par excellence, dismissive of any further steps towards European defence integration. One of those whom I was quizzing, asked what it was that the Labour Party in opposition had been thinking about European defence, remarked that one had to understand that it could not afford to be seen in any way as more European than the Conservatives on this issue and had fallen a little too far the other way and ended up sounding less European than the Conservatives and more determined to follow the twists and turns of American policy than them. Reading the press cuttings this morning of British Government briefings just before the Madrid European Council, I was struck by the degree of that kind of tone—demonstrably loyal to the Americans; aggressively dismissive of the French perspective.
One must ask awkward questions here. The question of what the United States wants, expects and needs from its allies; and the question of what is in the United Kingdom's best long-term interests. I suggest that what the United States wants and expects is solidarity from its European allies and not individual loyalty accompanied by collective disunity. It wants to see the European allies develop the ability to operate autonomously so that the United States will not necessarily always have to be heavily engaged on the ground. It wants to see the effective utilisation of limited resources through increased military integration.
I would add that many of us—and not only those on these Benches—have a degree of unease at the current degree of American domination of NATO, the American trend towards unilateralism and the American preoccupation with their own domestic pressures and concerns at the expense of their allies' pressures and concerns. I worry that the American concept of NATO as it expands differs increasingly from that of its west European allies; that the United States, to judge from what President Clinton and Madeleine Albright have recently been saying, sees NATO increasing as a global alliance in which the United States and its supportive European allies will project power globally, whereas most of its west European allies see it much more as a regional security organisation for increasing the security of Europe as a whole.
Here is a major building block for the strategic defence review. We cannot indeed have a strategic defence review unless the Government tell us what they mean, if anything, by a European security and defence identity. I suggest that they need to define what they mean, to pursue an active policy in partnership with their neighbours and then to explain it to the public.
602
Across western Europe we are at the moment in a degree of confusion about how far anyone is serious about further European defence co-operation. It is easy for the British to blame the French, the Germans, the Belgians or the Italians. We share responsibility for that confusion because we have on the whole wanted not to be more integrated; we have wanted to be the most loyal to the Americans and the closest to the Americans. What we need now are new proposals and initiatives. We do not want a British government who will bump along waiting for others to take the lead. If, after all, as our new Prime Minister has said on a number of occasions, Britain is to take the lead in Europe, this is an area in which we should also be helping to define what we believe is best for Europe; or is our commitment to European security and defence identity merely a matter of empty rhetoric, as so often in NATO declarations?
7.30 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I must again declare an interest in view of my work with non-governmental organisations like Saferworld and in the sphere of international security.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is to be congratulated on having achieved this short debate at the precise time of the Madrid Summit. It is a bit late to influence the events but still it is a good time to have it.
In saying that, I am glad that he looked at the relationship of the European defence identity to NATO because I want to start unashamedly by talking about what is happening in Europe in the NATO context and then move on to the more narrow point of what is normally thought of as the European defence identity.
It seems to me that there are five significant arguments deployed in support of the expansion of NATO. First, expansion will fill the security vacuum left in central and eastern Europe since the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. This will forestall the danger of alternative arrangements developing which might conceivably, at some point in the future, prove antagonistic to the West. At the same time it will meet the anxieties of countries which fear the possible return to power of some future expansionist Russian regime.
Secondly, expansion should reduce the possibility of future conflict in this area by defusing, preventing and containing the escalation of tensions. Conditions of membership such as commitment to democracy and human rights, the absence of border disputes and democratic accountability of the military will increase stability. The prospect of future membership of NATO is already encouraging the settlement of existing border disputes and the resolution of legitimate minority concerns. The co-operation of neighbours in joint exercises, together with military transparency, reduce the risk of inter-state conflict. Indeed, many believe that Greece and Turkey would have come to blows without NATO.
Thirdly, unless NATO expands it will lose its raison d'être. That could lead to diminished US commitment, which in turn could cause a destabilising "renationalisation" of defence and security policy by the remaining NATO members, with a consequent increase

603
in national defence expenditures. It is also important to consider whether a world in the 21st century moving towards separate US and European defence structures would be more or less secure.
Fourthly, membership of NATO can facilitate the reconstruction, development and political stabilisation of the new member countries, and the growth of democracy can be both rewarded and encouraged. Expansion of NATO can be a useful, less costly way of extending west European co-operation eastwards without risking over-extending the European Union too soon.
Fifthly, NATO should not be deterred by a domestic Russian agenda. Russia may well have been posturing as part of a negotiating stance. NATO should be driven by a realistic calculation of its own interests and values. The Russians, it has been argued, will ultimately back down and accept a fait accompli. Indeed, firm resolve and clear signals may be exactly what Russia needs as the context for sound development of her own political system. Cynics might also add that in any case, even if the Russians do not come to terms with these developments, their threat capability is limited.
These are powerful arguments. Nevertheless, statesmanship, prudence and common sense demand that we take great care to avoid unnecessarily antagonising Russia, provoking dangerous nationalism and jeopardising the prospects for peaceful co-operation between Russia and the West.
NATO's purpose was always that of a security alliance to confront the former Soviet Union; in other words, in reality an alliance opposed to the Soviet Union. The demise of the Soviet Union and the re-emergence of Russia have not removed that perception. It is not just in the Russian political elite, but far more widely, that NATO expansion is therefore perceived as a threat and is instinctively opposed. Indeed, there has already been a disturbing rise in anti-democratic, anti-western elements and in nationalist sentiments within Russia. It is not impossible that a situation could be provoked which resulted in a Russian government and president with which the West would find it very difficult to do business.
Related to this is the danger that NATO expansion could remilitarise the Russian-western relationship. It would surely be a sad outcome if we went back to the two blocs of cold war Europe, with the development of an alternative, Russia-centred security alliance to the east. Efforts to improve controls of nuclear weapons and the conventional forces in Europe agreement could be undermined were Russia to become paranoid and unco-operative. For all these reasons and more, it is imperative that, whatever happens to NATO, efforts to build real, substantial and demonstrably meaningful relations between NATO and Russia are vigorously and relentlessly pursued at all times.
If the rationale for NATO expansion is to such a large extent about greater stability and political confidence, the run-up to the Madrid Summit has been a strange way to pursue it. The argument until the 11th hour plus between the US and the UK, on the one hand, and France, supported by Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece,
604
Turkey, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Canada, on the other, as to whether new membership should be limited to three countries—the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland—or widened to include Romania and Slovenia has hardly promoted the cause of calm and reassuring evolution. Indeed, it has been described as having the attributes of a lottery. We must do better than this.
In the political community of NATO, consultation and consensus are essential. Force majeure is no basis for the alliance's future strength. As it is, the negative effects on would-be candidate members who do not make it are indeed worrying; they hardly promise stability. And the reckless promotion of altogether unnecessary arms sales, backed by arms-related aid, in the absence of a convincing need for these, but on the dubious thesis that to be eligible for membership of the NATO club requires a qualifying level of military machismo as distinct from essential professional military competence—not always conspicuously a characteristic of the new potential members—is an unedifying phenomenon. Think of what could have been achieved with those resources in sounder economic and social terms as a real contribution to stability.
It will be essential to strive to minimise any adverse consequences of exclusion. More central and eastern European states will be excluded from enlargement than included. Investment in the OSCE must therefore be seen as a high priority for Europe and North America as a parallel means of promoting security. Real resources will be necessary for this. The North Atlantic Co-operation Council still matters and should be taken seriously; and Partnership for Peace must be more than cosmetic. It can play a real part in promoting democratic accountability of armed forces. But again, NATO member states will need to ensure that its activities are properly funded and accorded the priority they deserve.
As for the future of NATO itself, Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, with its real and tested commitment to the collective security of its signatories, must not become fudged or eroded. This is the core of the alliance. Without its continuing credibility everything else would become hollow. Nevertheless, NATO has also demonstrated that it does have a wider role in conflict prevention and conflict management. Its credibility has been an important element in the Bosnian peace process. But, as recognised in the 1991 Strategic Concept, it is essential that NATO deployment outside its own boundaries is invariably with the political mandate of the UN, or of OSCE within the UN framework, and remains accountable to them. Otherwise we shall be using NATO to undermine rather than to enhance the viability of global collective security as centred in the UN Security Council. To my view it is disturbing that accountability to the Security Council has been far from clear in Bosnia.
However vital, the military aspects of NATO can only be one strand in the alliance's security posture. Economic and social policies are even more fundamental to long-term security.
The recent EU intergovernmental conference has reflected a deep ambivalence about the degree to, and manner in which, European countries are committed

605
to the goal of a European security and defence identity. The revised treaty on European Union does envisage the EU requesting the Western European Union to undertake the so-called Petersburg Tasks— peacekeeping, preventive diplomacy and crisis management operations. This is a practical starting point for the development of an identity within the framework of NATO so long as WEU really has access to adequate resources to fulfil these functions. The Joint Task Force arrangement would allow for WEU to call upon NATO for the provision of necessary assets. But its effectiveness obviously depends upon the availability of requested units in a real situation. This will need to be watched.
I, for one, trust that any identity expressed through the reactivation of WEU will build upon the record of relative willingness of European states, as compared with the US, to contribute to long-term peacekeeping beyond the immediate periphery of their countries and thereby to assist significantly in maintaining and developing global security. For example, the EU has stated its commitment to help in the development of conflict prevention capabilities in Africa. There is inevitably a military dimension to this. A vital role for WEU could be the provision of programmes to assist in enabling African militaries to be able effectively to undertake preventive deployments and peacekeeping missions in their own continent.
Last week we debated the forthcoming defence review. The issues the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has raised so well this evening will, I believe, be central to it.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, if one were to conceive in the abstract 15 nations wishing to get together in an ever-closer union, one would assume that the first thing that they would try to do would be to organise their defence policies and defence arrangements in common. It is all very well to think of harmonising the size of tomatoes or apples—a heroic if somewhat surrealistic adventure—but to harmonise the size of tanks, fighters or guns seems a much more logical beginning. But if I say that, I am forgetting that just such an enterprise was launched in the pre-history of modern Europe, in the early 1950s, with the European Defence Community of which, if it had gone through in 1955 (as it might have), we would now be celebrating the 42nd anniversary. It is worth remembering when addressing ourselves to this important debate, which has been so appropriately introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that that European Defence Community was not abandoned in 1955 because it was a bad idea; it was defeated by a bad alliance between the French Gaullists and the Communists in the French Assembly.
I have a second preliminary point. We are all, I suspect, used to being harangued by our American friends who complain, "Here you are, you rich and prosperous Europeans, why can't you now get together and organise your own defence?" That point of view was put even more frequently in the old days before 1989 than it has been put since. Of course, there is
606
always a question mark—the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, tangentially raised this in his speech—about the extent to which the United States would really like the Europeans to get together and to organise their own defence but, in practice, all responsible North American statesmen from John Foster Dulles at the time of the EDC to George Ball and President Kennedy when the concept of the European pillar was first launched, have expressed themselves in favour of just such a European defence collaboration and identity. Therefore, I do not think that we need worry quite as much as might be thought with regard to that question and it is, therefore, entirely appropriate that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, suggests that we should address ourselves to the question again today.
Although I suspect that we are all in agreement in this House that the commitment of North America (the United States, as well as Canada) to Europe is the most important element in our defence—the keystone of our defence arrangements—nevertheless, things change and we are all aware after a visit to the United States that North Americans are preoccupied with many other parts of the world, as well as with Europe, such as the Caribbean, Latin America and the Pacific—zones of power which sometimes do not receive much of a mention in our own newspapers in the late 20th century however much they might have done in the 18th and 19th centuries or the earlier part of the 20th century.
I must say fairly and squarely that what I would like to see in the long run is something like a European defence identity within the marque of the NATO treaty, of course, but one which would progressively be capable of developing so that in the long run it could cope with most of our security concerns; not concerns which might involve us in a major war against a major power— certainly not—but with a great many minor ones, such as Yugoslavia seemed to be at the beginning. Our incapacity to act in Yugoslavia—in this case I am using the pronoun "our" to indicate Europe—seemed to be a reproach to Europe as such. It is worth reminding ourselves that the United States would have much preferred us to have been able to act in those ways in Yugoslavia.
My own impression is that the new Government reacted a little too hastily in turning down any suggestion of a European defence development along the lines suggested by the French in particular, but also supported by some of the other European partners. After all, it is an interesting idea. We want the French to play a major part in European defence in the future. The best way to achieve that and to ensure that that great country will play a major part is to show interest in its ideas, such as thinking that there is a case for WEU to operate as a dependency of the European Union by the year 2010. We may not agree with that, but we should at least express curiosity, interest and the realisation that it is a new idea which deserves to be taken seriously.
There may be noble Lords who will still think such ideas heretical, naïve, unsophisticated and dangerous, despite the fact that, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, reminded us, there has been a good deal of commitment to the concept in principle by Ministers over the past 10 years or so—anyway since the NATO communiqué

607
at the Paris summit in 1990 declared itself for the first time in favour of a European dimension to NATO. If it is thought that these ideas are naive, we should bear in mind that they could very well be a way in which NATO could be rejuvenated.
Noble Lords will remember that at one Conservative Party conference the former Secretary of State for Defence, Mr. Portillo, made fun of the idea that the British people should be asked to fight for Brussels— his actual words escape me—and it is true that Brussels is perhaps not an inspiring city for which to fight. However, I remind noble Lords that Britain did fight for Belgium inter alia in 1914. Perhaps I should emphasise "inter alia" since what the British fought for in 1914, 1939 and were willing to fight for since 1945 in the cold war, although it did not come to it, was the idea of European civilisation, however defined.
Those of us who are anxious to secure greater popular support for the idea of the European Union should bear in mind that loyalty and patriotism are usually geared to a successful defence dimension. Some may say that to speak of patriotism in the European context is ridiculous. Nevertheless, we are all capable of different levels of patriotism. We are loyal to our locality, family, city (in some cases), country and civilisation. The concept of European patriotism is something that we should seek to engender in the context of a developing WEU within the marque of a revised North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
7.51 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, it is always an honour and pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton. In 1961 a book was written. The noble Lord wrote that book. That book was entitled The Spanish Civil War. I read it in 1970. I suggest that its title could have been The Beginning of the Second World War. I shall not rehearse what happened in the Spanish Civil War, but I know that two totalitarian states fought it out on Spanish soil. I do not know when the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, wrote that book. He could predict that within a matter of 30 years Spain would be a democratic state and have a constitutional monarchy, that it would have joined the European Union and NATO and that a conference would be held this week to discuss the expansion of NATO. I believe that that gives us some optimism. It took 30 years.
I thank my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire for introducing this debate. It is the second or third debate that he has introduced since I have had the honour to be a Member of your Lordships' House. I am interested that this debate has come from these Benches. I am delighted and I salute him for his public spirit.
I am concerned about the outcome of the Madrid Conference. We may be concerned here. Most of us live about 2,000 miles from Moscow. I live 300 miles from Moscow for most of the year. I live in the northern Baltic state of the free and independent Republic of Estonia. I declare an interest. Last week I became secretary of the British-Estonian Inter-Parliamentary Group. Many of these groups have been formed
608
following the general election when a number of Members lost their seats or retired from politics. Perhaps these inter-parliamentary groups can assist the process. Maybe we can get the other nations of Eastern and Central Europe to form similar groups so that we can have a dialogue at parliamentary level, because these are emerging parliamentary democracies after 50 years of repression.
I am concerned about the states of Eastern Europe. We are told that three will definitely be admitted: the Republics of Hungary and Poland and the Czech Republic. Two may come in later, but what of the others? What are their options? I suggest that there are four. They can wait to join NATO. They can wait perhaps five to 10 years, but for them time is running out. They do not feel secure; they feel threatened every day of their lives. Their next option is to remain in the partnership of peace. As to their third option, they have United Nations contingents. Many of them joined the United Nations because they saw what happened in Kuwait. A Western and Arab alliance assisted Kuwait, but Kuwait had oil. Do we believe that that great alliance would have been formed if there had been carrots and not oil in Kuwait? I doubt it. The fourth option is to remain neutral. Switzerland has that option. However, those in Eastern Europe have long memories. Certainly, the Baltic states declared neutrality. Both Stalin and Hitler took no account of that at all. Another option may be to try to form a Baltic league. Between 1920 and 1930 they tried to do so. The problem was that then Poland argued with Lithuania about Vilnius and Sweden and Finland would not come together because of Swedish neutrality. I do not believe that that is a serious option.
What can we do? We have the finest army in the world when it comes to training soldiers below battalion level. I have had the privilege of witnessing this. The Royal Marines carried out the training of the United Nations Baltic Battalion. That process took about 18 months. I have not seen one reward in the Honours List in relation to the Baltic Battalion. I have not heard one statement from any of the present Ministers or from the former Ministers either in this House or in another place. Why? Do we have something to hide? Are we ashamed of what we have done? The people of Eastern Europe are very grateful. They would like us to carry on with that kind of activity. We have some of the best training establishments in the world. Need I mention Sandhurst or the various training establishments that have been very seriously cut over the past few years? Perhaps we could make a contribution in that way. I am delighted that this summer two Territorial Army sergeants will spend a few weeks training the territorial reserve armies of the Baltic Battalion. I wish them success, but two Territorial Army sergeants? Can we not do a little more? Perhaps the Minister can tell us the future plans.
I am delighted that there is to be a defence review led by the Foreign Office. I trust that the Foreign Office will talk to its ambassadors on the ground who have defence attachés who can brief Ministers about what is needed, what is practical and what is possible. I look forward to that defence review. But if one cuts the core

609
army any further one will be unable to carry out the military training commitment in Eastern Europe which is so valuable, welcome and does not cost much. It produces very good results because, having carried out that training, one can ensure that they train themselves.
Last week we were informed by those on the ministerial Benches that the right honourable Member for Livingston in another place was due to meet Foreign Secretary Primakov this month. I welcome this. Perhaps the Minister will remind his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in another place of what happened when Mr. Bevin met Mr. Molotov in Paris in 1947. The famous Ernest asked one question, "What are you about, Mr. Molotov?" I look forward to learning that that is the same question as the right honourable Member for Livingston asks Mr. Primakov. I hope he will get an answer. If he is not satisfied with his answer, I hope that he will ask many more supplementary questions until he gets the right answer. We shall not have peace in Eastern Europe, or in Europe as a whole, until we have squared, diplomatically, the Russian Federation. We must show the Russian Federation that we shall give all the support that we can to the free and independent nations of Eastern and Central Europe.
8 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the argument seems to be going very much in the direction that I hoped that it would and I believe the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, hoped that it would. I have little too add, and less that I could put better than did the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and other speakers.
One of my main concerns is one that I present often in the House. I am worried about becoming typecast or boring your Lordships with it. It is about the difficulty of living with the new United States—it is not the same United States with which we were brought up—in a great alliance, compared with the comparative ease of living with our European allies, however disparate they may be. As an example of that I wish to tell your Lordships something—it is not at all important, but it is striking.
Today is of course the day in Madrid when the decision is being taken about whether and whom. The answer is fairly clear, but there is an eminent and usually extremely objective and forceful American journalist called Jim Hoagland who often writes in the International Herald Tribune. He is an adversary of NATO enlargement. He is one of that large, and perhaps growing, band of American commentators and politicians who think that the whole idea may have been misconceived. He said this morning that the enlargement was taking place to assuage the guilt of the existing members of NATO, in particular the Western European members of NATO, at having betrayed Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland before the Second World War.
Let us pause for a moment. Yes, we did betray Czechoslovakia. There was Chamberlain's Munich visit. We were terrified. I remember it; I was 15. The nation was in a state of terror. It was a pity that we were. I do not know whether it was a right or a wrong judgment,
610
but we betrayed Czechoslovakia. Hungary was a fascist country in alliance with Hitler. That was the government that it had. We had to face that. Poland of course was the cause of the beginning of the Second World War when this country and France declared war on Germany for the defence of Poland. Here we have an eminent American commentator who does not even know that, and he is among the best. It is difficult to live with our friends sometimes.
I want also to draw attention to the general question of US bilateral arrangements in Europe, which are outside NATO and about which we consequently cannot find anything upon which to comment, because we do not know. I should like to mention two. The first is an exercise called Sea Breeze which is being mounted by the American armed forces on a bilateral basis with the Ukraine. It will consist of naval exercises off the Crimea, followed by a landing in the Crimea from the sea. All of it is mimicking. It is a simulacrum of an invasion of the Ukraine—the Crimea in particular—by a neighbouring country adverse to the diversion of the Ukraine to the West.
At one stage it was announced that the Russians were perfectly happy about that, but that was evidently not true. They are not taking part in it, I understand. The exercise is a strange phenomenon, verging on provocation of Russia. It is hard to make out what other purpose it can have—to do a facsimile of what they would do if Russia were to be so disobliging as to invade the Ukraine.
Another is the bilateral arming of the Moslem government in Bosnia. We tend to forget that when NATO countries, acting under the UN and the OSCE, agreed that the USA should arm the Bosnian Moslems, it was on the basis that co-operation should already have broken out between them and the Croatian Christians. It never did break out. They are still at loggerheads. The bilateral arming carried on. It is not being done by the American armed forces. It is being done by a military commercial enterprise.
I put down a Question about that the other day to my noble friends. I forget if they were in the Foreign Office or the Ministry of Defence, for which I apologise. It must have been the Foreign Office. I received the answer that all inquiries about that should be addressed to the US. That was nothing to do with NATO, as indeed we all knew. It is nothing to do with NATO at all, but it is something else that is going on in Europe. It is another expression of US military activity in Europe over which we have no droit de regard, in the convenient French phrase.
The same of course applies to the military bases in Hungary which are bilateral. They are nothing to do with NATO or the PFP. Although I believe that it may now have ended, there have been the bilateral military arrangements between the US and Albania, the relationship between whom, from subsequent events, is impenetrable, like most things in Albania.
Before the cold war came to an end, the OSCE was there. The Helsinki Agreement was there. The OSCE was formed into an organisation. It remains the most rational and most defensible of all European

611
organisations, with a potential for having a military capacity which exists in Europe. However, it has not got off the ground because the habit of NATO of regarding Russia as an enemy has been too strong to permit it to get off the ground. So realism dictates that we should think about other ways of internationalising the fact that we are a military power and that everyone else on the Continent is a military power.
NATO is really in Europe now a semi-military regional classification arrangement. Those are the operations that it undertakes. As such, it can be and is being extremely useful. But the European countries have the feeling that they would like to be able to operate without the US when it is really a matter of purely local European interest. The US, as several speakers have pointed out, fully understands that and backs it. Indeed, it appears ready to make available to us the heavy air transport which is all that we in Europe lack to be able to do it. We have far more men in Bosnia than they ever had or ever will have, but we do not have the aeroplanes to get them there. Such cases may arise elsewhere.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, was right in saying that here we need to hang together in the military sense more than we do. For what reason? We are here; we were born and shall die Europeans. Americans were born and shall die Americans. Long may they be our friends, and, if necessary, our defenders, although I hope that it will never come to that again. But they are not us and they cannot take the lead on this continent. It is unwise to try and it is unwise of us to withhold any doubts we may have about action in the field that we are discussing today. I join other noble Lords in urging that we should begin to veer distinctly towards our immediate neighbours.
8.10 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for tabling this Question. It has given me much pleasure to listen to the contributions of other noble Lords. As we know, the Madrid Summit decided to invite the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland to join NATO. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to the difficulty of reaching that decision. It would seem that the Prime Minister and Mr. Clinton achieved one of their objectives at the summit.
We also expect the summit to explore the concept of a European security and defence identity. The debate is therefore timely. However, it is also appropriate that we, but more significantly the Government, should examine the issue of European defence capabilities in the context of the strategic defence review. I hope that what has been said tonight will be taken into account in that review. If we are seeking to reshape or revalidate the UK's defence capability for the long term surely our responsibilities as a leading European member of NATO are at the heart of that consideration.
The Question asks what the European allies should now be doing to develop the ESDI. To understand where we are heading, it is first necessary to appreciate where we have come from. As noble Lords will recall, it was the Rome Summit of 1991 which effectively redefined
612
NATO's role and the strategic concepts which underpin that role following the end of the Cold War. There are three parts to this: a shift from heavy troop concentrations in Germany to more flexible, more mobile forces which could be deployed at short notice; a recognition that NATO could and should be used to support other international organisations such as the UN or OSCE; and a peace dividend in the form of a decision to make large reductions in the size of the Alliance's armed forces.
In charting this new direction, the Allies also recognise that European nations might in future take more responsibility for their own security without necessarily relying on assistance from the USA or Canada. How this was to be done and quite what roles the European Allies might be expected to perform was left for further discussion. However, at the UK's suggestion, the Western European Union was identified as a possible vehicle on which to base such European co-operation. This was important because the WEU, which for many years had existed in name only rather than in substance, is nevertheless the only institution capable of laying the foundations for European defence identity that is compatible with NATO. One key aim of our own was to reinforce the European defence capability within NATO, not to create something outside it. "Separable but not separate" was the catchphrase.
The Petersburg Declaration of 1992 defined the missions that the WEU should be prepared to undertake: humanitarian and rescue tasks; peacekeeping; and crisis management. However, territorial defence remained explicitly a NATO prerogative. After Petersburg, progress was somewhat gradual, but 1996 saw two important developments. The first was the UK presidency of the WEU. That presidency gave added impetus to making the WEU capable in practice of undertaking military operations in its own right. A great deal of useful work to that end was accomplished during the year. The second development was the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Berlin. That meeting agreed that the WEU was indeed the right vehicle for providing the political control and strategic direction for Europe-only missions and that the ESDI should be developed within NATO using NATO assets.
So, my Lords, where are we now? There is a WEU Situation Centre in Brussels which can gather information and monitor operations. There is a politico-military group advising the WEU Permanent Council on policy and planning direction. There is a credible programme of exercises mapped out. And the WEU already has under its belt some experience of real operations; for instance, minesweeping in the Gulf and sanctions enforcement around the former Yugoslavia. But much more is still needed. In particular, the CJTF— Combined Joint Task Force concept—agreed more than three years ago, needs to become more of a reality. Combined training—that is, training with other countries—needs to be developed on a broader base. And the integration of France and Spain into the NATO structure must be finalised.
We should also need to consider the best way of involving eastern European countries in these combined efforts—not only those who have been invited to join

613
NATO in 1999 but also those who have not been, as identified by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. There is already good dialogue with these countries through the Partnership for Peace initiative and from the immense amount of practical experience gained alongside them in Bosnia. Admission to the WEU may in due course be one way forward.
However, security is a concept that is broader than defence alone. Security does not just come from the barrel of a gun. That is why we must recognise— although I am bound to say that not all noble Lords have done so tonight—that alongside the WEU the European Union has a considerable role to play in reuniting the continent of Europe and in building mutual trust. The enlargement of the EU over the next few years is therefore an important part of this process.
Some people have concluded from this that the logical next step should be to subordinate the WEU to the EU. We on this side of the House regard that idea as fundamentally mistaken. The EU has an essential contribution to make to regional security in the non-military field. But saddling it with military responsibilities would not only marginalise some of our NATO allies across the Atlantic, it would alienate Russia to the idea of EU enlargement. Furthermore, it would put the neutral members of the EU into a position of influence in matters of defence which it would be unfair to everybody to have them exercise. Can the Minister confirm that that is also the Government's view?
At the heart of this must be the recognition that decision making in defence—decisions which risk the lives of the men and women of the Armed Forces—can be taken only by national governments accountable to national parliaments. The difference between security and defence is an important one. That is why we must insist on defence remaining an inter-governmental matter, as indeed it is under the modified Brussels Treaty. Will the Minister confirm that nothing in the text of the Amsterdam Treaty alters that essential aspect of the EU's common foreign and security policy?
As we take forward the idea of a European Security and Defence Identity, there is a danger that discussions become bogged down in institutional questions rather than engaging in a practical assessment of what Europeans are actually capable of doing together. That task-based approach to defence planning should act as a key prompt to what improvements are necessary to the WEU's capabilities. Equally though, that approach should not lull us into thinking that there is some pre-defined test to determine what missions should and should not be carried out by the WEU as opposed to NATO as a whole. There can be no such test divorced from a case-by-case assessment of the circumstances of each mission. Who does what can be decided only by consultation between allies.
Practical defence co-operation between European countries will proceed over the years ahead in a variety of ways—through the WEU, PfP, and bilateral or multilateral initiatives such as the Baltic Peace Battalion and the UK/Netherlands Amphibious Force. It is crucial that nothing should be done to amend institutional
614
structures, which might call into question the role of NATO as the primary forum for consultation among all allies on questions of security and defence.
Perhaps the most significant insurance policy against any damaging divisions between North America and Europe is the successful development of the CJTF concept. The prospect of CJTF's being able to draw upon US assets is not only important operationally; it is significant politically. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, touched on the point of heavy air transport. With commitment and energy, I am confident that over the next five years we can show that the reshaped and revitalised post-Cold War NATO has come of age.
8.22 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, by the common consent of your Lordships, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for providing us with this opportunity to discuss the development of the European Security and Defence Identity. He started by giving us the origins of the ESDI which went back, as he pointed out, to 1990. He confessed that he had a little difficulty with some of the acronyms. I must confess that when I first saw ESDI, I thought it referred to a European strategic defence initiative. I got a little twitchy, and I still do every time I see it. I have to remind myself on my department's papers exactly what it refers to.
The main question which the noble Lord raised was whether the Government mean that they want an ESDI. I am confidently able to give the answer from this Dispatch Box that that is exactly what it means: they want a European Security and Defence Identity. I hope that in the course of my remarks, I shall be able to convince him of that. I share, as do most of us, some of his concerns about how the balance of the burden of those matters is distributed within Western Europe but those matters are long standing, and I doubt whether we shall take them much further forward this evening.
The noble Lord said—and this was a theme which ran through some of my noble friend's comments—that he had the impression that this Government were Atlanticists par excellence and that we were dismissive of further European co-operation. I have no difficulty whatever in pleading guilty to being an Atlanticist. In fact, anybody who has had the sort of responsibilities that I have had from time to time at the Ministry of Defence could not fail to be impressed by the value to this country in terms of intelligence and nuclear matters which arise from our very close relationship with the Americans, a relationship which could not be substituted in any way by our relationships with our European allies.
But I do not believe that having an appreciation of the value of those matters is in any way inconsistent with wanting to see a greater development of European co-operation in security and defence matters in the widest possible sense. I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that one of our objectives should be to pursue co-operation with our neighbours and then explain it to the British public, if I am quoting him correctly. Moreover, I feel that I owe the noble Lord a

615
small apology in that last week I was not able to be present at that period of the first semi-public session of discussion of the Strategic Defence Review until after he made his contribution. I simply could not get there until he had already sat down.
My noble friend Lord Judd, in an extremely wide-ranging contribution, very fairly listed several of the benefits which would accrue from widening the membership of NATO, including that it had already helped to reduce international tensions; that it will contribute to political stabilisation in new member countries; and of course he insisted that it should be driven by its own values and interests. I agree with him entirely. I have always said that it must be a paramount consideration in any present or future expansion of NATO that we should avoid antagonising Russia. I hope that my noble friend takes comfort, as I do, from the NATO-Russia Founding Act and the similar developments between NATO and the Ukraine, and, of course, the host of confidence-building measures which have sprung from those two arrangements and which we hope will develop much further. I agree also with my noble friend that it is essential to maintain the credibility of Article 5 if NATO is to have any credibility itself in the future.
I turn now briefly to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, about the harmonisation of defence equipment. Having been responsible twice for defence procurement, his remarks struck a chord with me. I assure him of that. However, I should point out to him that it is not necessarily a question of having identical pieces of kit which will enhance the fighting power of the alliance. It is interoperability which is at the heart of improving our military posture. While if all the same pieces of kit are procured that would reduce the costs of equipment, it would also reduce the number of problems that would be set for a putative enemy.
As I understand it, the noble Lord would like to see an ESDI within NATO, and that is precisely the objective of Her Majesty's Government. He said that he would like to keep the French involved, and that is the objective of us all.
The noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, referred to some of the difficult choices which will confront us in relation to the unsuccessful candidates who wish to join NATO at this time. I assure him that the expansion of NATO is not contemplated to be at an end by any means.
The noble Earl asked me also a question about the Territorial Army sergeants. I am afraid that, even with an encyclopaedic knowledge of defence matters, I cannot answer this evening but I shall find out for him the answer to that question.
He referred also to Ernest Bevin meeting Mr. Molotov and wondered whether or not our present Foreign Secretary, Mr. Robin Cook, would take the same robust attitude to his distinguished opposite number. I can say that I happen to know that Mr. Ernest Bevin is one of Robin Cook's greatest heros. In fact, he is trying very hard to ensure that a blue plaque is put on a house where I understand Ernest Bevin lived for a large part of his life.
616
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said that it was very difficult to live with the new United States. I am tempted to tell him that new Labour will find it easier than some to live with the new United States. However, I fully understand the significance of his remarks about how, from time to time, we find ourselves a little left behind at some of the unilateral activities—those perfectly legitimate activities of the Untied States taken on a bilateral basis with other countries in Europe. However, the noble Lord emphasised very fairly not just that European countries wanted to be able to operate without the United States but also that the United States wanted that to happen. As I understand it, that is a major theme of the development of a European security and defence identity that we are developing with our European allies.
I should tell the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that of course we want to get the French and the Spaniards into the unified command structure. I certainly take his point that security runs much further than just defence matters alone. I very much agreed with the whole tenor of the noble Earl's speech, and I can certainly confirm that it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that the assimilation of the Western European Union into the European Union is mistaken. Indeed, we share his view on that and that will inform our policies in the years ahead.
The noble Earl also asked me a question about the Amsterdam Treaty. I must confess that I do not have such details with me this evening, but I shall certainly write to him on the matter.
As I am sure your Lordships know, the summit has today, as anticipated, invited the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland to accession talks with NATO. The goal is to sign the Protocol of Accession at the time of the ministerial meetings in December of this year and to see the ratification process completed in time for the expanded membership to become effective by the 50th anniversary of the Washington Treaty in April 1999. I should point out that enlargement is just one element of the much wider NATO agenda for Madrid. What we want to do is build a real partnership across the whole of Europe. I believe that that covers some of the points made by my noble friends about the OSCE and Partnership for Peace. At the same time, we have to maintain the bedrock of the alliance which is a strong transatlantic link.
One of the things that I should like to make clear tonight is the fact that all NATO Ministers agree on the need for Europeans to have the capability to act together in circumstances when our North American allies do not wish to become involved. As I said, the Canadian and American governments not only support that concept; indeed, they have attached very great importance to it. The British Government's view is that the development of the European identity, firmly rooted within NATO, is the only way to provide Europe with a credible, capable security and defence identity without undermining either the alliance or the transatlantic link. In that respect, we have had some very notable successes, including the development within NATO of European command arrangements which can prepare, support, command and conduct WEU-led military operations. Arrangements are in

617
hand for identifying those NATO assets and capabilities which could be used in WEU-led operations. Both NATO and the WEU are developing the detailed mechanisms required for their release, monitoring, return or recall. NATO has begun the process of military planning for WEU missions involving NATO assets and capabilities and both organisations are working towards joint exercises which would test that concept.
A key element of the new European defence identity is the new WEU-related aspect of Deputy SACEUR's role. Provisional terms of reference for Deputy SACEUR would give him WEU-related responsibilities in peace and in time of crises. Placing those responsibilities at the heart of NATO's command structure would ensure that WEU-related issues are discussed and recognised at the highest levels within NATO.
618
From all that I hope that your Lordships will recognise that substantial practical work is well in hand. I should add that the WEU has also become actively involved in NATO's defence planning process. It has contributed to the guidance which regulates the whole process and which the Defence Secretary endorsed last month. NATO planning will now, in addition to taking account of the full range of alliance missions, include WEU-led operations. Thus the embodiment of ESDI-WEU-led operations using NATO assets and capabilities is now a consideration within NATO from the very roots of its defence planning processes.
I have now come to the end of my permitted speaking time. I hope, therefore, that I have said enough this evening to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that we in government do understand what ESDI should mean for this country and that we do mean what we say.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before nine o'clock.

  Questions for Written Answer
  Questions for Written Answer
  Standards in Public Life: Third Report
  Standards in Public Life: Third Report
  General Practitioner Visits
  General Practitioner Visits
  Cancer Surgery
  Cancer Surgery
  Tobacco Advertising
  Tobacco Advertising
  Tree Planting
  Tree Planting
  Gulf War Illness: Research
  Gulf War Illness: Research
  Tactical Missile Defence Deployment by NATO Members
  Tactical Missile Defence Deployment by NATO Members
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Government Borrowing
  Government Borrowing
  Public Debt
  Public Debt
  Living Standards
  Living Standards
  Museums and Galleries: Admission Charges
  Museums and Galleries: Admission Charges
  Culture Council, 30 June
  Culture Council, 30 June
  Northern Ireland: Juvenile Justice System
  Northern Ireland: Juvenile Justice System
  Beef Exports
  Beef Exports
  Cetaceans and Fishing Nets: Research
  Cetaceans and Fishing Nets: Research
  Fish Catch Landings in UK
  Fish Catch Landings in UK
  Fish Quota Species: UK Vessel Landings
  Fish Quota Species: UK Vessel Landings
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Fishing Policy Consultations
  Fishing Policy Consultations
  Fishing Fleet Reductions
  Fishing Fleet Reductions
  Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Legislation
  Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Legislation