Sitting of 14 July 1997

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

    Gulf War Veterans
    Mr. Hutton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to establish an internal advisory group on the health of Gulf war veterans. [6507]
    Mr. Olner: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met representatives from the Gulf War Veterans Association to discuss Gulf war syndrome. [6513]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): The new internal advisory group on Gulf war veterans' illnesses, which I announced on 16 June, met for the first time last week, to aid my consideration of the detailed policy statement, "Gulf Veterans' Illnesses: A New Beginning", which I am publishing today and contains 20 key measures setting out how the Government intend to address Gulf veterans' concerns in future.
    As part of an on-going commitment to deal openly and honestly with Gulf veterans, I met representatives from the main Gulf veterans' groups earlier today to brief them on this initiative.
    Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. I welcome that initiative and the others that he has
    2
    taken since 1 May to deal with the incidence of ill health among our veterans from the Gulf, one of whom is my constituent, Corporal Mervyn Grey, who was exposed to large amounts of pesticide during his service in the Gulf and has been unable to work since. When will the group produce a list of final recommendations for the Government? Will my hon. Friend ensure that they are made available to the public?
    Dr. Reid: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that every piece of information that I have will be made public. As for the current situation, I know that the Gulf veterans will listen closely to what is said today. I am sure that they will be only too keen to update me on future recommendations.
    My approach is based on three guiding principles: Gulf veterans will be given prompt access to medical advice; appropriate research will be conducted into veterans' illnesses; and the Ministry of Defence will make public any information it possesses which is of potential relevance to veterans' illnesses. We have pledged our resources to that task and the package that we have produced today, which will double the resources allocated, will cost about £6.5 million over the next three years.
    Mr. Olner: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the attitude of the Labour Government which is completely different from that of the previous Government. We recognise that our brave men and women who fought in the Gulf have been left will real problems connected with Gulf war syndrome. There is such a thing, but it was not recognised by the previous Government. I am sure that my constituent, Mr. Tilson, will be pleased to hear my hon. Friend's announcement that research will continue in partnership with our colleagues who fought in the Gulf war rather than according to the adversarial approach taken by the previous Government.
    Dr. Reid: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. As I have said before in the House, we all owe a debt of honour to those men and women who were prepared to

    3
    sacrifice their lives and to take risks with them on behalf of the country. Our future relationship with the veterans will be marked by openness and dialogue. Two meetings have already been held between officials, Gulf war veterans and me. The openness is already apparent by the provision of information, which we will make available to the veterans, and the new research into the interaction between the vaccines that they were given and the nerve agent pre-treatment sets tablets. The dialogue is also apparent from our efforts to involve Gulf war veterans in the process, including the research project, which will be overseen by a panel of independent experts. I am glad to say that we have invited the veterans to name their independent assessor on that panel and that they have welcomed that offer.
    Mr. Viggers: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there seems to be a difference between the supportive attitude of the Ministry of Defence to soldiers, sailors and airmen who are serving in the armed forces and its attitude to those who have unfortunately been invalided from the forces? Is he aware that the former Defence Committee thought that it might study that difference? Would he support such a study were it to be conducted?
    Dr. Reid: My approach to the veterans, and that of the Government, is that we have a duty and an obligation to them because of the sacrifices that they have made for this country. There are anomalies involving pensions and other benefits. There are anomalies in the treatment of those injured in the service of the country in Northern Ireland, who can receive criminal injuries compensation, and those serving in Bosnia. We are examining all the anomalies and will attempt to produce schemes that are in the best interests of, and provide the best security for, those who have served this country.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I thank the Minister for his statement. He mentioned the main Gulf war veterans group. Is he satisfied that isolated veterans in other parts of the country are fully aware of what is going on? I thank him for his promise to meet me with the Northern Ireland representative next week.
    Dr. Reid: I commend the hon. Gentleman on his robust advocacy over many years on behalf of those who are suffering and who served in the Gulf. One of the practical points of the 20-point plan that I have issued today, at the suggestion of the veterans in an earlier meeting, will be the dissemination of information through local general practitioners, the Department of Health and service units to bring the medical assessment programme to the attention of any veterans who are not aware that it is available. If anyone has any other suggestions on how we might disseminate information or make veterans aware of either the medical or the financial resources to which they are entitled, I shall be only too happy to consider them.
    Mr. Hancock: I thank the Minister for his useful and helpful announcement this afternoon. I look forward to the report's publication. Will he make available to Gulf veterans, who loyally served this country, the information that has been made available to American service men and women who have suffered similarly from Gulf war syndrome and who seem to have had more success in persuading their Government to acknowledge the
    4
    syndrome and in obtaining the compensation that they deserve? How many people are known to have had a reaction? What is the Ministry of Defence doing to contact individuals and make information available to them?
    Dr. Reid: I am not aware of any area in which other Governments, including the American Government, are further ahead of this new Government in providing information. I have studied the subject of compensation carefully; there are two ways of providing it. The first is the American way, which is to pay large sums of money—largely, but not exclusively, related to the fact that veterans have to pay private medical insurance. We have a thing called the national health service, which this Government are bent on maintaining. The second is no-fault compensation, which is already available to veterans here under their war pensions. That compensation is a supplement—a separate pension from the service pension. The war pension itself is of considerable capital value. A veteran who is on 50 per cent. of the war pension of £107 a week—when supplementaries are taken into account—would have to spend £110,000 capital to purchase that cover. Someone aged 35 who is on a full war pension has a pension with a capital value of £420,000. In addition, unlike their American counterparts, even if our veterans receive that pension, they are entitled to take the Ministry of Defence to court; should they do so, we shall review the position again.
    Mr. Barry Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for the manner in which he received my recent deputation when I took to his Department Messrs. Turnbull, Doyle and Robertson. My hon. Friend gave up much of his time and listened carefully. It is the wish of my constituents who are Gulf war veterans that Group Captain Coker should make as much input as possible into the workings of the group. When will the group make its findings known? I am concerned that my constituents' health is deteriorating rapidly and I wish to see them compensated and well treated.
    Dr. Reid: I welcome the advice that I received from my hon. Friend's constituents when they came to see me in the Ministry of Defence. I know that there was a perception among the veterans that Group Captain Coker, who had previously been involved in the medical assessment programme, had somehow been dispatched because of his views. I am not entirely sure that that was the case and my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that in the past few days I have spoken to Group Captain Coker, who has agreed to rejoin my advisory committee. I am sure that that fact will be warmly welcomed by the veterans as another sign of the trust which the Government knew was lost and which has now been re-established.
    Sir George Young: No one doubts that many hundreds of Gulf war veterans are ill and we welcome this further initiative to find out what went wrong. If there is any new scientific evidence that might shed light on what went wrong, of course it should be pursued and I support that. May I ask the Minister about research? He will know that, last week, Lord Gilbert said that the new Ministry of Defence research programme, which was announced last

    5
    month, has not been recommended by the Medical Research Council. Will he take steps to ensure that the research has that validation?
    Dr. Reid: I shall certainly do that. I think that my noble Friend meant—and he was quite correct—that it was initiated not by the MRC but by me. I shall continue to initiate the exploration of any avenues that will assist research and medical resources for our Gulf war veterans.

    Armed Forces (Recruitment)
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on recruitment to the armed forces. [6508]
    Dr. Reid: Because of the legacy of shortages left by the previous Government, this Government have made recruiting to the armed forces one of their top priorities. It is of particular concern that manning shortages exist in all three services and, in some areas, are set to get worse. We are therefore examining, as a matter of urgency, new ways in which recruitment to the armed forces can be improved in order to reduce the significant shortfalls left by the Conservative Government.
    Mr. Bayley: This weekend, I visited 2 Signal regiment on exercises at Otterburn. That York-based regiment has recently served in the Falklands and in Bosnia, yet I learnt that it is 25 per cent. under strength as a result of the mismanagement of the defence draw-down under the previous Government. I was impressed by the commitment of the officers, men and women of the regiment and of the Gurkhas, who also serve in the regiment now. What further steps can the Labour Government take to reduce those manpower shortfalls in our regiments?
    Dr. Reid: I assure my hon. Friend that, over the past two months, I have become only too well aware of the significant problem of undermanning, which is a legacy of the previous Government's incompetence. It is a deplorable and unacceptable legacy, which is being experienced by all three services. It is especially acute in the Army, where there are significant shortfalls in the infantry, the Royal Armoured Corps and the Royal Engineers. We are committed to reversing that problem and the recruitment and retention of service personnel lies right at the top of our priorities. I take this opportunity to say to anyone outside the House who thinks that the services are in decline that that is not the case: in the armed forces there are very many opportunities for young men and women to be equipped with skills, training, discipline and character, which will not only serve their country well, but will serve them well in their future careers.
    Mr. Colvin: The comments of the Minister of State are of a party political nature: I do not think that they do him credit, nor are they entirely consistent with the Secretary of State's calls for consensus on defence matters. Does he acknowledge that numbers in the armed forces have as much to do with retention as with recruitment? If the armed forces and his Department were given the resources that they require to meet their current commitments, the question of tours of duty could be addressed and morale in the armed forces—especially in the infantry—could be
    6
    increased. Soldiers could thereby be retained by the armed forces: something that they want to happen, but which morale—often at home—prevents.
    Dr. Reid: Yes, indeed. As a statement of historical fact, I would alert the hon. Gentleman to the fact that I have already referred to retention as well as to recruitment. As a statement of objective fact, I draw to his attention the fact that the Army is already almost 5,500 short and that the problem is due to worsen, possibly to as many as 7,500 short. As a statement of consensus, I hope that he will give the Government full backing in their attempt to turn that situation around.
    Mr. David Heath: I am glad that the Minister drew attention to the scale of the figures. A shortfall of 5,500 or 5,800 below regimental complement—which he might have spoken of—is very serious and places a great deal of strain on individual units and individual soldiers. Will the Minister give a clear commitment that he will seek to increase recruitment to meet complement instead of reducing complement to meet current recruitment levels?
    Dr. Reid: I shall give the hon. Gentleman a clear commitment that recruitment to the armed forces will be among my highest priorities. However, in the spirit of consensus, I draw attention to the points made by the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin), who said that, in the armed forces, retention is as big a problem as recruitment. It may well be that the way in which we attempt to retain people, especially early in their time in the services, has not taken account of the 30-year drift separating the culture and fitness of civil society and that of military society. Those matters will be among my highest priorities.

    Horseshoe Barracks
    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of Horseshoe barracks in Shoeburyness. [6509]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): Horseshoe barracks has been closed for some years and will be made available for sale within the next 18 months as it is no longer required by my Department.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: In view of the high unemployment in my constituency and the depressing news about further job losses in the Shoebury ranges, will the Government ensure that there is no undue delay and commit themselves to ensuring that that magnificent site is used to reinvigorate the economy of Shoeburyness and does not simply become another house building site?
    Mr. Spellar: As the hon. Member is aware, the joint working group was established last year to co-ordinate the sale and development of the site. That, as he knows, includes the Ministry of Defence, Essex county council and Southend-on-Sea borough council. Obviously we encouraged them to work as fast as possible to make the site ready for development.
    The hon. Gentleman must be fully aware that we must obtain the best price for the property for the taxpayer, but we fully intend to work with local authorities and others

    7
    to ensure that our attempts to meet that objective do not conflict with meeting our wider employment and environmental objectives, or with local planning and social considerations. I hope that the local authorities, working with the hon. Gentleman, will be able to argue those points strongly so that we can reach an agreed conclusion on the development of that important site.

    Trident
    Mr. Collins: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Trident programme. [6510]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): We will retain Trident to provide a minimum credible deterrent while pressing for the verifiable global elimination of nuclear weapons.
    Mr. Collins: Will the Secretary of State clarify his ambiguous comments in The Daily Telegraph last week? Will he commit himself and the Government to deploy the same number of Trident submarines, Trident missiles and Trident warheads as the previous Government?
    Mr. Robertson: There is nothing ambiguous about what I say. We will deploy only the minimum number of warheads required for credible deterrence in current circumstances in our Trident submarines. If the circumstances allow reductions in the size of our capabilities, we will be prepared to make them, while ensuring that we retain an effective deterrent.
    Mrs. Gilroy: Does the Secretary of State recall the commitment given to retaining Trident—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—while working for global disarmament clearly given in our manifesto and in "The Road to the Manifesto" and endorsed and ratified by the whole of the party? As it is a matter of considerable concern to constituents in Plymouth, Sutton, can he now confirm that the retention of Trident will not be a matter for the current defence review?
    Madam Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State, may I remind the House that we do not read parliamentary questions? This is why barracking comes from various parts of the House when this happens; it is quite unnecessary. I have said a number of times that Members should not read questions. I am sure that, during lunchtime, the questions can be worked out so that there is not always a need to refer to notes.
    Mr. Robertson: I think some of the barracking comes from the guilty conscience of a group of people who do not seem to recognise that, when one makes promises in an election manifesto, one is expected to keep them—but that is why they are on the Opposition Benches now, not the Government Benches.
    My hon. Friend represents an area where there is a keen interest in that issue and she is right to raise it in the House. We made a specific commitment, not just in our manifesto but in the draft document put to party members last year, to retain Trident as the basic minimum deterrent for this country. The Labour party has every intention of keeping to the promises that it made.

    NATO Enlargement
    Liz Blackman: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress towards NATO enlargement. [6511]
    Mr. George Robertson: Last week's NATO summit decided to invite the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland to begin accession talks. The alliance expects to extend further invitations in coming years to nations willing and able to assume the responsibilities and obligations of membership and as NATO determines that the inclusion of those nations would serve the overall political and strategic interests of the alliance and that the inclusion would enhance overall European security and stability.
    Liz Blackman: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Given that NATO membership, once granted, is irreversible, does he agree that it is vital that we manage the expectations of future applicants carefully and that NATO retains control over future enlargement?
    Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend makes a valid and practical point: once NATO membership has been granted, it is an irreversible fact. As we made clear at last week's NATO summit in Madrid, NATO is a military alliance, not a political club. That has been the key to its success over the past 48 years and it is one of the main reasons why so many European countries want to become members. In the long run, further NATO enlargement will serve the interests of the alliance and this country, but decisions on candidates cannot be a matter for short-termism, politics or the pursuit of national agendas. It is a matter of acute importance, and the alliance's military effectiveness is what matters to all of us.
    Sir Peter Emery: First, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that, to show our friendship towards those three countries, Britain will take a leading role and perhaps be the first to sign the protocol which will appear in October and the ratification in due course? Secondly, those three countries are only observers to the North Atlantic Assembly, which is the political wing of NATO. Will he advise assembly members now to admit them as full members?
    Mr. Robertson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his helpful remarks. This is not a partisan issue and I hope that the whole House agrees that last week's membership invitation to the three countries was in the interests of the alliance and that it will be applauded throughout the House. The chairman of the North Atlantic Assembly, Senator Roth, addressed last week's summit and was strongly applauded for his point of view about the importance of maintaining the parliamentary connection with the North Atlantic Assembly over the years. It is not a matter for the Government whether the new applicant members will be instantly admitted to the North Atlantic Assembly. I dare say that the assembly itself would want to make that decision.
    I hope that this country will be among the first to ratify, once the protocols have been agreed by the three countries. As the Prime Minister said last week, the House will first want an opportunity to debate that matter.
    Ms Squire: I welcome the agreement on NATO enlargement that was reached at last week's summit and

    9
    pay tribute to the part the Secretary of State played in it. Does he agree that it was also significant that enlargement was welcomed by the President of Ukraine and that, with the charter on co-operation and consultation recently drawn up with Ukraine and the NATO-Russia Founding Act it is a significant development in the promotion of stability and security in Europe?
    Mr. Robertson: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. In many ways, last week's summit will go down in history as the defining moment for those of us in Europe who have lived for the day when tension would be reduced and security enhanced. We are not talking about a small enlargement; three countries will be admitted to the alliance if the invitation is taken up. It is the biggest expansion of the alliance so far. As my hon. Friend said, side by side with that development into former Warsaw pact territory is the new agreement signed with the Ukraine and the NATO-Russia Founding Act, which was signed only a few weeks before in Paris. We live today in more secure and certain times than any other generation since the second world war.
    Sir George Young: The House will recall that, when the Prime Minister made a statement about NATO enlargement last week, he was pressed on the issue of cost several times.
    Mr. MacShane: Reading.
    Madam Speaker: Order. It is in order for those at the Dispatch Box to read. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) has been here long enough to know that.
    Sir George Young: Does the Secretary of State recall the Prime Minister's assertion on that occasion? He said that he saw
    "no reason … why there should be a real-terms increase in NATO expenditure at all".—[Official Report, 9 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 945.]
    The Secretary of State has just described the process as the biggest ever expansion of NATO. Upon reflection, would he like to qualify the Prime Minister's assertion?
    Mr. Robertson: The right hon. Gentleman really should know better. The burden of cost associated with expanding the alliance will come largely from the three new member countries because they will be expected to bear the infrastructure burdens that will be created. It is much too early to establish the full costs now, but the Government believe that they will be manageable within existing budgets. We shall see what happens in due course. In any event, that issue would not have been a moderating influence on the decision, which was taken for reasons other than cost.
    At present, Britain's net annual contribution to NATO in the civil, military and infrastructure fields is about £155 million—which is rather less than 1 per cent. of the total defence budget. I see no reason why that figure should rise significantly in real terms.
    Mr. Skinner: In the old days, we used to call for the disbanding of NATO and the Warsaw pact. Is it not odd that, now that three former Warsaw pact countries have jumped on the NATO bandwagon and another half dozen
    10
    countries want to join the queue, British taxpayers have to pay more money to enlarge NATO when our supposed enemies are enemies no more? The truth is that there will be an additional cost, which my right hon. Friend said would be borne "largely"—I think that that is the word he used—by the new member countries. That means that, despite the expansion, those countries will cost the British taxpayer more money.
    Mr. Robertson: I know that my hon. Friend agrees that the robust defence of this nation is imperative. Our championing of that cause is one of the reasons we have done so well and why the crowd opposite were slung out of office. The Warsaw pact has gone, partly because of the collective security and defence policies for which NATO has stood over the years. We believe in collective defence and collective security, and the expansion of NATO will provide a degree of certainty for future generations.

    Strategic Defence Review
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to have completed his strategic defence review; and if he will make a statement. [6512]
    Mr. George Robertson: I expect the work of the strategic defence review to be completed around the turn of the year.
    Mr. Spring: In view of the importance of the strategic defence review and the uncertainty that it is causing both to our armed forces and to our procurement industries, I hope that it will be completed by no later than the end of the year. However, how does the right hon. Gentleman's assertion fit with the Treasury's comprehensive spending review, which is due to be completed only in the spring?
    Mr. Robertson: It takes special brass neck and cheek for a Conservative Member to get up and talk about the uncertainty caused by our defence review. The Conservatives were slung out of office because, without conducting any strategic defence review, they cut the defence budget and cut manpower by more than one third in the past five years. We will not take any lessons from them.
    The country welcomes the idea of taking a position, having a vision for our armed forces and establishing the country's priorities sensibly. We will complete the review by the turn of the year and it will also be the comprehensive spending review for our Department.
    Mr. Dalyell: In the strategic review, will account be taken of the safety of our forces, given the all too likely retaliation by the Serbs following the SAS operation? If there are to be any more such operations, would not it be wise to talk to the Russians first?
    Mr. Robertson: The safety of our troops and, indeed, of other British citizens serving in the former Yugoslavia, was one of our principal concerns before any decision was taken about serving indictments on those accused of war crimes. We made that clear beforehand and we have made it clear subsequently. We regard that obligation as absolutely paramount.

    11
    The exercise conducted last week by NATO troops, with British stabilisation force troops in the vanguard, revitalised the Dayton process by bringing to justice the people accused of those terrible crimes. We have acted not just for the future of Bosnia but for future standards of conduct in the world.
    Sir George Young: Are not the Government running a serious risk of getting into a muddle with two separate reviews? The Secretary of State's departmental review, which he hopes to complete by the end of the year, is foreign policy led and has scarcely any reference to resources, whereas the Treasury review, which will last a year, is Treasury led. If the Secretary of State thinks that he will complete his review by the end of the year and secure Treasury consent before the Treasury has completed its fundamental expenditure review, he is misleading himself. Will not the Treasury outgun his review?
    Mr. Robertson: No, because we do not operate like the previous Government. I said that we expect to complete the strategic defence review by the turn of the year. We are conducting it quickly enough to avoid the uncertainties and instabilities caused by the previous Government's savage cuts, but we will also take enough time to ensure that we do it properly and sensibly. That review will take the place of Ministry of Defence spending plans, and will offer certainty and vision to those who serve this country and its armed forces, for which they have been yearning over the past decade.
    Ann Clwyd: Given the Government's clear commitment to human rights, will my right hon. Friend review the procedures whereby army officers from countries with appalling human rights records are invited to buy arms at arms fairs in this country? Will he withdraw the invitation to three Indonesian generals, who were apparently invited by the previous Government to an arms fair in the United Kingdom in September?
    Mr. Robertson: We are always careful whom we invite to this country and about what we sell them. A major review is under way into the United Kingdom's defence sales. I hope that when my hon. Friend sees the results of that review, she will applaud it.

    Rents (Married Quarters)
    Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the armed forces pay review body on the subject of rents for married quarters. [6514]
    Dr. Reid: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has had no recent discussions with the armed forces pay review body on the subject of rents for married quarters. However, my Department will, as normal, be submitting evidence for the review body's annual assessment of charges.
    Mr. Brazier: Does the Minister agree that, in this time of overstretch in the armed forces, the maintenance of families within their communities is a particular priority, especially in the Army? Does he further accept that there is considerable concern among many Army families that
    12
    the AFPRB wants to link rents to two thirds of civilian mortgage payments, bearing it in mind that mortgage payments lead to the ownership of a house? Finally, does he agree that there is a strong case for persuading the AFPRB that, in striking a balance between pay, allowances and rents, at least within those forces that have an accompanied service policy, encouragement should be given to the wives and families who make the sacrifice of travelling with their husbands as part of the service community?
    Dr. Reid: This is an extremely complex subject, in which the hon. Gentleman has a great deal of expertise. I have read his letter and pamphlet. He may be surprised to learn that I find many of his points pertinent, and one or two of them persuasive. I have therefore instructed my officials to give me advice. When they have done so, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to discuss the matter with me in the Ministry of Defence.

    Defence Procurement Budget
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on current expenditure on the defence procurement budget. [6515]
    Mr. Spellar: In the current financial year, we expect to spend about £9 billion on defence equipment.
    Mr. Burns: Does the Minister accept that hundreds of thousands of jobs rely on the defence procurement budget, including several thousand such jobs in my constituency, Chelmsford, West? Is the Minister aware of the growing concern that as the strategic review is Treasury driven, the defence procurement budget is at great risk? Will he reassure my constituents and others who work in the defence industries throughout the country that during the life of this Parliament there will be no real-terms cut in the defence procurement budget, and that our armed forces will get the best equipment to enable them to protect the realm?
    Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman may not have read out that question but it is certainly one that he prepared earlier, before he heard the response of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the levels of defence spending of the previous Government. Uncertainty arose in the defence industry because of the huge cuts made by the previous Government.
    First, it has been made clear that the defence review is foreign policy led, not Treasury led. Secondly, in a well-known article in The Daily Telegraph before the general election, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave a commitment to the maintenance of the defence budget for the next two years. Thirdly, we have made it clear that during the strategic defence review there will not be a moratorium on equipment provision. We shall, of course, have to consider our equipment disposition after the review, given the needs of the country. We wish only that the previous Government had examined procurement requirements and the proper overall strategic needs of the United Kingdom, rather than engaging in ramshackle cutting.
    Mr. McAllion: Will my hon. Friend tell the House by which month the decision whether to buy seven Trident

    13
    missiles from the United States in US fiscal year 1998 will have to be taken? If the decision is taken to purchase these missiles, will he confirm that the cost will be about £89 million at current exchange rates? Will he explain why the decision cannot be postponed until the end of the strategic review, thereby keeping open at least the prospect of saving a substantial sum of public money?
    Mr. Spellar: Again, I would have hoped that my hon. Friend had listened to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence about Trident and our need to maintain the minimum deterrent. We shall obviously carry out an evaluation during the defence review.
    Mr. Key: Of course we are all interested in stability in the armed forces procurement programme. That being so, why did the Government confirm on Thursday, in answer to a planted question, that defence procurement projects already on contract are being considered as part of the defence review and are therefore subject to cancellation by the Treasury? Such projects must include the Eurofighter, EH101, Apache and others. Is the Minister able to name one procurement project that he can guarantee will not be cancelled?
    Mr. Spellar: I am extremely surprised that the Conservative party is reverting to the position that it took before the election and trying to create unnecessary alarm. I shall read the answer to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It stated that
    "during the review there will be no moratorium and projects where contracts have already been placed will continue."
    The hon. Gentleman should have read out the whole answer, instead of only the part that suited his political purposes. The key point in that answer is that
    "projects where contracts have already been placed will continue. Decisions on major equipment programmes not yet under contract will be considered on their individual circumstances".—[Official Report, 10 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 531.]
    That applies to all Governments who carry out defence reviews.

    Joint Projects (French Armed Forces)
    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the joint projects currently undertaken with the French armed forces; and if he will make a statement. [6516]
    Dr. Reid: Today, on Bastille day, I am delighted to say that defence co-operation with the French armed forces is extensive, both bilaterally and multilaterally. As my hon. Friend knows, the joint projects that we have with the French are too numerous for me to list here today.
    Mr. MacShane: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that a year ago British warplanes flew over the Champs Elysées to salute the new Labour values of liberty, equality and fraternity? Does he agree that for three reasons—co-operation on the ground in Bosnia, procurement to create an effective European arms industry and, most important, ensuring that France plays a full and
    14
    integrated role in the North Atlantic alliance and in European defence matters—Britain and France must co-operate as fully in the future as we have in the past?
    Dr. Reid: Yes, indeed. That co-operation will be taken further on Wednesday when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence meets Mr. Alain Richard. I am glad to reassure my hon. Friend that military co-operation with our French allies is as wide as ever, whether it be on the ground in Bosnia, over the skies of Iraq, through the many joint activities with the Royal Navy or through the procurement of the common new-generation frigate. Although there is no United Kingdom participation in the Bastille day parade, we are reciprocating last year's invitation in that we have invited the French air force, under the auspices of the Franco-British European air group, to participate in this year's Lord Mayor's show on 8 November. We look forward to developing even further our mutual co-operation with our French allies.
    Mr. Sayeed: If NATO were required to defend Hungary, French forces would be involved. Will the Minister explain how NATO would defend Hungary if it were attacked? Hungary is surrounded by non-NATO members with large armed forces.
    Dr. Reid: I am not entirely sure what that has to do with French integration into NATO. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that all states that become members of NATO enter as full members, so the treaty obligations for the defence of any of those members apply to all the other members, and this country will carry out its obligations.

    Anti-personnel Land Mines
    Helen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received in respect of his policy on anti—personnel land mines. [6517]
    Mr. George Robertson: I have reviewed a wide range of representations welcoming the Government's policy on anti-personnel land mines.
    Helen Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Will he reassure my constituents who have written to me on this matter that the exceptional use of land mines will be confined largely to circumstances in which the lives of British troops are at risk? Will he also reassure the House that if such land mines were to be used, we would de-mine those areas after hostilities had ceased?
    Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The exceptional circumstances in which the military might ask for those instruments to be used would be limited. The decision would be taken by Ministers, and any such decision would be reported to Parliament. In such exceptional circumstances, all land mines would be plotted and would be taken up.
    May I take this opportunity to clarify something that I said at Defence questions a month ago? I am advised that, contrary to my earlier understanding, it is not possible at present for my Department to say categorically that all anti-personnel land mines laid by Britain in the past were subsequently taken up. I now understand that

    15
    one mine laid in the Falklands is unaccounted for, and that a number were not removed after the Gulf conflict. We currently know of 12 mines that were left in Iraq, and my Department is trying urgently to establish the full facts.
    Dr. Tonge: Will the Secretary of State again clarify the words "exceptional use"? Is he saying that, if a military commander wishes to use land mines, in the interests of the British armed forces, he will go to the right hon. Gentleman and his decision will have to be ratified by the House before he is allowed to use those mines? That seems a strange way of conducting a military campaign.
    Mr. Robertson: I assure the hon. Lady that there is nothing unusual about it. We would agree to suspend our moratorium on the use of anti-personnel land mines only if we were satisfied that, in a specific operation, the security of our forces would be jeopardised without them. As in many other cases, the military commanders and chiefs of staff would come to Ministers to seek agreement. Parliament would not be ratifying the decision, but would be informed of it.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Clergy Stipends and Pensions
    Sir Sydney Chapman: To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the annual amount and proportion of the Church Commissioners' revenue allocated to clergy stipends and pensions. [6500]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): In 1996, the commissioners' total expenditure on behalf of the Church was £136.2 million. Of that, £32.5 million, or 24 per cent., went on stipends, and £79.6 million, or 58 per cent., went on pensions for the clergy.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his answer, and welcome the Church Commissioners' achievement in recreating a diversified and prospering asset base in order largely to meet the cost of clergy pensions and stipends. Will he confirm that the commissioners have also achieved the objective of having 50 per cent. or more of their funds in equities? Does not the recent movement of the stock markets augur well for the ability of the Church Commissioners to play an even greater part in meeting the cost of, in particular, clergy pensions in the next financial year?
    Mr. Bell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. He will know that, in 1996, the return on assets of some £3,000 million was 17 per cent. That was a good achievement on the part of the commissioners. Income last year was £145.8 million, and the year before that it was £137 million. I can confirm that 70 per cent. of the commissioners' stock exchange assets are in UK stocks and shares. The market is buoyant, the economy is doing well and there is every confidence in the future. That is good news for the Church, for those who rely on the Church and for anyone who wants to see just how well the Church Commissioners can invest their money.
    Mr. Cohen: Did my hon. Friend note the silly and unreasonable court judgment that was reached at the end
    16
    of last week—that clergymen do not have a terrestrial employer? It is recorded that water was once turned into wine, but not that hot air can be turned into wages. Will my hon. Friend assure us that the Church Commissioners will be a responsible employer on earth?
    Mr. Bell: When I attended the Durham miners' gala on Saturday, my noble Friend Lord Dixon said that I was God's shop steward. The decision at the industrial tribunal last week related to the actual work of the clergy, and to whom the clergyman owed his duty in the cure of souls. It is not, however, for the Church Commissioners to involve themselves in the decisions of industrial tribunals. As I implied in my response to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman), their work involves dealing with assets, and investment of those assets, in the interests of the Church.

    Investment Income
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what are the policies of the commissioners for maximising the investment income of the Church of England. [6501]
    Mr. Stuart Bell: The commissioners are anxious not only to maximise investment income but to maximise the value of the assets themselves. As I said in response to an earlier question, the commissioners' portfolio has been repositioned. Of our stock exchange investments, we have 70 per cent. invested in United Kingdom shares; 10 per cent. in shares elsewhere; 11 per cent. in United Kingdom fixed interests; and a large portfolio of agricultural and other property.
    Mr. Hughes: I thank the Minister and take this opportunity to welcome him to his new job and wish him well. The Church of England has performed a minor miracle in rescuing itself from some unwise investment decisions much more quickly than investors normally do. Has it addressed the Budget's implications for its investments and, in particular, the effect of the removal of tax credits on dividends, which must have a severe impact? If that reduces the Church's income, what will it do to persuade its earthly or other masters to take action in its interests in the coming year?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. I have had discussions with the Church Commissioners on the removal of advance corporation tax to ascertain its impact in future years. We may make submissions to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Bayley: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the case of investment in land or in rights over land, such as shooting rights, a body such as the Church Commissioners should balance the maximisation of its income from those assets against other considerations, such as public access to that land?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is always the intention of the Church Commissioners to maximise the value of their investments in relation both to income and to the value of the asset. Clearly, they must reconcile

    17
    that aim and the impetus of their investments with wider social considerations such as the one to which my hon. Friend refers.

    Ethical Investments
    Mr. Baker: To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what is the policy of the Church Commissioners in respect of ethical investments. [6502]
    Mr. Stuart Bell: The hon. Gentleman might like to know that the Church Commissioners have pursued ethical investment policies for longer than anyone else. Way back in 1948, the Church gave the lead when apartheid became a statutory regime in South Africa, and it banned investment in companies that were dealing with South Africa. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that I was at the Synod in York on Saturday where there was a useful and constructive debate on ethical investment. The Church Commissioners are concerned to balance and reconcile their duty to maximise their investments with ethical judgments from within the Church.
    Mr. Baker: I am pleased that the issue is apparently being taken seriously by the Church Commissioners. Is the Minister aware that the commissioners are investing a seven-figure sum in a company called Monsanto, which is responsible for the production of the Agent Orange pesticide which led to an out-of-court settlement of $180 million? Is he further aware that the company had to pay a fine in New York because of misleading advertising which claimed that it was environmentally friendly? Is he also aware that the company is responsible for and is at the leading edge of genetic engineering, which some of us regard as playing God with the building blocks of life? Does the hon. Gentleman think that investment in that company is consistent with the tenets of Christianity, and will he take steps to disinvest in Monsanto?
    Mr. Bell: The question of Agent Orange goes back to the Vietnam war in the 1970s. It would not be appropriate in the House to go into specific cases, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me on the matter, I shall consider it. There is constant dialogue between companies that are involved in various activities and the Church Commissioners. As a so-called guru of corporate governance in the Labour party, I am interested in looking at various codes of conduct and at ethical investment and in updating them, if that is needed. I want to be sure that we reconcile the Church's ethical criteria with its right and duty to maximise its income.
    Ann Clwyd: As my hon. Friend knows, the Church Commissioners say that they do not invest in companies
    18
    that deal mainly in arms. GEC is now the second largest producer of arms in this country and it is expanding its production. What is the cut-off point? What is the precise meaning of "mainly"?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. The Church of England's ethical investment working group, which includes a number of investing bodies and their staffs, has established contact with GEC, which has given assurances that it is in the business of defence-related equipment that is sold to the Government and to other NATO Governments. All of that is done under licence. The ethical investment working group and the commissioners continue to maintain close oversight on what companies are doing, where they are investing and their proposals. All investment decisions are taken after that close co-operation and in the light of companies' decisions.

    Pensions
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what new proposals he has to improve the finances of the Church of England in relation to pensions. [6503]
    Mr. Stuart Bell: We aim to maximise investment income and to secure an appreciation in the value of our assets. That is the best way in which to improve the finances of the Church of England in relation to pensions. That is the short answer to my hon. Friend. The longer answer is that, as he knows, earlier this year, the House approved a new pension scheme, which transfers the liability for future service pensions to dioceses for the majority of clergy. The commissioners will remain responsible for all past service pensions and for pension contributions into the new fund for some senior clergy whose stipends they meet directly.
    Mr. Flynn: Recalling the financial turmoil that the Church was in when many clergymen left it because of the recognition of the priesthood of women, has my hon. Friend made any financial assessment of what might happen if there were another large exodus of such clergymen, following weekend reports that up to a third will refuse to take the Loyal Oath if the heir to the throne remarries?
    Mr. Bell: We have not considered how many clergy may resign on that basis. A number of surveys were published at the weekend. The bishops declared most of them useless. Such hypothetical questions are not of great interest to the Church in the sense that its investments and the return of income are sound. We hope to continue on that course.

"Yesterday in Parliament"
3.30 pm
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I believe that you have on occasion expressed concern at the lack of media reporting of Parliament and, as hon. Members know, the press no longer report our proceedings. I should therefore like to draw your attention—because I believe that it is a matter of serious concern to the House—to the fact that it is widely reported that the BBC intends to drop "Yesterday in Parliament", replacing it, apparently, with some panel discussion. It would be extremely unfortunate if that report were true, and if a decision on those lines were taken soon. Would it be possible for you, as our Speaker, strongly to urge the BBC to reconsider any such move?
Decisions taken in the House affect millions of people outside. Those who listen to the programme—an audience, I understand, of well over 1 million in the morning—are surely entitled to know what went on during the previous day in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords. The broadcasting organisations at the time were very keen that this House should have broadcasting facilities, and, as we know, it has been in operation for some 19 years.
The BBC is a public service organisation—at times, of course, it gives the impression that it is nothing of the kind. It has a duty to continue to broadcast not only "Today in Parliament", but "Yesterday in Parliament". The people who run the BBC should not come to the view that what we do here is of no importance, that some panel discussion can take place, and that we should be satisfied with it.
Indeed, it is the public far more than ourselves who should decide whether they should be satisfied or not. There is a strong case that "Yesterday in Parliament", which, after all, a few years ago was drastically reduced in length, should continue. I hope that you agree, Madam Speaker, that that is the view that you would wish to express as the Speaker of the House of Commons.
Several hon. Members: Further to the point of order.
Madam Speaker: My goodness. I will take Sir Patrick Cormack first. We cannot have a debate on these matters. Members must put their point of order to me.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Thank you, Madam Speaker. You will, of course, remember that,
20
last year, you were the guest of honour at the 50th anniversary of "Today in Parliament", which was held in the House. Therefore, would you, on behalf of the House and representing Members on both sides of the Chamber, at the very least express to the BBC how much importance we attach to those two programmes, and how greatly they are valued by our constituents?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: I will take one more point of order from either side of the Chamber. Mr. MacShane.
Mr. Denis MacShane: Is not the point about "Yesterday in Parliament" that it is the only direct connection between Parliament and the people that is not filtered by the distinguished cohort of scribblers, sketch boys, soundbiters and spin doctors who sit above you, Madam Speaker? Were it to be axed, frankly, I wonder whether the House's support for the continuation of publicly funded broadcasting in the form of the BBC would not take a serious knock. That worries me considerably.
Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it not possible that the BBC's attitude has been influenced by the fact that, as Ministers now come to this House so rarely—and when they do, they do not answer our questions—covering the proceedings of the House, as the BBC has done for so many years, is a waste of its time, of taxpayers' money and, arguably, of the time of the House?
Madam Speaker: That is moving away from a serious point of order.
The concern expressed by hon. Members has been felt in all parts of the House. That concern is shared by millions of people; indeed, I share it myself.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) may wish to refer the matter to the Select Committee on National Heritage. Knowing the view of the House, I will certainly make representations to the BBC, on behalf of the House.
Mr. Winnick: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Finance Bill (Allocation of Time)
3.35 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dawn Primarolo)rose—
Mr. Norman Baker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I want to raise a serious matter.
Last Wednesday, I introduced a debate on freedom of information. I was given an assurance by the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, that the Government would issue a White Paper very shortly and that it remained
"my right hon. Friend's intention to do this before the House rises in a few weeks' time."—[Official Report, 9 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 907.]
Barely was that debate concluded than we heard through the media, not through the House, that there was no such intention. For reasons that are not clear, the proposal to publish a White Paper has now been delayed indefinitely yet again. Therefore, the information given to the House on Wednesday was incorrect.

TABLE

Allotted day

Proceedings

Time of conclusion of proceedings

First day

Clause 1

7:00 p.m.

Clause 15

10:00 p.m.

Second day

Clause 17

7:00 p.m.

Clause 19

10:00 p.m.

(3) When the Order of the day is read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, the Speaker shall leave the chair without putting any Question and the House shall resolve itself into a Committee forthwith whether or not notice of an instruction to the Committee has been given; and Standing Order No. 66 (Committee of the whole House on bill) shall not apply.
(4) No Motion shall be made as to the order in which proceedings are to be considered in Committee of the whole House.
(5) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to the proceedings to which this paragraph applies.
Standing Committee
2.—(1) The Standing Committee to which the remainder of the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill not later than 23rd July.
(2) The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.
(3) Proceedings in the Standing Committee on 23rd July may continue until Ten o'clock whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion, the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 24th July.
Report and Third Reading
3.—(1) Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the second of those days.
(2) The Third Reading may be proceeded with at the conclusion of the proceedings on consideration, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the interval between stages of a Bill brought in on Ways and Means resolutions.
Business Committee
4.—(1) For the purposes of Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) paragraph 3 of this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on consideration such part of the allotted days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
Will you, Madam Speaker, require the Government to come to the House and correct that information, so that we know where we are with the legislation? Civil servants have been blamed for the delay, but some of us think that some part of the Government may be responsible.
Madam Speaker: I should be much obliged if the hon. Gentleman would give me an opportunity to look at the Hansard to which he referred, so that I can make myself familiar with the exchange that took place. I shall take appropriate action if I find that to be necessary.
Dawn Primarolo: I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Finance Bill:—
Committee of the whole House
1.—(1) The proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be completed in two allotted days.
(2) The proceedings to be taken on each of those days shall be as shown in the second column, and shall be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the third column, of the following Table:—
(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolution as to the proceedings on consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than 25th July.
(3) Any resolution of the Business Committee may be varied by a further Report of the Committee under Standing Order No. 82, whether before or after the date on which the Committee is to report under this paragraph and whether or not that Resolution has been agreed to by the House.
(4) No Motion shall be made as to the order in which proceedings are to be taken on consideration, but the Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations to that order.
Procedure in Standing Committee
5.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee, the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
(2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
(3) No Motion shall be made as to the order in which proceedings are to be considered in the Standing Committee, but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.
Report of proceedings in Committee
6. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill, the Chairman shall report such of the Bill's provisions as were committed (or re-committed) to that Committee to the House without putting any Question.
Dilatory Motions
7. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of proceedings on, the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
Exempted business
8. On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall not apply by virtue of paragraph (a) of that paragraph to any proceedings on the Bill after the conclusion of all the proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day.
Private business
9.—(1) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day.
(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.
Conclusion of proceedings
10. For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, whether before the time so appointed or in pursuance of paragraph (a), the Question that the Clause or Schedule, or the Clause or Schedule as amended, be added to the Bill);

(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or new Schedule, the Chairman or the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
11.—(1) Proceedings under paragraph 10 of this Order shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(2) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock and proceedings to which this Order applies have begun before that time—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business
24
Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
Supplemental orders
12.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced.
(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.
(3) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
Saving
13. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution; or

(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Recommittal
14.—(1). References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.
(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.
Interpretation
15. In this Order—
"allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
"the Bill" means the Finance Bill;
"Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House; and
"Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee.
It is regrettable that we should have to move this motion, but I make absolutely no apology for doing so. I will explain the reasoning behind it, because it is important that not only the House but people outside understand what is at stake and why it is vital that the Finance Bill be on the statute book before the summer recess.
The Budget represents the people's priorities, and the guillotine motion is necessary to protect those priorities. The British people voted for a cut in VAT on fuel to 5 per cent., and the Finance Bill cuts VAT on fuel to 5 per cent. We promised that the cut would be in time for winter bills, and this Finance Bill introduces it by 1 September. The British people voted for a windfall levy on the excess profits of the privatised utilities to help us to move people

25
back into work. They voted for this Government because we said that education would be our No. 1 priority, and we meant it—£1.3 billion from the windfall levy will be used to rebuild our crumbling schools.
We are as keen as anyone to ensure that the provisions of the Finance Bill are properly aired and scrutinised, both within this House and beyond. It was possible to reach an agreement through the usual channels on the number of days to be allocated to the Budget debate. It was possible to reach agreement through the usual channels on the start date for the Committee stage. It was also possible to reach agreement through the usual channels on the size of the Standing Committee, and to agree the Opposition's request on what it should be. Unfortunately, it was not possible to reach agreement through the usual channels on the timing of the Committee stage.
We asked the Opposition what they wanted, but they could not tell us, and were not prepared to discuss the matter. It was therefore not possible to agree on an end date for the Committee stage. Such a result is highly regrettable, but it leaves the Government with no choice but to act responsibly in ensuring that—as soon as reasonably possible in the financial year—taxpayers are certain where they stand. It is in absolutely no one's interest that uncertainty over the precise terms of tax legislation should continue into the autumn.
I do not need to remind hon. Members that we are already more than a quarter of the way through the current financial year, or that, if the motion is adopted, almost one third of the financial year will have elapsed before the Bill is enacted. Any risk of delay into the autumn would be grossly unfair to taxpayers, who might not know precisely where they stand when they are more than halfway through the financial year.
Uncertainty might, of course, be a price worth paying if it were absolutely necessary to ensure that the measures in the Bill were properly scrutinised. It is not at all necessary, however, to keep taxpayers in a state of suspense by risking delay into the autumn. Furthermore, our Finance Bill will receive more generous scrutiny than that provided by the previous Government.
We have ensured that the four main issues that the Opposition wanted to be debated on the Floor of the House will be debated on the Floor of the House. Last Thursday, we even assisted the Opposition in amending their own motion, so that it was absolutely correct.
We have, moreover, provided two entire days for debate in Committee on the Floor of the House. That is the same amount of time that the previous Government allowed for their 1996–97 Finance Bill, which had twice as many clauses as our Bill, and for their 1995–96 Finance Bill, which had almost four times as many clauses as our Bill.
The Standing Committee considering the Finance Bill will be able to meet for five days. Earlier this year, a Standing Committee had nine days to consider the previous Government's Finance Bill, which had twice as many clauses as our Finance Bill. Therefore, we are being rather more generous with Committee time than the previous Government.
Mr. Edward Garnier: On today's Order Paper, the Minister will see that the second day of debate on the Finance Bill will be devoted to clauses 17 and 19. Clause 19 deals with pension fund tax credits. As she has told us that the public voted for the Budget and for the
26
consequent Finance Bill, will she tell me, please, where I might find reference in the Labour party's manifesto to pension fund tax credits?
Dawn Primarolo: The hon. and learned Gentleman confirms the point that I was just making—that the Opposition have tabled for debate the issues that they consider to be very important. Those debates will be held on the Floor of the House. The previous Government's Finance Bills enacted full Budgets, and were introduced on the back of an amendment of the law resolution, which allowed for a wide-ranging review of financial matters.
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Garnier: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you would check the loudspeaker arrangements? I am not at all sure that the Minister heard my question. From her answer, she either was not listening or is wilfully refusing to answer my question.
Madam Speaker: That is hardly a point of order for me. I am not responsible for the statements of Ministers. They are responsible for their own comments.
Dawn Primarolo: As I said, the previous Government's Finance Bills enacted full Budgets, and were introduced on the back of an amendment of the law resolution, which allowed for a wide-ranging review of financial matters. Consistent with the approach adopted by previous Administrations in post-election Budgets, in 1983 and 1987, the specific legislative measures in our Financial Bill are more narrowly focused, without requiring an amendment of the law resolution.
Mr. Forth rose—
Dawn Primarolo: I shall finish this point and then give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
We might therefore, with some justification, have shortened the time for debate. Instead, as I have already explained, we gave four days to the Budget debate, the same time in Committee on the Floor of the House and, pro rata, more time in Standing Committee than the previous Administration gave for a full Finance Bill. That is ample opportunity to scrutinise the Bill.
Mr. Forth: Given that the hon. Lady has rested her argument firmly on people's expectations, which is why the Bill has to be rushed through the House, will she please explain the expectations and urgency of people with pensions to see their pension position worsened? Will she also answer the question asked by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) about the absence of any reference to the pension provisions in the Labour party's manifesto?
Dawn Primarolo: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that what is important is certainty, and that the taxpayer knows what the tax legislation is. The uncertainty caused for taxpayers by delaying until the autumn would be unacceptable. Delay would also prevent the Government's mandate from being enacted.
Mr. Peter Viggers: The Minister is making great play of the need for certainty, but surely she realises

27
that, if she rushes the Budget provisions through the House, uncertainty will follow. It is not Members of Parliament who need to debate but the world outside which needs to comment and think through the implications of the Budget.
On the matter of foreign income dividends, it has been necessary for the Paymaster General effectively to recant on part of the Budget already, and say:
"We are also looking sympathetically at the position of UK-based groups with a substantial amount of foreign income."—[Official Report, 4 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 586.]
The Budget is being rushed through so fast that it has not been possible for the Government to take into account even the representations made so far.
Dawn Primarolo: I realise that it is difficult for the Opposition; opposition is very difficult without the resources of the civil service to assist, but the fact is that the Bill is not being rushed. As I am explaining, adequate time is being provided to scrutinise the Bill. Opposition Members would do well to acknowledge that.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Does the hon. Lady accept that an essential aspect of parliamentary scrutiny of any Bill is the ability of outside bodies—in this case, taxpayers' representatives, and taxpayers themselves—to respond to a Bill when it is published in draft form? It is vital that those of us considering the Bill on the Floor of the House or in Committee should be aware of the response of outside bodies. As the Bill was published only a week ago today, thus artificially foreshortening the process, it has been impossible for outsiders to consider carefully the import of the various proposals, which is necessary if we are to have an informed debate in Committee.
Dawn Primarolo: That is simply not the case. In 1979, the new Conservative Government held the Second Reading six days after publication of the Bill. We published our Bill in draft form six days before Second Reading.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I have listened to these Tory Members of Parliament today and last Thursday speaking about the Bill and the arrangements for debate. I find it very odd that, a few years ago in the last Parliament when the Tories had a majority, they introduced what were known as the Jopling recommendations. One of those recommendations was that guillotines would be a matter of course.
Some of us warned the Tories that, when they got into opposition, they would regret the day that they walked through the Lobbies to get those recommendations through. I would like my hon. Friend to use the help that she has on the Front Bench to find out how many of the Tories who are yapping today about wanting more time went into the Lobbies to vote for the Jopling recommendations to cut out debate.
Dawn Primarolo: I understand that my hon. Friend was against those recommendations. He is entitled to complain. Conservative Members are not, because they supported them. When the shadow Leader of the House
28
was Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, she said during a guillotine debate that she regretted having to introduce the timetable motion—as we certainly do—but continued:
"However, it is important for the smooth conduct of both the remaining stages of the Bill and parliamentary business as a whole. I commend it to the House."—[Official Report, 9 July 1990; Vol. 176, c. 78.]
I am doing exactly the same today. It ill behoves Conservative Members who spoke on and voted for guillotine motions when their legislation was going through the House to attack the Government now.
Sir Peter Emery rose—
Dawn Primarolo: I have taken many interventions, and I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman later, but I want to make some progress first.
I assure the House that the Government will pay close attention to the views of the Opposition when the Business Sub-Committee of the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill meets to discuss the passage of the Bill through Committee. The process will ensure that the Committee directs its attention to those areas of the Bill that merit it.
Our efforts to ensure that the Bill is properly scrutinised by the House and by those outside did not end with the agreements with the Opposition. We published the Bill in draft ahead of its formal publication, so that the full details of our proposals could be scrutinised by hon. Members and those outside as soon as possible. It has been possible to table amendments since last Monday evening—even before Second Reading.
Sir Peter Emery: Perhaps the hon. Lady will consult the Leader of the House, who is sitting next to her, about the aims of the Business Sub-Committee. Following on from what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, when there is a timetable, should not all sections of a Bill have adequate time to be debated? How is it possible for 15 major parts of a Bill—with many, many more paragraphs—and eight schedules to be properly and adequately debated in a Committee that it is suggested will meet for only five days?
That is nonsense, and it makes nonsense of any suggestion of meeting the Jopling recommendations, or even the proposals being put forward by the Leader of the House to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons.
Dawn Primarolo: It is the job of the Business Sub-Committee of the Finance Bill Standing Committee to ensure that those parts of the Bill that need to be debated are adequately debated. We have provided adequate time in the guillotine motion for the scrutiny of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman spoke in favour of the allocation of time for parliamentary debates in 1992. Presumably he favours the measure, to ensure the smooth running of the business of the House, and will support us today.
Mr. Richard Shepherd rose—
Dawn Primarolo: This must be the last time.
Mr. Shepherd: By what process of divination has the hon. Lady come to the conclusion that the debate on

29
pension funds and tax credits need last only slightly more than two and a half hours? The proposals are of concern to many Members of Parliament and their local authorities. What was the rationale behind providing for such a limited debate?
Dawn Primarolo: There is plenty of time in Committee, and it is the Opposition's choice as to how much time is available.
In 1993, when the previous Government guillotined the Social Security (Contributions) Bill and Statutory Sick Pay Bill to complete all their stages in one day, I do not recall that Conservative Members protested with such vigour as they are now apparently doing today.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin rose—
Dawn Primarolo: I have given way generously, and I must conclude soon, so that other hon. Members can participate in the debate.
The reason for the guillotine is certainty for the taxpayer. It will allow better consideration of the Bill, and will avoid the need to come back with a guillotine after the discussions have started. That could lead to greater problems when scrutinising the Bill.
In 1994, the Finance Bill was guillotined by the previous Government. The then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Michael Portillo, who is no longer a Member of the House, said that the Bill could proceed through the House on only one of two bases—by agreement between the parties, or by guillotine. We could not get agreement from the Opposition. They want to prevent the Government from proceeding with their Finance Bill, simply because they cannot stand the prospect of a Government being elected and keeping their promises.
We have a clear mandate to act quickly to deal with the problems that the previous Government left us. We have a responsibility to give new hope and opportunity to young people, and to tackle Britain's economic problems for the sake of long-term prosperity. Conservative Members, when in government, delayed taking action to help the unemployed for too long. We have no intention of allowing them to delay us now, when they are in opposition.
We have provided adequate time in the motion for debate on the Finance Bill. We have made every effort to come to an agreement with the Opposition, but they have refused. They do not know what they want; they simply want to destroy the Bill.
I commend the motion to the House.
3.57 pm
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I have listened with care to what passed for arguments advanced by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in support of the guillotine on the Finance Bill.
We of course agree that the Government of the day must be able to enact their legislation, just as the Opposition of the day must be able to oppose. May I dispel at once the ludicrous assertion that it was not possible for the Government to reach an agreement with the Opposition on the allocation of time? Discussions through the usual channels resulted, helpfully, in changes to the size of the Committee, and agreement on which clauses should be debated on the Floor of the House and in Standing
30
Committee. That was correct and right. There was no discussion, however, on the allocation of time—merely a decision on the part of the Government that there should be a guillotine.
The House knows that an allocation of time order is, according to "Erskine May", the most
"extreme limit to which procedure goes in affirming the rights of the majority at the expense of the minorities of the House".
The House will also know from "Erskine May" that such an order is not usually moved
"until the rate of progress in committee has provided argument for its necessity."
Yet twice in the past seven weeks—twice in the short life of the Government—who are so given to preaching and hectoring the nation about the importance of consultation, consensus and partnership, they have found it necessary to move such an order. In this case, they announced their intention to do so before the Second Reading had even begun. But of course, this Government and these Ministers have already earned an unenviable reputation in the few short weeks since the election for a high-handed disdain towards the House and the parliamentary process.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am highly delighted to hear the right hon. Lady quoting "Erskine May". As someone who seriously objects to the use of guillotines, I think that it is helpful when both Front-Bench teams are conscious of the needs of Back Benchers. If she seriously objects to guillotines and if the view that she is expressing is that of her colleagues, why did they move so many guillotine motions themselves?
Mrs. Shephard: We moved only two guillotine motions on the Finance Bill, which should reassure the hon. Lady—and there was an important difference when we used them. Mention has been made of the length of time between the Finance Bill's publication and the end of the Committee stage, during which financial institutions can make their representations. This Government have allowed 12 working days for that process; under successive Conservative Governments an average of 77 working days was allowed.
But, of course, the Government have a high-handed disdain for the House and the parliamentary process. Let us consider their record. They have limited Prime Minister's questions to one session a week. After last week's mauling from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister may well be wishing that he had abolished Prime Minister's questions altogether—no doubt, that is to come.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced to the outside world changes to the powers of the Bank of England without bothering to announce them to the House. More regrettably, he, or one of his colleagues, allegedly briefed the press on the contents of the Budget before announcing them to the House. The Leader of the House either cynically or incompetently arranged for the debate on the motion to take place at the same time as the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons is scheduled to meet. I am relieved to see that the right hon. Lady is in her place.

31
One would have thought that the Government attached sufficient importance to their Finance Bill not to wish to curtail its consideration. The Chancellor described his Budget as
"a people's Budget for Britain's future."—[Official Report, 2 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 316.]
That is surely a portentous enough description for everyone. Curiously, when questioned on her proposal to limit debate on this epoch-making expression of new Labour in practice, the Leader of the House seemed to take a different view in business questions last week. She seemed to think that the importance of a Bill depended on its length. Curiously, that view was repeated today by the Financial Secretary. I suppose that, in their view, the Finance Bill is not really important or significant—it has just 50 or so clauses, so they might as well guillotine it. Have the right hon. and hon. Ladies no concept of the importance of the complexity of legislation? If not, it is worrying indeed that the Leader of the House is seeking to modernise the procedures of the House in order to improve scrutiny.
It can have been only with extreme reluctance that the Government decided that they needed to impose a guillotine. We know what they think about the use of guillotines. When in opposition, the present Home Secretary said:
"The timetable motion is an abuse of power. No one can deny the wish of a Government to secure progress for their business, but that must be balanced against the need for adequate debate and discussion of a measure … Guillotines can be justified only where an Opposition have filibustered a Bill, where they have refused all reasonable suggestions to agree a timetable, or where there is no possibility of the Government getting their business through with reasonable speed without a guillotine."—[Official Report, 1 February 1988; Vol. 126, c. 757.]
In the case of this Bill, there has been no filibustering and no refusal to agree a timetable, so why impose a guillotine? Clearly, one reason is the Government's incompetence. In just eight short weeks, they have demonstrated that management of the work of the House is beyond their ability. Given their contempt for the parliamentary process and their desire to make announcements, put on stunts, produce soundbites and organise photo opportunities—all outside the House—that is hardly surprising.
What is—or at least should be—surprising is that what the Government say about the importance of consensus, consultation and partnership is contradicted by what they do in practice. Consider what the Leader of the House said about the legislative process in her memorandum on the modernisation of the House:
"The quality of legislation can often be improved by consultation with informed opinion on both the substance and the drafting of legislative proposals."
We learned last week that, because it is short, the right hon. Lady thinks that the Bill is not that important; but even she should be able to perceive that its measures are complex. Even she, given the clearly expressed views in her own memorandum, should be able to see that it is precisely measures such as these that would benefit from the kind of consultation with informed opinion that she herself describes.
Perhaps I can make the right hon. and hon. Ladies understand, although that is sometimes a little difficult to do. Yes, the Government did agree to extend time for
32
debate in the House and, yes, the Committee stage will extend over a number of days, but in this instance the point is that the Government's guillotine motion will give only 12 working days between the publication of the draft Bill—and that agreed only as a result of our representations—and the end of the Committee stage.
It is precisely that period, when the Bill has been published, that the financial institutions, the business community and other interests use to make their valuable input into the legislation and all in the interests of better law. That is the point.
It is indeed ironic that it is today that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced—to a press conference, I expect; certainly not to the House—the setting up at taxpayers' expense of vast focus groups to scrutinise Government legislation and give reaction to Government policy. I thought that that was what Parliament was for. For business and financial institutions, the Committee stage of the Finance Bill certainly performs that function.
In oral questions on 3 July, the House was treated to a patronising lecturette from the President of the Board of Trade on the importance she attaches—now—to partnership with business. We learned:
"Competitiveness must be improved by a partnership between government and business."—[Official Report, 3 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 413.]
Quite so. Some of us on the Conservative Benches have been saying that for some time. All conversions are welcome, but I wonder how that particular change of view can be served by the Government's deliberate curtailment of business input into the Budget. What kind of partnership is that?
There is no problem among Conservative Members about the Government's stated desire to improve the quality of legislation and the openness and accountability of the workings of government. Where we do have a problem—and so, increasingly, do the public—lies in the fact that what the right hon. and hon. Ladies and their Government say bears no relation to what they do.
A more striking example of that than today's motion would be hard to find. Unlike the Ministers—and despite the fact that it is short—we do consider the proposals of the Finance Bill to be important. They propose 17 tax rises. They propose an attack on savings and pensions. They propose an attack—as yet unadmitted and uncosted, but nevertheless an attack—on local government spending. Worst of all, they threaten the flourishing economic inheritance handed to the Government by the previous Government—just ask any mortgage payer.
The Government have a large majority. Clearly they can force through any measure they wish, they can decide to curtail consultation time with companies and organisations outside this House, and they can hide behind their mandate. However, a responsible Government would not allow that to happen—they would recognise that the very size of their majority imposes a responsibility to ensure that all views are heard. They might even consider practising what they so piously preach, and Ministers might even begin to answer questions with a few facts, instead of using a variation on the theme, "We won the election—so what?" That was breathtakingly illustrated, yet again, by the Financial Secretary today.
There is no need for a guillotine motion. The Government have not tried to discuss an alternative way to proceed, and they thereby give the lie to their vaunted

33
claim of being a Government of partnership and consensus. They will and should be judged, not by what they say, but by what they do. We oppose the motion.
4.9 pm
Mr. Andrew Stunell: The Liberal Democrats oppose the motion. We do so for two broad reasons—the nature of the Budget and the Finance Bill, and the process of setting the timetable in the motion.
Our opposition to the timetable motion on the Finance Bill is based not simply on a view of whether the Budget is good or bad, although we have clear views about that. We believe that there are some mistaken proposals in it—the windfall tax, heavily headlined and hyped, and the pension tax, which has stealthily crept into the Bill without a great deal of previous advertisement. We believe that some proposals are missing from the Budget and the Finance Bill—proper funding for education being the most obvious example. The Liberal Democrats will argue those points in detail on the Floor of the House and in Committee.
However, our vote against the motion is based, not on the merits of the Budget, but on its size and complexity. Originally, the Government made out a case—which seems not to have been sustained this afternoon—that this was a mini-Budget, a comparatively insignificant Budget, which would harm no one and which could pass through the House without difficulty or trouble.
In our view, it is not a mini-Budget, but a major Budget. It is not a minor piece of legislation even if it is, as Finance Bills go, a comparatively short piece of legislation. It is not simply a case of tidying up the law and improving the legislative background of taxation; we are considering a major Bill, containing significant proposals that go well beyond those in the Labour manifesto.
I do not believe that Liberal Democrat Members would suggest that the mere fact that a measure appeared in the Liberal Democrat—or, for that matter, Labour—manifesto justified its bypassing effective scrutiny. However, there is at least a case for saying, of measures that were heralded in the manifesto, that there has been an opportunity for public debate, for consultation and for outside interests to gather their arguments and make representations beforehand.
However, the Bill also contains new proposals of great significance, regarding which there has been no such opportunity. The thoughtful and professional inputs that are vital if we are to pass legislation have not been forthcoming for those proposals, and there will not be time for outside bodies to make such inputs effectively.
In the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, we have devoted a good deal of attention to ways in which we can improve the law-making process and ensure that law is well drafted, error-free and capable of implementation. I noticed that, when the Minister introduced the motion, she repeatedly mentioned the need for certainty. Well, we shall have certainty. We can have the certainty that legislation will not be well drafted, will not be error-free and will not be capable of implementation without subsequent revision.
I am sure that many Labour Members will recognise that point. The biggest amender of Government legislation in the previous Parliament was the Government. Time
34
after time, they had to return to the House simply because they did not get it right the first time. To Labour Members who say, "We were guillotined often enough, so it is their turn now," I say from the security of the Liberal Democrat Benches that two wrongs do not make a right.
Our second broad reason for opposing the motion is to challenge the process that we are being asked to use this afternoon. Within the next fortnight, the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, of which I am a member, will produce a report containing all-party proposals on how this issue can be dealt with during this Parliament. The report could be a landmark in improving procedures of the House and the quality and effectiveness of decisions.
It is at best clumsy and insensitive to bring a proposal of this sort before the House; at worst, it is cynical and disruptive, as it risks damaging the all-party consensus on progress. Ironically, as the shadow Leader of the House said, one of the events that may be delayed by this afternoon's debate is the next meeting, later this evening, of the Select Committee on modernisation of procedures. It brings into question just how committed the Government are to seeing genuine improvements in the House's effectiveness in dealing with legislation.
The Government should have forsworn the timetabling of legislation until the Select Committee's report was before the House, so that those newly agreed procedures could be brought into effect where needed. It is sad that on this occasion new Labour has not meant new procedures.
The Liberal Democrats will oppose the motion because the Finance Bill is too big, too complex and too under-rehearsed to be pushed through the House in this way. Moreover, the timetabling of any legislation should take advantage of the Select Committee's immediately forthcoming report, which will give us an all-party basis for tackling those issues in the future.
4.16 pm
Mr. Peter Brooke: There have already been two eloquent speeches from the Opposition Benches on this matter; mine will not have the same characteristic, but some things badly need saying.
On the history of the matter, the Leader of the House, who is not in the Chamber, announced at business questions on 3 July that the six-day delay between publication of the Finance Bill and Second Reading would be consistent with precedent and that the gap would be the same as it was in 1983–84 and 1987–88. She said that the Bill would be published in draft, to ensure that there was a six-day delay on this occasion also. I am sorry that the Leader of the House is not here. I expected that she would be, so I did not warn her that I would allude to her speech. I would not remotely accuse her of suppressio veri, but there is a touch of suggestio falsi about her answer.
In 1983 and 1987, exactly the same party as had called the election was returned to office. The Finance Bill had been taken before the election; the parts that the then Opposition were prepared to accept had been taken beforehand. In June and July of those two years, we took after the election the two parts of the Finance Bill that the then Opposition had not been prepared to give us before the election. We thus returned to Parliament with the wording of the Finance Bill entirely familiar to the whole

35
House, because we had been debating it before the election. To treat those examples of six-day gaps as satisfactory precedents for a six-day gap on this occasion seems mildly improper.
I have given the respective dates. It so happens that in 1987, there were only five days between publication of the Finance Bill and Second Reading. I acknowledge that as a fair point, just to show that I am prepared to play by the rules.
I was not a Treasury Minister in 1983 but I was in 1987, and I recall extremely vividly the remaining stages of that year's Finance Bill, which were taken in their entirety by the present Prime Minister from the Opposition Benches. With the exception of one speech by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) in the early part of the Bill's remaining stages, the present Prime Minister took the whole of the Committee stage alone. It was a remarkable tour de force. However, one could argue that the measure that we debated in the summer of 1987 was not as complicated or as controversial—in so far as the present Prime Minister felt able to carry the entire Opposition case by himself, clause after clause—as the one that we are considering today.
During business questions on 10 July—a week after the original announcement by the Leader of the House about the gap between publication and Second Reading—I said that, until we saw the detail of the Government's guillotine motion, we were dealing with shadows. I pointed out also that, judging by the Leader of the House's general outline of the timing for the rest of the Bill, we would probably see a profound acceleration in lapsed time. That would necessitate the Finance Bill Committee's sitting, not on alternate days—as it has done historically—but day after day. That would create complications in terms of tabling amendments and for those hon. Members who were conducting the opposition to the Bill. They would have to attend throughout all Committee meetings, and therefore could not consult simultaneously.
The Leader of the House did not respond to my points—although she reiterated how much notice had been given between publication of the draft Bill and Second Reading. I am not complaining about the Government's treating the Opposition with arrogance—that is their business. Perhaps they will pay a price for it in the fulness of time: the laws of hubris and nemesis have not been prorogued simply because there is a new Labour Government. However, like several commentators over the weekend, I am concerned for the taxpayers: these are complex issues.
The Financial Secretary sought to justify the accelerated timetable by claiming that, as all the measures were in the manifesto, it was necessary to translate them into law at the earliest opportunity. I have said before in another context that, in 120 hours spent canvassing on the streets of my constituency, not a single person mentioned a new strategic authority for Greater London. No doubt the Financial Secretary will claim that, because the proposal is in the manifesto, the nation voted for it specifically, directly and consciously.
I shall not labour the point—it is often argued that, if proposals are in the party manifesto, they are part of the programme. However, the advance corporation tax
36
proposal was not in the manifesto and nor, to the best of my knowledge—the Paymaster General may correct me on this point—were foreign income dividends. Therefore, we must deal with matters that we first sighted when the Budget was introduced a short time ago. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) asked the Financial Secretary a specific question, which she has not answered. Therefore, I shall return to that subject before I sit down.
Taxpayers and their advisers frequently complained about complex legislation, such as the Finance Bill, when the Conservative party was in government. They were unhappy about the complexity of such legislation. I think that the Government will test the patience and the good will of those taxpayers and advisers if they adopt an accelerated programme for measures of this sort.
I shall give an example from the previous Government's Finance Bill of an appropriate legislative timetable. Those on the Government Front Bench will remember the proposition in clause 37 of the previous Finance Bill, regarding value added tax on property. In the early part of December, I was alerted to the fact that, although people understood the Government's intentions, the clause, as drafted, would be extremely cruel to those who were obeying the law and would not exact any penalty on those who were not. In the interests of natural justice, there was a case for redressing the balance.
I remember writing to major property companies about the problem before Christmas last year, and I embarked on consultation with them in January this year. The British Property Federation and I discussed the matter with the then Exchequer Secretary, Mr. Oppenheim. He assured us that the Government recognised the force of our arguments, but conceded that it was a complex matter, which would be extremely difficult to put right.
I had a further meeting with the Exchequer Secretary on 5 February—almost two months after the Budget itself—when he spoke words to this effect, "There is no way in which we can unravel this in time for Committee, but we are working on it. Customs and Excise is working with the advisers to the British Property Federation. If a satisfactory solution can be adopted, we shall adopt it, but we do not at the moment have such a solution. We are testing such solutions to destruction."
I was quite clear that the Government were not going to produce a solution in Committee. They did not even produce a solution on Report. They eventually produced an agreed solution, which was accepted in the House of Lords on 19 March—three months after the first correspondence that I had received from my constituents. Everybody agreed that the outcome was wholly satisfactory: that by patient unravelling work, we had come up with a solution that achieved what the Government wanted to achieve and which was not opposed by the then Opposition, who agreed that it was important that we should carry the proposal through. However, it took three months to find a form of words that everybody was satisfied would achieve the Government's objective without punishing innocent people. One could not accelerate that three-month period, but Ministers on the Treasury Bench are seeking to impose this Bill on us in a very short time.
After the election, there were rumours that the Budget would be announced on 10 June. For whatever reason, the Government were not able to have the Budget on that

37
date. That is their business, not mine or that of the House. If they had announced their Budget on 10 June, we would not have had the problem that we have today, because there would have been plenty of time. Therefore, the Government deserve some criticism for potential mismanagement of the timetable.
The Government's new timing for a Budget on 2 July was bound to create problems for everybody involved. I am talking not about the convenience of Members of Parliament—even Opposition Members of Parliament—but about taxpayers and their advisers. The Government are determined to get the Finance Bill through by the summer recess, and the Budget contains a new measure of which there had be no forewarning in the manifesto.
The Chief Secretary said on Second Reading that the previous Government had imposed 82 guillotines on 61 Bills. That is a perfectly reasonable statistic, but I notice that he did not identify how many had been imposed between the election victory in May 1979 and the House rising for the summer recess in July of that year, which is the best parallel case. I whipped one Bill in that period. We got it through in a perfectly amicable way. I remember whipping two more in 1979 and 1980, one of which was considered in Committee for 105 hours; the other was considered for 120 hours. There are problems of style in the way in which the Government are allocating time on a matter as complex as the one that we are addressing today.
The Financial Secretary, when replying during the Budget debate on 3 July, omitted to answer any of the reasonable, relevant and logical questions put to her by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). When my hon. Friend said that he sensed that the Financial Secretary was about to sit down, she said that she was not, but that she would come to his points. She said that the Government were very much in favour of debate on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
I am bound to say that, so far, on the basis of the Financial Secretary's reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough, the omens are not very encouraging. If we are going to deal with complex issues and the Financial Secretary is not prepared to answer questions, problems lie ahead.
I recognise the Financial Secretary's reference to the manifesto. There will, of course, be arguments about the Government's conduct of facets of the Bill, but the ones that particularly preoccupy the outside world are ACT and foreign income dividends. The Paymaster General may soon tell us what particular change of heart the Government have had on foreign income dividends. In trying to take through a Bill of this complexity in the brief time that they have allowed for it, the Government are demeaning themselves—sadly, they involve the rest of us in it as well—and Parliament in the eyes of the public.
4.29 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I have a little booklet with me which refers to the use of the guillotine since 1945. I have listened to many debates on guillotine motions in the past 27 years, and it is interesting to note that between 1945 and 1970–71, the year when I was first elected to this place, only about 20 guillotines were implemented.
When the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) was Prime Minister, he introduced a guillotine on the Bill that became the Industrial
38
Relations Act 1971. The guillotine was introduced almost immediately after the Bill's inception, and we were outraged. About 40 of us stood in front of the Mace, although I do not know what effect that had. Our protest was not seen on television because the House was not then televised, and it was not even broadcast on "Yesterday in Parliament" because the programme did not exist.
Why were we so outraged by the use of the guillotine? The answer is that it was not the thing to do. The then Tory Government had a majority of about 40 and I do not think that any Conservative Members were likely to rebel. Most of us thought that the introduction of a guillotine should not happen. That attitude was par for the course in those days: "If there is a guillotine, oppose it." We had not been used to them.
The Industrial Relations Bill became an Act—in other words, the guillotine worked—but then finished up on the back boiler because four dockers would not observe its edicts: the Official Solicitor had to go to Pentonville to bail them out and purge their contempt. What a great Act of Parliament that was; I thought, "Well done—there's your guillotine for you." I felt fortified by the outcome. We voted against the guillotine motion and a discredited Act was then got rid of by the Prime Minister who introduced it. I thought that that justified the rejection of guillotines.
The Industrial Relations Bill was followed by the Housing Finance Bill, also in 1971. I was a member of the Committee that considered that Bill for about six months. There was a stage when we never left the Committee Room for five successive days. Tony Crosland was that confused one night that he went home in his carpet slippers. We used to meet night after night. After a long time in Committee, that measure was guillotined. Again we were outraged and voted accordingly. I think that it is fair to say that from then on guillotines were used much more frequently than ever before. The booklet to which I have referred makes that pretty clear.
We may as well admit that over the past 10 years or so the use of the guillotine was so widespread that the previous Tory Government came to use it for almost anything, and I must say that my outrage has diminished: I realise that almost everyone is walking down a different set of rails—rails which are clear to anyone who wants to see them. The Government people vote for a guillotine and the Opposition vote agin it. With the rare exception of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)—I think that he has been in the Lobby with me on odd occasions, but I do not think there has been anyone else from his party—the outcome can more or less be forecast.
The much-vaunted guillotine, which it is said has undermined this wonderful Mother of Parliaments and all the rest of it over the past 10 to 15 years, has done nothing of the kind. I have to admit that, because I have watched and taken part in all those debates and votes. Frankly, if the Prime Minister had given me the job of Leader of the House and I had been in charge of proceedings, I would not have introduced this guillotine motion—not as a matter of principle, because I do not think that the principle is as evident as it used to be, but for the simple reason that we are already in July and we all know that Tory Members will not want to be sitting in Parliament in August. I would have said, "We'll drive them into August, and we'll finish in time."

39
I would not have bothered with the guillotine. The chances are that the Tories would not have gone anywhere near 12 August when the grouse shooting season starts. They would not have dared—not after the big rally they had last week in Hyde park attended by the Leader of the Opposition. He is on a zero-hour contract. All Tories believe in zero-hour contracts, but they are taking it a bit too far when they give the Leader of the Opposition one—I think it is called "Waiting for Portillo". Given the Tories' problems, I would have carried on. I am not making a song and dance about it, but that would have been my instinct. The Tories are in a right old mess and there are only 164 of them. The Liberal Democrats will join them in the Lobby—they will never be in government and will never have to wield a guillotine, so we know what they will do—but they will want to trot off on their holidays, too.
When I was in the Table Office last week, I heard Tory Members inquiring about the summer recess; they had already asked the bobbies, because the bobbies get to know first, but they were still not sure. The Tories were in the Chamber on Thursday afternoon when the recess was announced, and now they are shouting and bawling about the guillotine when we all know that they have booked their holidays for August. It has become a bit of a farce.
Mr. Brooke: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that I was not one of the people in the Table Office when he had those various conversations? If he wishes to sit throughout the whole of August, I will be very happy to sit with him.
Mr. Skinner: I have news for the right hon. Gentleman: I shall be here. I have no problem with that: I have to come in every day to establish my working-class credentials. One can easily become middle class, so clocking on the way I used to do is important. I would be happy to come in, but the right hon. Gentleman and I would not do a great deal: he would be singing Clementine and all his colleagues would have gone to their new outpost in Sardinia, where the ex-Prime Minister went.
The document I have with me tells it all. What is more, something significant happened in the previous Parliament: we had the Jopling recommendations. For the benefit of new Members, I will explain what that meant. It meant that opposition would never again be like it used to be. Various changes that had nothing to do with guillotines reduced the Opposition's power to undermine the Government. I will not go into all of them now, but we used to be able to keep the Government up all night during discussions on the Consolidated Fund Bill. European Community orders went into Committee, and many other orders that we used to debate on the Floor of the House went into Committee unless we took special measures to prevent it.
At that time, the Tories were in power and had 329 Members. They were so arrogant that they believed that they would be in power for ever. With my old friend Bob Cryer, who died, I used to warn Tory Members that they would rue the day they passed the Jopling recommendations because it would give the green light to
40
any in-coming Labour Government to guillotine almost everything and never mind "Erskine May". We warned the Tories, but although a few went into the Lobby with us late one night the number voting against the recommendations was miserly—only 40 or 50 hon. Members altogether. That is significant. I am not accusing those who are now Government Front Benchers of hypocrisy: they, too, went into the Lobby to vote in favour of the Jopling recommendations. Why was that? It was because they thought that they were going to win the election and they had an idea that they would be using the recommendations themselves.
Hon. Members can have their boring old debate if they like, and it will get even more boring as they go on. I can stand on principle for as long as I choose, but having listened to this debate about the guillotine for 27 years I observe that it ain't what it used to be. One thing that I cannot stand is hearing Tory Members who went racing through the Lobbies to cut debates short in the last Parliament now shouting and bawling and crying about a guillotine that even I believe allows the passage of many measures for which the people voted.
I admit that some measures in the Budget surprised me, but most of them were well canvassed. I talked about most of them on the street corners of every village in my constituency during the general election campaign. I do not feel put out about those proposals; that is not my objection to the guillotine. If I thought that the cause was so great, I would feel bound to follow my voice with my vote, but the Budget—which, as I say, was well canvassed—is not of that dimension. It is not like the Industrial Relations Act 1971, which went to the core of my being.
As is traditional, the Tories will carry the Liberal Democrats and the other ragtag and bobtail into the Lobby with them today. They will then send their constituents a newsletter—if they get around to it—saying how they stood up to the Government, but it does not add up to a row of beans.
Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman, as always, is true to himself. I have heard him talk on this subject before, and he has said the same on those occasions. But did he ever in his wildest dreams imagine that he would be sitting on the Government side of the House with so many silent, supine supporters behind him?
Mr. Skinner: I will tell the hon. Gentleman what I said before the election. The last Prime Minister would not listen when I said, "Next time you will be sitting in my seat—I am keeping it warm for you." As the hon. Gentleman has provoked me, I will add that I did not expect there to be 418 Labour Members of Parliament.
I acknowledge that some of those Labour Members are brand new. As naturally as night follows day, they must look to see what the leadership is doing. I have not yet drawn any of them into my corral. I have worked out that only about 100 will be given jobs when the Prime Minister carries out his periodic reshuffle, so it is conceivable that some of them will decide that they are not about to get on to the Front Bench and will start stretching their limbs. I cannot be sure about that, but one thing is certain: I know what those hon. Members will do tonight. They will vote for the motion because they want to get the Bill on to the statute book.

41
The Tories, meanwhile, will have to go through the ritual: one of them will do so on principle, while the rest will do so as a matter of course. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) was recently promoted to the Front Bench. He never had a chance under Thatcher—she would not give him anything—but now, after 27 years in Parliament, he has made it at last: he has become the deputy to the deputy to the deputy shadow spokesman, but he knows as well as I do that the same ritual has taken place throughout the last few Parliaments. Hon. Members must do what they have to do, but they must not expect me to believe that they are engaged in some great principled fight.
4.45 pm
Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am sorry that 28 years of grousing by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—not just before 12 August—has undermined his confidence in some of the principles that he has espoused so freely both to and on behalf of his constituents.
I oppose the guillotine. This is no playing to the gallery; the hon. Member for Bolsover was honestly opposed to guillotines, and I oppose them as a matter of principle. First, they are a denial of freedom of speech; secondly, they are a denial of the representative function; thirdly, they are the supreme instance of the Government's control over the House of Commons. That is why many people have often reflected that guillotines undermine the esteem in which the House is held, and that each of us as a representative is less able to express honestly his or her views about legislation.
I congratulate the Treasury Front Bench. I cannot recall ever before seeing the entire team in the Chamber during a debate on a guillotine motion. It is important that they should all attend, as this is a serious step for the House of Commons.
Several aspects of the guillotine worry me. First, all the instances given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo), were very poor. The hon. Member for Bolsover and I cried foul to the former Government over such instances for many years, and I therefore would not pray them in aid. There must be merit in the debate itself, but the Financial Secretary was unable to adduce any dignified and honourable arguments to support her contention.
I have a greater worry, however. Many thinking Members of Parliament were elected on 1 May, and in fulfilling their representative function they will have to reflect the views both of their constituents and of their local authorities. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) asked where the change in the tax position of pension funds appeared in the Labour party manifesto, but no answer was given. I understand the difficulty of giving an answer, but to predicate an argument on such a flimsy basis as that used by the Financial Secretary does not assist in any way.
I have said that I oppose guillotines. Looking at what happened over the course of the past five general elections, I noted that in 1979 it took the then Conservative Government all of six months to impose a guillotine on the Bill that became the Education Act 1980. The guillotine was imposed while the Bill was in Standing Committee. After the 1983 election, it took the then Conservative Government no more than five months to
42
impose a guillotine on the second telecommunications privatisation Bill, which became the Telecommunications Act 1984, also as a consequence of debate in Standing Committee. In 1987, it took the then Government eight months to impose a guillotine on the Bill that became the Education Reform Act 1988—again as a consequence of debate in Standing Committee. In 1992, it took the Government seven months to guillotine the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill on Report. I mention that because the Financial Secretary seemed to think that there was some distinction between types of Bill.
Less than three weeks after the Queen's Speech the new Labour Government moved to impose a guillotine on the referendums Bill for Scotland and Wales. No one disputes that that is a major constitutional issue that will have repercussions—we cannot yet weigh up what they will be because we have not seen the substance of the legislation—but the course on which the Government have embarked is sensitive and tendentious; it requires great consideration and deliberation by the House, and every hon. Member is entitled to contribute to that debate.
Within eight weeks of being elected, the Government are now imposing a guillotine on the Finance Bill. The historic reason for the House coming into being was to express consent and acquiescence. Hon. Members who have been in previous Parliaments will know that I have always said that the House's principal function is to attest to the consent or acquiescence of those who have sent us here to represent them. After all, we are making laws with penalties for those who fail to uphold them. Our fellow citizens could be sent to prison as a consequence of their failure to attend to the laws that we pass. That means that there is a solemn duty upon us. Can we honestly attest that our laws will be borne? That is the prime reason for hon. Members having a purchase on our debates. However humble or new we are, it is important for us to be able to contribute to debates.
I did not see the pensions issue coming and I could not weigh it up appropriately on Budget day. As we reflect on these matters and as others with more expert understanding of the complexity of the detail examine them—in such matters the devil is always in the detail—it will be clear that they have will have considerable consequences for my local authority and for individual pension builders among my constituents. This important issue will have ramifications for local authority taxation in the coming years because authorities may have to make up a shortfall. I do not know whether what I am saying about the detail is correct, but I know that we shall find out by the process of legitimate debate in the House. By some majestic divination, the Government have decided that that will require a little over two hours and 32 minutes.
There is a problem with a Government setting out what they think are the priorities in Bills. I have seen that often because there were almost 60 such Bills under Lady Thatcher and my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), whose Government started with a heavy drumbeat of guillotines. By 1992, unfortunately, the option of guillotines was taken out of the then Government's hands because their majority was not large enough.
We often do not know where the hidden weight of an argument lies until there is a contribution from the least expected quarter of the House. Guillotine motions are designed to prevent that. The House should reflect on the

43
most recent guillotine motion, relating to legislation for Scotland and Wales, and note its careful crafting. It was designed to prevent the House from debating some of the specific issues relating to it. That is not a denial of the Government's mandate in Scotland: it is the outcome of the guillotine which will diminish the validity of the Government's mandate. The Lords have amended the Bill, and so far the Government have not imposed a guillotine on the debate on Lords amendments.
These are important issues, and there is a distinction between the Executive and their supporters in the House. A large number of intelligent hon. Members were unexpectedly elected and many of them cannot reasonably expect to hold their seats if, in the traditional sense, a better equilibrium is restored at a future election. What will have been their contribution to the passage of Bills and to other business if they see their only role as that of saying "Hallelujah" to every measure presented by the Treasury Bench?
On the Treasury Bench there are seasoned right hon. and hon. Members who have felt the indignity that I am expressing because they suffered the 60 guillotines that we imposed and they know how destructive that can be to rational and sensible debate. They also know that that was part of the process which slowly unwound the Conservative Cabinet's hegemony over public sentiment. We looked arrogant in the past—as though there were no lessons to learn and no need to justify any of our arguments—but the contempt that was expressed at that time turned round and bit us and there was a wipeout on 1 May.
Mr. Skinner: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not saying that we shall have reached that point with two guillotines. Does he accept that his view varied on some of the 60 guillotine motions that were accepted, and that although he could not stomach some of them, he accepted many? Although the hon. Gentleman and I would be on similar ground in other circumstances, there are varying ways of contemplating legislation and we have to decide instinctively about the measure that is before us. My consideration of this measure is not the same as that of the hon. Gentleman, but he will agree that occasionally one can accept some motions—as he did from among the 60 that he mentioned—while others are not acceptable.
Mr. Shepherd: By about 1987 I had discerned that guillotines had become an instrument of government and that they were the way in which the Executive, without the foo-fah of proper parliamentary debate, intended to engage with the elected representatives of the British people. Thereafter, I would not support a guillotine or the legislation that depended upon it. This is the first time that I have said that in the House, but hon. Members will find that my voting record bears me out. Such motions are a denial of the very function and purpose of this place.
Governments say, "We have important programmes, the House is busy and we have a mandate." When one takes a lease on a building, whether it is a rented house or work premises, one looks at the detail of the lease to see whether there are clauses within it that are too onerous to bear. Such is the duty of the House. It must attest—and honourable, intelligent Labour Members must be sure—that the matter can and will be borne and will not undermine the standing of the House.
44
I understand the frustration that was felt by Labour Front Benchers when they were in opposition, and the same Opposition frustration is evident today. In part response to the hon. Member for Bolsover I say that there is a qualitative difference between the sort of legislation that the Government have decided to embark upon and that which he mentioned. There is no doubt that their first measure is solemn and constitutional because it is about the government of these islands. It is not the ridiculous Dangerous Dogs Bill, about which it was said that all stages had to be taken in one day, thanks to my right hon. Friend Lord Baker.
The motion before us today relates to the Finance Bill, which deals with the taxation of the people of these nations. It deserves proper scrutiny, but there is to be a guillotine before the Bill has even been in Committee. I remind the House of what I have emphasised time and again—that the balance of an argument or the devil in the detail sometimes comes out of the wood and surprises us. To show the extent to which the Executive is seeking to control the House and its Members under some fanciful doctrine of the mandate I will quote from a simple part of the motion. Under the heading "Dilatory Motions" it states:
"No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of proceedings on, the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith."
I ask hon. Members to think about that. It is a fairly ordinary clause, but it affirms that this is a matter for the Executive and that hon. Members will take it on the terms presented by the Executive.
If I have stepped widely in the debate, I apologise, but the arguments are profound. Within three weeks of the Government coming into office there was a guillotine motion on a constitutional measure, and within eight weeks a guillotine motion on a Finance Bill. That is inappropriate. It will—I have said this before—slowly trickle out to people that there is an extraordinary presumption and arrogance, which is so familiar to them. Conservative Members should know why we lost the election on 1 May. Labour Members who support the Government motion should remember that the very arguments that were adduced against us slowly build up: the silt fills the bottom of the jar until people realise that arrogance is a feature of Whitehall and of the Executive. It is the function of the House of Commons to represent and stand up for the people who elected us.
5 pm
Mr. Peter Viggers: This is a special occasion. It is the first time in 23 years that I have wanted to speak in a debate on a timetable motion. As a parliamentary private secretary at the Treasury, not as a Minister, I daily heard the truism that what appears initially to be a good Budget frequently turns out to be a bad one, and what appears to be a harsh Budget often turns out to be a very good one. That is not just a truism; it is true.
Another truism is also true: there is no such thing as an entirely favourable Budget measure. The Chancellor cannot please everyone. When he said that, for the greater good of mankind and of the United Kingdom population in particular, he would diminish excise duty on lead-free petrol, he thereby drove out of business a company whose

45
special product was the lead additive in petrol. A Chancellor cannot say that a measure is universally good.
The Budget contains some exceptionally complicated measures. They derive mainly from the system of corporation tax, including advance corporation tax. To great acclamation, the Chancellor said that he would cut the basic rate of corporation tax from 33 per cent. to 31 per cent. That will benefit company tax payers by £1,950 million. In abolishing tax credits by a comparative sleight of hand, however, he raised £5,400 million a year in the longer term, a much larger amount. The implications of that will take some time to sink in.
In an article on international bonds in today's Financial Times, Krishna Guha states:
"'This is going to be a huge supporter for the bond market, and for the very long end in particular,' says Mr. Andrew Roberts, head of bond strategy at UBS. But it is too early to say how or when it will affect the market. 'If anyone tells you they know, they are lying,' he says.
Many companies will have to increase pension contributions to make up for the cost to their pension funds. Valued on the basis of the present value of their future income, pension funds have in effect suffered a revaluation loss of 15 to 20 per cent.
'Mature funds will suffer more than small ones,' says Mr. Alan Clifton, managing director of Commercial Union Investment Managers. 'Pension funds such as British Steel or ICI will be the main sufferers.'"
I cannot imagine that it is directly relevant, but I should say that I am the chairman of the trustees of the Corporation of Lloyd's pension fund, which in this category would rate as a small pension fund. I am not a beneficiary in any way; I am merely the chairman.
The implications of the Budget changes were foreseen. The Financial Times Lex column on 12 May said that it expected the Chancellor to turn to fundraising:
"If Britain's new chancellor can reinvent monetary policy-making in just a few days, what havoc might his promised review of corporate taxes wreak? The most obvious potential victim is about as difficult to spot as an elephant in the chancellor's bedroom: Britain's much-loved advance corporation tax (ACT) credit on dividends. Not only does this cost the exchequer some £5bn a year. It also gives pension funds a distorted incentive to prefer dividends over reinvested earnings. So its life expectancy does not look great. But remember: the chancellor promises a review 'to promote greater long-term investment'. Simply cutting the ACT credit would do no such thing. On the contrary, companies would end up shouldering most of the burden and the cost of capital would rise."
It will take time for the Budget's implications to sink in. The Financial Times, The Economist and other expert commentators have expressed their views. Professional bodies and trade associations will inform their members. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) referred to the Budget's effect on local government pension funds. It has taken some time for local government pension funds, for advisers to the funds and for local councillors to realise that it may be necessary to raise council tax to pay the contribution required by the Government. It will take a long time for individual business men and women and pensioners to make their views known.
So far, I have received no representations about the Budget, but I am certain that I will. When I receive representations from my constituents, I am sure that they will say, "I had no idea that the Budget was going to affect my pension fund to the extent that it has. I was expecting the pension fund to be enhanced by future
46
benefits." Someone might write to me and say, "I am a trustee of a small pension fund. I did not realise that we would have to increase contributions by taking money from the shareholders' funds or by taking money from employees."
People have not realised the extent to which the proposals will affect them. During his Budget speech, the Chancellor said lightly that many pension funds were in surplus. It is true that about half the pension funds with the National Association of Pension Funds Ltd. are in surplus, but those that are not will need contributions from employees or from company funds. People with personal pension funds have planned to retire at a certain level of income. They will now have to suffer a lower pension or make higher contributions to their pension fund than they had expected.
When people realise the extent to which they have been disadvantaged, they will be resentful and will think less of the Labour Government, of the Chancellor and, I am afraid, of Parliament because they will notice that we allowed the proposal to be passed without adequate scrutiny.
I do not regret the lack of debating time on the Floor of the House or in Committee. My complaint is that the entire process, from the Budget through to Third Reading, will be so compressed that experts outside will not have an opportunity to express their views, and ordinary constituents, voters, business people and pensioners will not have a chance to assess the effect that this damaging and tax-raising Budget will have on them.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury made much of the need for certainty as against uncertainty. The Paymaster General is on the Front Bench. I hope that he will reply to the debate so that he might clarify one point. He said:
"We are also looking sympathetically at the position of UK-based groups with a substantial amount of foreign income."—[Official Report, 4 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 586.]
I have raised this point twice before on the Floor of the House, but the Paymaster General was not replying then. As he will reply today, I hope that he will clarify what he meant by those remarks. Is it that a Budget measure is likely to be changed? If so, we should be told earlier rather than later. We do not want to be told during the summer recess when Parliament is not sitting.
The guillotine is symptomatic of the Government's attitude to their own party and to Parliament. No Labour Member, other than the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), has sought to speak in this debate. It is clear that the Government are interested in using their massive majority more to push through legislation than to scrutinise it. It is the same choreographed response as we see during Prime Minister's questions, when someone is selected—we know not how or why—to emerge from the chorus line and have a speaking part. It is a contempt of Parliament.
Despite all that, I am quite cheerful at the moment. Nothing can eradicate the past 18 years of good government and good measures. It appears that the new Government will leave the main framework of the Conservative improvements in place. It gives me pleasure to see the Government losing the plot at such an early stage.

47
The Times published a letter today from Mr. Brian Lynch, who said:
"Sir, Picket lines again, inflation up, interest rates up, more troops in Ulster, Ken Livingstone back in the limelight. Didn't take long, did it?"
5.11 pm
Mr. Richard Page: This debate may go down in history as the one in which the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—I am sorry that he has left the Chamber—confessed that he was well on the way to becoming an establishment man. No doubt he will be a noisy establishment man. He weaseled his way out of his past objection on principle to guillotines by saying that guillotines were not what they used to be, that they did not matter today and that they are from the past.
In a way, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I cannot work up a lather, either synthetic or genuine, over a timetable for a parliamentary Bill. It is a perfectly legitimate weapon of Government to impose a timetable for the effective discussion of a Bill. I think that all Bills should be timetabled. That means the sensible division of a Bill so that those parts can be discussed in great detail, but are not held up by filibustering.
The hon. Member for Bolsover was nostalgic when he recalled the filibusters on the Industrial Relations Bill. I, too, can recall a few filibusters. One or two hon. Members regard filibusters in the way that war veterans regard being asked by their children, "What did you do in the war, Daddy?" Members of Parliament say, "I remember the great fluoride debate. I remember being upstairs in the telecommunications Committee for over 100 hours on three separate Committee stages." I, too, remember those occasions. In the middle of those filibusters, my overwhelming ambition was to be at home, tucked up in bed while other people wasted their time.
I have searched my memory, but I cannot think of a single case of filibustering having changed the intended outcome. Therefore, I believe in the sensible timetabling of Bills. Of course, the key word is "sensible". The proposed timetable is not sensible—it is truncated and far too short. I am not saying that the time for debate should be four or five times longer, but there are one or two aspects that need attention. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) referred to some of the points that would need to be drawn out.
Why is the procedure truncated? I am glad to note that the Chancellor has arrived in the Chamber. The Government have cocked it up—perhaps that is not a delicate thing to say. Before the Budget, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor were macho men, going around saying, "We have got to hit the ground running." What better way to make their mark than a Budget that shows that they have their hands on the reins of power?
As the Chancellor has probably discovered, he cannot simply wander into the Treasury with a piece of A4 exercise paper bearing the words, "Can you give me a Budget in a week or two?" His original date would have allowed plenty of time for the Bill to complete its Committee stage, but it takes considerably longer than he expected to put through a Budget, especially in view of the need to ensure that anti-avoidance measures are in place.
48
I noted that the Chancellor muttered a few words about making anti-avoidance measures illegal. It is an interesting concept that he is trying to introduce into our law, and I welcome the opportunity to watch it develop over the years to come. The Treasury will have to spend month after month ensuring that they deliver and are not circumvented.
I would have liked a little more time to debate the Bill because I support certain of the Budget's proposals, some of which are quite sensible. I take an interest in the small business sector and I have spent most of my time in the House trying to promote it. That sector will grow and provide jobs for the future. It may even employ youngsters who are to go into some form of employment or training.
I agree with the proposal to increase the plant and equipment allowance from 25 per cent. to 50 per cent., but I would have liked a little more time to define what is meant by plant and equipment. We do not want any more splurges, with companies buying typists' chairs and desks at the end of the financial year.
The proposal should focus on machine tools. As a Conservative Back Bencher and as a private individual, I have always argued that there should be a focus on machine tools. We should take a leaf out of the Japanese book. The Chancellor may find it interesting that the Japanese give small firms a machinery and machine tool grant for three years. For example, they target the grant on NCR machines to help small firms acquire the means of production.
I had hoped that the Budget would include a proposal to allow small firms to accumulate a nest egg of capital. It is all very well to reduce corporation tax from 23 to 21 per cent.—every little bit helps—but that is not enough. The person running the business will say to himself, "Do I pay the tax or do I pay it to myself as income?" I would have supported a measure, perhaps in the form of a bond or non-redeemable shares, that would keep the money in the business and give it a chance to grow. We are allowed personal allowances, so why should not companies have allowances? It could be an adjustment to the corporation tax—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing the allocation of time, so it is not appropriate to go into the details of the Finance Bill.
Mr. Page: You are absolutely right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am so enthusiastic about the small business sector that I get carried away. In fact, I had finished my sales pitch on behalf of small businesses.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) asked what time would be available to discuss the impact of changes in advance corporation tax on charitable schemes. I declare an interest as I was the honorary treasurer of a large charity. I know what effect such measures can have on charities' incomes. Some charities have already been hit hard by the lottery, and I should have thought that some special allowance could be made in addition to the three years that has been allowed by the Chancellor—
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): It is seven years.
Mr. Page: Yes, seven years; such an allowance would enable charities to retain more of their income. The subject

49
will be debated on the second day of the Committee of the whole House, but it should be allowed much more time. The United Kingdom has a tradition of giving and of generosity, and charities should have an opportunity to get their act together so that they can present a case and try to melt the Chancellor's stony heart.
I believe that Bills should be sensibly timetabled during a Parliament. Today's motion, however, is not sensible. It is far too rushed and we should be allowed more time for debate. The Budget's iniquities will not be properly debated under the timetable. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport made the point that Budgets that are lauded to the heights on Budget day often turn out to be stinkers. The aroma of this Budget will linger in the nostrils of the British people—especially of those who will become pensioners—for years to come.
Mr. Viggers: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you would be prepared to take hon. Members into your confidence. Hon. Members know that those who wish to speak in debates may submit their name to the Speaker's Office and that, if they are lucky, they will be called by the Chair. Will you tell Opposition Members whether you have received any requests from Labour Members to speak? It seems extraordinary that Labour Members have not commented on such an important constitutional measure. Conservative Members have made some good speeches, and we have heard an excellent speech from a Liberal Democrat. I wonder whether something is distracting Labour Members.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been here quite a long time; he is well aware that that is not a genuine point of order for the Chair.
5.21 pm
Mr. Edward Garnier: I should, if I may, correct a comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). There have been two speeches by Labour Members: one by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, with which I shall deal shortly; and one by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I agree that there were only two speeches by Labour Members, although it is doubtful whether any speech by the hon. Member for Bolsover can be counted as a speech from the Government Benches. None the less, he made one, and he is a Labour Member.
I learnt only a few things from the speech by the hon. Member for Bolsover, the first of which is that he is getting old. The second thing I learnt is that he has only three speeches in his parliamentary locker—today we heard either speech one, speech two or speech three—all of which we have heard before. The third thing that I learnt about him, which may be of some relief to the Paymaster General, is that—based on his discussion on August holiday arrangements with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke)—the hon. Member for Bolsover is deeply out of touch with the modern Conservative party, which, sadly, is no longer necessarily representative of the grouse-shooting classes. It is also quite clear that he will not be asked this summer to the Paymaster General's castle in Tuscany, but may spend a lonely summer holiday in this Palace.
The final thing that I learnt from the speech by the hon. Member for Bolsover is that he does not object to guillotines when he agrees with the underlying legislation.
50
When he objects to the underlying legislation, however, there is no more principled advocate of the arguments against imposing a guillotine. I should like to compare his speech with the purity and elegance of the speeches made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster—which, within a few moments, encapsulated the evil of the motion that we are debating.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury moved the guillotine measure against the background of a Labour Government who have a huge majority that has allowed them to create a disgusting mixture of arrogance and lack of self-confidence. The lack of self-confidence has been evident in the dearth of speeches by Labour Members supporting the motion. They lack confidence and have not spoken because they do not understand that even bad arguments require support in the Chamber. If they are not prepared to support the Minister who moved the motion, what hope have we for the remainder of this Parliament?
The motion was moved also against a background in which one Labour Member, who is not in the Chamber, was overheard complaining that his sense of democracy was offended by the notion that any Opposition facing a Government majority of 177 should have the right to propose amendments to Government legislation. That is only an anecdote—I am sure that it is not a criticism that I could lay at the door of every Labour Member—but it does rather inform the way in which the new Labour Government exercise their authority over this legislature.
A point that has already been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills is that this guillotine is not the first one proposed by the Government, although we are only six or eight weeks into this Parliament. He and I spoke for some little while in the debate on the Government's first guillotine, which was on the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill. On that occasion, we heard the same arguments—if they can be so described—from the Government. Both that Bill—which my hon. Friend rightly said was a major constitutional Bill—and the Finance Bill are major Bills. The Finance Bill has an equal if different significance.
The Finance Bill is already suffering from truncation, and the period between its Second Reading and Committee stage will be far shorter than that allowed for any previous Finance Bill. As Conservative Members have said, the time between a Finance Bill's Second Reading and its Committee stage is the very time when the financial services and pensions industry and those who will be affected by the Budget must lobby their Members of Parliament and the Treasury to explain the difficulties that they and the taxpaying public might suffer.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster mentioned some of his constituents who are in the property business and who wrote to him about an aspect of a previous Budget that dealt with property taxation. That was an extremely germane example of the value of a long period of consideration. No one will be allowed such a period of reflection on the Finance Bill. In passing this type of legislation, Ministers owe it to us all to reflect on what they are doing.
I will not say what I think of the speech made by the Financial Secretary. Nevertheless, she said that it was not her or the Government's fault that the Finance Bill and the Budget have been introduced one third or halfway

51
through the financial year. No one asked the Government to introduce a Budget at any stage of the year, and no one asked them to delay their Budget from 10 June to 2 July. It is also no good for them to complain to us when we complain that they are so drastically cutting time to debate the Bill.
Another point that has not yet been mentioned but that is worthy of mention is that, in the other place, the same scrutiny does not occur on Finance Bills as occurs on other types of Government legislation. As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) correctly said, in previous Parliaments, it has been a matter not only of Governments having to amend their own legislation but of the other place amending Government Bills, which it has done most effectively and in a rather more deliberative atmosphere. This Bill will not have such an advantage.
Ministers are fond of using the expression "the people's"—as in the people's money, the people's Government, the people's this and the people's that. The Government have proposed 17 tax rises to take more of the people's money, yet they are not prepared to allow the people's representatives adequately to discuss those proposals.
The few arguments offered by the Financial Secretary, who is temporarily absent, were as follows: first, she said that there was a need for certainty for the taxpayer; secondly, she said that the guillotine motion provided for better scrutiny of the Bill; and, finally, she said that there was adequate time. I think it was Humpty-Dumpty who said, "What I say it means is what it means," although I paraphrase inaccurately. The Financial Secretary was following his words closely when she sought to prove that adequate time had been allocated. The time available is wholly inadequate.
As for providing certainty for the taxpayer, if the Financial Secretary is concerned that old-age pensioners with heating bills to pay this winter need to know before the autumn what they will or will not be getting from the Government, surely it is open to her to sever that issue from the Finance Bill and legislate separately while we consider the other aspects of the Bill with greater care.
The Financial Secretary said that there was adequate time. One has only to read the table set out on page 852 of the Order Paper to see what that means in her view. On the first day, we have until 7 pm to deal with clause 1 which relates to the windfall tax. We all know that, even with the best will in the world, it is not often possible to start Committee stage deliberations on the Floor of the House at exactly 3.30 pm. It is therefore likely that there will be less than the requisite time to discuss the windfall tax. At 7 o'clock, we are to move on to discuss mortgage interest tax relief, dealt with in clause 15. That debate must be finished by 10 pm. There will no doubt be a Division at 7 pm, or shortly afterwards and, in view of the number of Members—659, of whom perhaps 640 will vote—we shall not start debating clause 15 until about 7.30 pm.
The following day, we debate clause 17 which deals with medical insurance, or the removal of tax relief on it, and we follow the same procedure. Also on the second day, we debate clause 19, which deals with pension funds and tax credits, for a little under two and a half hours.
52
Those debates cover four big subjects which deserve rather more than two and a half hours each—
Sir Patrick Cormack: That includes Front Benchers' contributions.
Mr. Garnier: As my hon. Friend so kindly reminds us from the Front Bench, that time includes Front Benchers' contributions.
It beggars belief that the Financial Secretary dares go to the Dispatch Box and describe as adequate the timetable set out on page 852 of the Order Paper. It also beggars belief that she seeks to give cogent reasons for anything when she singularly failed to answer a direct question that I asked her, and did so with a boldness that I could only salute as it passed by.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills made the important point that, according to paragraph 7, dilatory motions can be moved only by a Minister of the Crown. It states:
"No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of proceedings on, the Bill shall he made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a Minister of the Crown".
This is the legislature of the British public, but only a Minister of the Crown can tell us how to conduct ourselves. It is not only in paragraph 7 that we find such powers given by the great silent ranks of the new Labour party. Paragraph 5(2) states:
"No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member"—
presumably, a Minister of the Crown—
"who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon."
It is very kind of the Government to draft the motion in that way.
Paragraph 12(3) states:
"If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order."
First, only a Minister of the Crown can truncate the proceedings. Secondly, if he wishes to truncate proceedings further, he need not tell us that he is going to do so. I dare say that the statue of Cromwell outside this Palace is witnessing some changes—he must be smiling and enjoying the work of this Government as they become ever more as he used to be.
This will be a very bad period for Parliament. It started badly with the first guillotine—on the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill—and is made worse by this shabby motion. Two huge Bills of great importance, one on the constitution and one on the way we raise our finances, are to be crushed into a timetable designed by a Government who do not have the confidence to allow us to debate the ideas that they did not have the confidence to put in their election manifesto. Before very long, the Government will learn that such conduct does not sit well with the British public.
5.35 pm
Mr. Damian Green: As a new Member, I have for several reasons found it educational to sit through all of this guillotine debate. First, it was a

53
privilege to see a performance by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) live, as it were, having seen many previously through the media. It was educational not only for his performance which was, of course, inimitable but because of the interesting attitudes that lay behind what he said.
As I understand the hon. Gentleman's arguments, he felt passionately about the Industrial Relations Act 1971 and that it was therefore a constitutional monstrosity that it should have been guillotined. However, he does not care much one way or the other about the Budget, so, as he enters his declining years, he feels relaxed about voting for a guillotine motion on it. That is instructive for two reasons. First, the fact that he could not raise any enthusiasm for the Budget tells us a great deal about how it is going down with some Labour Back Benchers. Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, it shows a gap between rhetoric and reality. When a Member with such a distinguished and anti-establishment history as the hon. Member for Bolsover cannot bring himself to condemn a guillotine motion, one feels that the last fires of libertarianism within the Labour party are finally about to be extinguished. That is one of the lessons that was interesting to learn this afternoon.
The other lesson concerns the abject silence from every other nominal supporter of this shabby motion. On the day that Ministers are announcing the formation of a gimmicky people's panel of 5,000 people, which the Government are to use as an enlarged focus group on which to test all their legislation, it seems particularly ironic that this people's panel—the Parliament of Great Britain—should be so completely ignored and treated with contempt. If the Government are prepared, uniquely, to put a guillotine motion on the Finance Bill to the House in this way, the least tribute that they could pay to hon. Members and, indeed, to those who sent us here, is to put up a few people to defend the motion.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Or even attend.
Mr. Green: The fact that they have not bothered to do so is the most serious sign yet in eight weeks of arrogant government of just how arrogant the Government really are and how little regard they pay to the House.
It was also instructive to listen to the Financial Secretary moving the guillotine motion. One should perhaps deal directly with some of what one could charitably call the arguments that she offered in support of it. The first was that, faced with this unnecessary Budget, taxpayers want certainty. That is patently absurd. To say that people need to be certain that their pensions will be less valuable, that they will have to pay the 17 tax rises and that their mortgage and medical insurance will become more expensive is genuinely worrying, suggesting that during the past eight weeks the Treasury has lost the ability even to come up with a plausible line. The Minister was clearly talking tosh and she knew that at the time.
The Minister's only other argument in favour of the guillotine motion was that it had been done before by previous Conservative Governments. The House will be grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) for so comprehensively blowing up that argument, proving that no similar guillotine has been imposed so soon after a Budget.
54
I urge the Government to learn the lessons of the past 18 years. They have spent 18 years criticising Conservative Governments. Perhaps one of their occasionally more justifiable criticisms was that rushed legislation is very likely to be bad legislation. Many of us have felt that. The most dangerous legislation to rush through—barely announced, certainly not analysed and not allowing for any consultation with outside bodies—is a Finance Bill. It is inevitably full of complex, technical issues that require detailed examination. It is certain that a Budget rushed through without proper consultation will prove to be a bad Budget for taxpayers and, in the end, for the Government.
The Government do not even have the excuse of the hysteria that has sometimes caused Governments to rush into ill-thought-out legislation. On occasion, the country has been seized by what feels like a moral panic, when there is a demand for action to which the Government have responded hastily and usually unwisely. That was not the case here. Nobody was demanding an early Budget from the Labour Government. Nobody would have objected if the Chancellor had arrived at No. 11 and the Treasury and said, "Well, we want to get on with it, but we think that it is sensible to think seriously about what we are going to do and carry on with the normal Budget timetable." There was no need for a July Budget and certainly no need for a Budget that is to be railroaded through the House with no proper examination.
We can dismiss the ostensible reasons that the Financial Secretary gave for the guillotine motion. What are the real reasons for the motion? The first is clearly that the Government are desperate to bring tax rises in as early as possible. They want to put taxes up now and put spending up later in the Parliament. They are determined to carry the tax rises through. Every month that they can bring them forward increases their revenue, taking yet more money out of the pockets of the British people. The increases in petrol duty and similar taxes will come into effect earlier than they would have done in a November Budget, allowing the Government to take more money from people, which will have a more damaging effect on the inflation rate and on all businesses that require motor transport.
The second reason is clearly that the Budget, like every other measure taken so far by the Government, is driven by the following day's headlines rather than by any long-term strategy. The most ridiculous claim so far made by the Government is that this is a Budget for the long term. Never has there been an Administration more driven by the short term. For the Government, the short term and the long term simply mean tomorrow morning's headlines. Nobody must be allowed to scrutinise the Budget properly, because that would reveal the ways in which it will unravel.
The Government are afraid not just of parliamentary scrutiny, as the guillotine motion shows, but, perhaps more seriously, of scrutiny by the many bodies outside Parliament that have expertise to bring to bear on the Budget process. It has already been observed during the debate that most of the amendments to Finance Bills in recent years have been introduced by the Government. Most of those changes are due to expert input from outside bodies that feel that they can contribute to good governance by responding to a Finance Bill and picking at its bones, telling the Government the unintended effects of certain clauses and how to write them in a different

55
way. The guillotine motion will remove any possibility of those non-political expert outside bodies having a beneficial effect on the Budget.
Not only are the Government doing a disservice to the House and the electorate with the motion; they are doing a disservice to their Budget. They know that because of their approach and the speed with which they are putting the Budget through, they are making it even worse than it need be. The Government should do themselves a favour and not ram the Budget through in a way that is unnecessary and damaging to the British economy.
5.45 pm
Mr. Tim Collins: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), I shall start by referring to the speech of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who, sadly, is not in his place. He told us that the Conservatives should not be allowed to protest at this extraordinary guillotine. He said that those who had supported the Jopling reforms did not have a leg to stand on, and should support all guillotines in all circumstances.
There are a number of new Conservative Members who were not around when the Jopling reforms were being passed. Lord Jopling, as he now is, was my predecessor as the Member of Parliament for Westmorland and Lonsdale, so it is not surprising that I support the principle of the reforms that he introduced. However, they merely acknowledged—as we all do—that a Government, particularly one with a parliamentary majority as great as the current Government's, have the right to put their business through on a timetable if they so choose and if that is the prudent and sensible thing to do.
But why are the Government so desperate to bring forward a guillotine motion at such an early stage? I think that there are three reasons. The first is that, as we have already seen, the new Government do not think much of the House of Commons. Even though they have such a huge majority in this Chamber, they would rather that the House did not trouble the Executive much, if at all.
The Government are moving steadily and with ever-increasing speed to take power and influence away from this Chamber. They have halved the number of opportunities for hon. Members to question the Prime Minister. Almost their first step was to transfer from the Chamber one of the key economic levers—the ability to change interest rates. Not only did the Government not wait to bring legislation before the House; they did not even wait for the House to return so that a statement could be made to it. The Government's first act on the international stage transferred yet more power away from the House to our European partners and to the Commission in Brussels.
The guillotine motion is yet another example of an arrogant Government moving steadily to take power, influence and now even the right of debate away from the Chamber, because they want to take their decisions in their way. Those decisions will be made in Brussels or Whitehall—anywhere but here.
The second reason for the motion is that the Chancellor got his timing wrong. When the Government were preparing for the election, we were told that they were ready to take power—ready to hit the ground running.
56
Almost as soon as the Prime Minister became leader of the Labour party, he started to issue calls for a general election. He said that the Labour party was ready to take office and to shape the destiny of the nation.
From 1994 to 1996, the then Opposition told us that the Government should make way for a new political party which knew exactly what it wanted to do and which would be able to implement all the required decisions instantly on taking office. Yet, when the Chancellor came into office, the initial press briefings which said that we could expect a Budget by the end of May slid into those that stated that we could expect one in June. We ended up with the Budget in early July. We are now having to accelerate the pace of debate on the Bill because the Chancellor could not meet his original deadline for the Budget.
Some of us may be a little understanding about that. We might be prepared to accept that a new Government coming into office would need time to prepare a radical Budget, but are such Budgets unprecedented?
There was a change of Government in 1979, and a Budget was introduced, but the circumstances were different from those that existed this year. The current Government knew exactly when the general election would be held, because, for more than a year, there had been speculation that 1 May would the likely date for general election. In 1979, the general election took place only because the previous Government lost a vote of confidence in the House. Suddenly, the nation was catapulted into a general election.
Yet Geoffrey Howe, now Lord Howe, was able to prepare and introduce a Budget within four weeks of that election result. It can hardly be said that that Budget was uncontroversial and simple—it included a dramatic change in the balance of taxation between income tax and value added tax. It also laid the framework for the medium-term financial strategy, as well as the ground work for 18 years of achievement.
That Budget was ready within four weeks of the election, but the present Government could not get their Budget ready within nine weeks of taking office. It has not been introduced simply to set the windfall tax, which the British people were invited to endorse in the ballot box on 1 May. If that had been the case, the Budget could have been introduced without delay; instead, it includes 17 separate tax increases, which breach every pledge made by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor when they were in opposition. They needed time to prepare for those increases, which is why the Budget was late and why we will have to telescope debate.
Every stage of the Bill, from the announcement of the Budget through to the passage of the Finance Act, will be completed within the space of one month. That is quite extraordinary. That action is necessary because the Government are breaking their pledges and have been proved incompetent now that they are in charge of Treasury. They underestimated the time it would take to prepare a Budget.
The Government's actions are dictated by one part arrogance and one part incompetence, but there is another ingredient, which has been evident in the Chamber today—cowardice. The Government are afraid of debate.
Some of us have seen press reports in the past few weeks that the Minister without Portfolio has issued instructions to every Labour Member of Parliament to

57
seize every opportunity available in the House and outside it to blacken the reputation of 18 years of Conservative government. They are under instruction to spread a new mythology through the land that 18 years of Conservative government have damaged the fabric of our nation.
Even though the Labour party has now had to accept so many of our policies, from council house sales to trade union reform, privatisation and the nuclear deterrent, the Minister without Portfolio has said that Labour Members must take every opportunity to attack the record of Lady Thatcher and my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major).
Where are those Labour Members? Have they seized the opportunity of the debate to attack the record of the previous Government? No, they have not. Have they even seized the opportunity of the debate to speak in support of their Government, their Budget or the guillotine? No, they have not. Throughout the debate, there have been far more Conservative Members present than Labour ones.
Legend has it that 418 Labour Members were elected on 1 May, but 410 of them have been notable by their absence throughout the debate. Where are they? Have they been let off by the Minister without Portfolio to act on the wonderful phrase that he allowed his spin doctors to spin around the Chamber—that they would be sent home to acquaint themselves with their constituents? Is that where the 410 have gone? Why is that troupe of Labour Members not present for this important debate? Why will their Government do anything and everything to deny them free speech in a proper debate on the Finance Bill?
The reason for that silence was spelt out by the hon. Member for Bolsover, who said that there are just 100 Front-Bench jobs that the Prime Minister can offer, while 418 people are competing for them. He said that, in due course, the other 318 Members may find that the attractions of the Front Bench will simply never be available to them—mathematically, it is impossible for all of them to get a job. The hon. Gentleman advised that they should listen to what he had to say, and suggested that they should follow him in being a little creative, inspirational and flexible around the margins of Labour policy. That is what those on the Labour Front Bench fear. They fear not what we might say in a proper debate on the Finance Bill, but what their own Back Benchers would say in a proper debate.
Today, we have seen that arrogance and incompetence plus cowardice means rushed legislation and the introduction of a guillotine at a far earlier stage than in the proceedings of any previous Government. That has been done to attempt to stifle debate in the House. That will produce bad actions from a bad Government.
5.56 pm
Mr. Quentin Davies: The most extraordinary thing about the debate has been the absence throughout it, except during the speech of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, of the Leader of the House. She presided over the introduction of the timetable motion, and decided to ride roughshod over the rights of the House by denying it the opportunity to scrutinise the legislation in whatever time we thought to be appropriate. She has adopted a procedure which "Erskine May" and all our traditions make it clear can be resorted to only in exceptional circumstances. Despite all that, the right hon. Lady left the Chamber after the introductory speech of her hon. Friend.
58
The right hon. Lady cannot even be bothered, or is not even willing, to display the courtesy of waiting to hear what the House, which she supposedly leads, thinks about the decision. I do not know what you think about leadership of that kind, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it certainly does not meet my notion of what leadership of the House of Commons should involve.
This is a sad day for the House of Commons. I know that there have been timetable motions in the past—far too many, in my view—introduced by Conservative and Labour Governments, but today we are going further down the road. We have heard today that previous Governments have had excuses for introducing timetable motions that do not exist today. There have been filibusters in the course of Bills, and the Government of the day have had to resort to a timetable motion. All of us agree that, if there is a genuine filibuster, it is necessary to have the sanction of a timetable motion.
It has been said that, on previous occasions, the Finance Bill has been guillotined because there was a general election in the middle of it—the earlier part of it went through without a guillotine. That may not be a good excuse, either. I regret that guillotines should have been used so frequently. I for one never voted for the Jopling proposals, because I never wanted to curtail our debates artificially except in exceptional circumstances. I always believed that the onus must fall on the Government to show that the circumstances are genuinely exceptional.
But none of the excuses that have apparently been attached to previous timetable motions can be attached to today's motion. We have not started debate on the Finance Bill in Committee; there has been no filibuster, and no amendments have been tabled that might be regarded as obstructive. There has not been a general election in the middle of proceedings, after the initial publication of the Finance Bill. This is one further major step towards treating debates in the House as a perfunctory ritual exercise. That is extremely sad for anyone who believes in the useful role that the House should play. It is sad for the cause of good legislation. It is a bad day.
One cannot help noticing that the subject of today's guillotine motion is the Finance Bill. There is something special about Finance Bills; through them, we levy taxes—we take away a citizen's property. This place has been in existence for 700 years; we have always recognised the Finance Bill as one of its most vital and sensitive roles. We should not abuse the power we have to take away other people's property. By definition, we need to have the maximum debate, careful consideration and open argument. The Government who propose the fiscal measures should be forced to defend themselves.
Another matter, which is not quite so serious, but serious nevertheless, is that a Finance Bill is complex. No human being can honestly say that he or she is capable of grasping the full meaning of a Finance Bill on first reading. Even experts who make their living explaining the exigencies of Finance Bills to their clients would not dream of coming to too rapid a conclusion about their meaning. A Finance Bill needs more time for consideration than most legislation. It is important that experts and potential taxpayers who may bear the impact of the Finance Bill should have the opportunity to give it thorough consideration.
The House also needs to decide whether the Budget's basic fiscal judgment is appropriate. I argued strongly on Second Reading that it was inappropriate for a

59
Government who said clearly in the Red Book that the economy was overheating, that the output gap was close to zero, that there was more overheating in the service sector than in manufacturing, but that there were strong signs of excessive growth in consumption in both sectors—and all that before the windfall gains that have come to members of building societies as a result of the societies' demutualisation—not to introduce a Finance Bill to address those problems. Now is not the time to discuss whether the diagnosis was right. The Budget should provide an appropriate economic remedy.
We need time to debate such matters, and to make the essential calculations. The Red Book contains nothing about the incremental liability of companies to make additional provision to maintain the solvency of their occupational pension schemes. We know that many companies will have to make such additional provision; it is compulsory, under statute law passed through the House, that companies must maintain the solvency of their occupational pensions with guaranteed benefits.
However, we also know that, because of the abolition of the dividend tax credit—a provision contained in the Bill—the return on investments made by pension funds in British equities, which is far and away the biggest aspect of British pension funds' investment, will be substantially reduced. We know that there will be a burden on the corporate sector. The Government have not calculated that burden for us, but we need to know what it is before we can consider the Bill in the round. We cannot complete the calculation overnight; individual companies will have to use their computers and work out the figures so that we can see the aggregate position in the British economy as a whole.
It is an insult to give the House just 12 days to scrutinize—not merely nod through—complex legislation, to consider in detail the economic consequences of what is proposed, and to do an honest job for those who have sent us here. Frankly, it would be a joke were it not so serious. Such action is serious, not only in relation to the Bill's impact, but because the way in which the matter has been handled will have serious consequences for the respect in which Parliament and our procedures are held by the public.
The fact that, having introduced the shocking guillotine motion this afternoon, the Leader of the House cannot be bothered to listen to what we have to say about the measure that is about to be rammed through by an arrogant Government with an enormous majority, is perhaps the most disgraceful aspect of our proceedings.
6.5 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: I almost feel that I should crave the House's indulgence for a maiden speech. To stand at the Dispatch Box and wind up a debate after 27 years is an unusual experience. It is also an unhappy one, not merely because of the subject matter, but because we have not really had a debate. There have been a series of admirable speeches from my right hon. and hon. Friends, but only two offerings from the Government.
The Financial Secretary tried hard, but did not succeed, to justify the application of the timetable motion. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who is sadly not in
60
his place now, gave an inimitable speech. He treated us to one of his three or four set-piece speeches and gave it with his customary panache. He made it quite plain that he was speaking for himself, standing alone. He also made it plain that he was hoping to become a recruiting sergeant for the 318 Labour Members of Parliament who are unlikely to get Government jobs. I hope that he succeeds: if he does, it might enliven our proceedings.
We must consider today's motion in the light of two factors. First, will the Budget and the Finance Bill receive adequate scrutiny and debate in Committee, both on the Floor of the House and in the Committee Room? Secondly, are the procedures of the House being sensibly and sensitively used by a Government who have proclaimed, through the Leader of the House—I am glad to see that she is at last returning to the Chamber—that they wish to see those procedures modernised and adapted?
If there are any problems over the timing of the Finance Bill, they are of the Government's own making. In an admirable and fluent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) said that in 1979, when we had a change of Government and an election on 3 May, we had a fairly complex Budget on 12 June, followed by a Finance Bill. That Finance Bill was not guillotined. If this Government had stuck to their original date and produced a Budget on 10 June—throughout and just after the election, they were telling us that they were aiming for a Budget at about that time—we would have had adequate debate on the Finance Bill.
We could forgive the Government their actions if what they had produced was a Budget that merely enacted the measures that they had talked about during the election campaign—if it had been a Budget to introduce the windfall tax and virtually nothing else. But that is not the case. As hon. Member after hon. Member—including the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), in an excellent contribution—has made plain, we are dealing with a major Budget and a major Finance Bill. The Bill will affect people throughout the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) called it a short-term Budget and, in the context in which he used those words, they were entirely right and accurate. However, although it may be a short-term Budget, it will inflict long-term pain.
That we shall have, in effect, only two and a half hours to debate each of the four clauses to be taken on the Floor of the House is not only an insult to the House of Commons, but an insult to the people who sent us here and to all those whose lives will be touched and affected by the Finance Bill. We have to consider the changes to advance corporation tax—even the Leader of the House did not seem to be entirely clear about the implications when answering business questions last week—foreign income dividends and a whole range of measures that deserve proper consideration in the House. More important, there should be time to consult the outside interests who have legitimate points to make to their Members of Parliament.
The Leader of the House, who chairs the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and does so with great distinction and good humour, is always reminding us—I shall not breach confidences by talking about what we are discussing upstairs—that we

61
need to have proper timetabling for Bills. I have never been a friend of the brutal guillotine and I have voted against guillotines introduced by Governments of both parties. I shall never forget five-in-a-day Michael Foot, when five guillotines were introduced in the House in one day under a previous Labour Government. I have always felt that the guillotine is a brutal weapon; at the same time, I have always favoured proper and adequate timetabling, but adequate timetabling means precisely that—there must be a proper opportunity to debate each issue in some detail. Nobody in this House can pretend for a moment that two and a half hours, which must encompass the Front-Bench speeches, is enough time to debate ACT or anything else of any importance. The Government are, indeed, behaving with Cromwellian disdain for this House—one wonders when someone will come in and tell us to "Take away these baubles." It is monstrous that such arrogance should be displayed so early in the life of a Government.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) pointed out, this is the second guillotine on a major Bill in eight weeks. He made the excellent point, picked up by one or two other of my hon. Friends, that it is only just beginning to hit home with local authorities that they will be affected by the Budget and that there could be consequential increases in council tax throughout the country. Why is proper time not allowed for the Government to consult the leaders even of Labour-controlled local authorities? Sadly, at the moment the Conservatives do not control many local authorities, but the Paymaster General's party does and he is not allowing anything like enough time for proper consultation.
The Bill is being steamrollered through the House. In her admirable speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) pointed out that, with all the Conservative Government's Finance Bills, there was an average of 77 days between publication of the Bill and the completion of its passage through the House; and that only two Finance Bills in 18 years were timetabled by the Conservative Government. Yet here we have a complex Bill, introduced on the eve of the recess, which is to be steamrollered through in this way.
There is no need for that to happen. The Leader of the House can keep us here in August if she wants to—we shall come; we shall debate the Bill; we have no objection. We would rather have the Finance Bill adequately and properly debated in August than rushed through in July. Such is the Government's majority that we know that they will get their way, so there is no particular reason why the Bill should not be completed when we come back, even if we do not come back until the traditional October. Sadly, I do not have the cottage in Sardinia that the hon. Member for Bolsover wished on me, but the Paymaster General has a villa in Tuscany and he is obviously longing to get there. It is not the shooting of grouse, but the basking in the Tuscan sun while drinking chianti that is propelling the Bill through the House. I should not say too much on that subject, because I live in the fond hope that I shall one day receive an
62
invitation to that palatial home, in which so many of the great issues of the nation have been discussed over the past few years.
Mr. Skinner: There will be a lot of people in the queue.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I am sure that there will. The guest list is doubtless one of the most illustrious compiled in recent times.
Mr. Collins: Publish it.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Publish it, indeed.
To return to the purpose of the debate, this is a serious issue. Good humour should always enliven our debates and it is a good thing when it does, but I would say to all Labour Members—especially those who have recently joined our number—that they are doing no service, either to themselves or to their constituents, if they allow themselves to be used as ciphers and rubber-stamp everything that the Government of the day place before them. As one of my hon. Friends said, they must not allow themselves to be, in effect, usurped by the people's panels, the setting up of which was announced today.
If there is a true people's panel, it should be here in this House, whose Members are elected by the people—that is what we are here for. We are here to discuss, to debate, to deliberate and to scrutinise. It is the duty of the legislature to hold the Executive to account, regardless of which party the Executive come from. I can say that because I frequently made speeches critical of my own party when it was in government—that is probably why it has taken me 27 years to get to the Dispatch Box. Labour Members—especially those who are newly elected—should give a thought to this: there is no greater honour than to be elected to this House, but one is elected to this House as a representative of one's constituency; one's political party membership takes a very low second place to that.
Every Member of Parliament has a duty to scrutinise, to examine and to speak, and hon. Members who have absented themselves this afternoon from the debate and abdicated their opportunity to contribute to it have not been setting a good example or serving their constituents as well as they might have done. If we are able to agree on proposals to modernise the procedures of this House—I am bound to say that the actions of the Leader of the House call into question her sincerity in that respect—it is extremely important that everybody tries to make the new system work. It is not sensible debate when half the House absents itself for a whole afternoon.
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): It takes two sides.
Sir Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Lady says that it takes two sides, but this afternoon we have had only one

63
side—no Labour Back Bencher has been prepared to stand and speak in support of the motion. Perhaps I should draw a charitable conclusion from that and say that it is because the Government have no stomach for it. They certainly should not have the stomach for it, because it is despicable for the Government to place the motion before the House only eight weeks after the general election. Having bodged their timetabling, delayed the Budget unnecessarily and made it far more complex than it need have been—indeed, we need not have had a Budget until November—the Government are seeking to ride roughshod over the procedures and Members of the House.
I urge all hon. Members from minority parties, who I hope are here in force, to register their collective disapproval of a Government who have behaved with a disdainful arrogance that augurs ill for democracy.
6.20 pm
The Paymaster General (Mr. Geoffrey Robinson): I am sure that the whole House will join me in welcoming the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) to his new position as—I must get this right—deputy shadow Leader of the House. As he reminded us, he has been in this place for 27 years, and it is fitting that he should attain that rank and—as I am sure that the House will agree—much more during a distinguished career in this place.
Several times, the hon. Gentleman upbraided Labour Members for not being present in full force this afternoon. He and his hon. Friends have told us at great length and with great force that it is disgraceful that there is not enough time, in the timetable in the guillotine motion that we propose for the Finance Bill, for all aspects of the Bill to be studied thoroughly enough.
As Opposition Members will realise, we went to a great deal of trouble to provide time on Second Reading, and if the hon. Gentleman had been present, he would have seen that for hours on end there was barely a Conservative Member in the Chamber, let alone taking part in the debate. That is how phoney, hypocritical and irrelevant the tone of the Opposition speeches has been.
We are having the debate only because my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) could not get his opposite number, the Conservative Whip, the hon. Member for Maldon and Chelmsford, East (Mr. Whittingdale), even to talk about an end date for the Finance Bill. He was not allowed to. I have a handwritten but very detailed account from my hon. Friend about all his meetings—how hard he tried—
Mr. Garnier: Put him on oath.
Mr. Robinson: In case the hon. and learned Gentleman did not realise, we are all on oath in this Chamber. It is sad that he did not realise it, and many Opposition contributions would be much better if that fact were more widely realised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East visited the Conservative Whip at 2.55 pm on 7
64
July. At 3.25 pm, my hon. Friend went to see him, and at 4 o'clock. He spoke with him at 4.27 pm. He agreed that they would meet—but the Whip had to rush off and see a Secretary of State; he could not meet my hon. Friend. Could he see my hon. Friend at 5 o'clock? He could not see him, and the one thing that he could not do was talk about the timetable. By the end of the day—the end of the titanic negotiation that had taken place between the two of them—the only items that could be discussed were the matters that should be taken on the Floor of the House and the size of the Committee. It went on similarly on 8 July and 9 July, and for that reason—because we could not reach a sensible understanding through the usual channels—we had to introduce a timetable motion.
Dr. Liam Fox: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Robinson: I want to make some progress.
Our objectives are twofold: to ensure time for adequate scrutiny of the Budget, and to ensure that we deliver on our commitment to the people of the United Kingdom before the autumn. The guillotine motion is the only way in which to achieve those objectives. The timetable is necessary because we will not let the Opposition stand in the way of legislation, to ensure that the priorities that people voted for on I May and which are contained in the Finance Bill come into force. We will not let delaying tactics by the Opposition stand in the way of the priorities of the British people.
The British people voted for a cut in VAT on fuel to 5 per cent.; the Finance Bill cuts VAT on fuel to 5 per cent. We want that legislation passed as soon as possible, so that the bills are cut by the winter. That is why we are introducing the change on 1 September, and we will not let the Opposition stand in the way.
The British people voted for a windfall levy on the excess profits of the privatised utilities, to help us move people from welfare to work. The Finance Bill legislates for the windfall levy. We want the programme of work for the young unemployed, the long-term unemployed and single parents to be up and running as soon as possible.
Mr. Peter Lilley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, unlike the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He bases his argument, as she did, on promises made by the Labour party. Did the British people vote for 17 tax increases? Above all, did they vote for the imposition of £5 billion tax on their pension funds? The answer is no, so those measures should not be rammed through by a guillotine motion.
Mr. Robinson: People voted in record numbers for a Labour Government, who gained a massive majority, when a windfall tax and a cut in VAT on fuel had been clearly spelt out in the Labour manifesto, as had an economic policy based on the medium and long term, not on the short-term fixes that the country got sick of under the Tories.
Dr. Fox: The hon. Gentleman mentioned detailed contacts between the Whips Offices. I wonder whether he has the authority of the Chief Whip and the Leader of the House to make public contacts between the usual channels, and whether that is the way in which the Government will do business in future.
Mr. Robinson: I am merely explaining why it was impossible to reach an agreed timetable for the Bill and why, with great regret, we had to introduce a timetable motion.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: We heard all that from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. May we now hear, concisely, exactly how the timetable promotes sensible input, partnership and consultation with the business sector, so vaunted by the Government?
Mr. Robinson: We have an excellent set of relationships with the business sector. As the right hon. Lady knows, business people voted for us in droves and explained why they had done so, and we shall continue to develop those excellent relationships as the business sector looks forward to a Labour Government with not one period in office but, in all probability, two.
We have had all the usual hypocritical high dudgeon from Opposition Members. They seem to be upset that they are not introducing the motion themselves. After all, they have had plenty of practice, and we need no lectures from a Tory Government who introduced 82 guillotines on 61 Bills.
In February 1994, there were four guillotines in four weeks. The Tories guillotined the longest Finance Bill in history—244 clauses and 24 schedules—after only five hours in Committee; and the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) has the gall to lecture us, telling us that "Erskine May" says that only after a suitable and appropriate number of hours in Committee should a timetable motion be introduced. I am talking about facts; Conservative Members do not want to hear about them, but they will have to.
This time round, a new element has crept into the Tories' approach—an extension to opposition of their incompetence in government. I am so pleased that the deputy shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), is in the Chamber.
Mr. Stunell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Robinson: I shall in a moment.
As the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) pointed out, we start the Committee on the Floor of the House tomorrow, between 3.30 pm and 3.45 pm. We look forward to a great deal of technical debate, inspired by the depth of knowledge and other characteristics that Opposition Members will bring to the Committee.
I hate to tell the House that, of the eight amendments so far tabled by the Opposition, none has been accepted by the House authorities as being in order for debate and Division. We have a situation, unique in my
66
knowledge of Committee work, where tomorrow, even if starred amendments are introduced today, there will be no Opposition amendment that we can debate specifically and on which the Committee can divide—and the shadow Chancellor prides himself on his intellectual mastery of detail.
Since I entered the House, I have believed that a Government with a working majority—we certainly seem to have that—have a right to get their business through the House. In doing so, they should show regard for the Opposition, for minority parties and for Back Benchers on both sides of the House; we have certainly done that. While we are anxious to put our policies into action as soon as possible, we are also keen to allow hon. Members and people outside the House to scrutinise the measures in the Budget and to consider its details carefully. That is why we have allowed two days in Committee on the Floor of the House, which, incidentally, is the same as the previous Government allowed in 1996–97 for a Finance Bill that had twice the number of clauses as ours. It is also the same amount of time as they gave their Finance Bill in 1995–96, which had four times the number of clauses as the Bill before the House.
Mr. Stunell: The Minister seems to base a substantial part of his case on the fact that, because the Tories did the same, it is all right for Labour to do it. Can he expound that argument a little further in relation to financial and other matters on which the Opposition have criticised the Government?
Mr. Robinson: It would be more encouraging if the Liberal Democrat Opposition had done what they did on previous occasions and supported timetable motions put forward by the Conservative Government. The hon. Gentleman must consider that we wanted to avoid a guillotine motion but, because the Opposition would not consider an end date for the Bill, we resorted reluctantly to the guillotine.
Despite all that, we have ensured that the four big issues—the windfall tax, MIRAS, medical insurance and pension tax credits—which the Opposition wanted to debate on the Floor of the House, will be debated here. We have enabled the Standing Committee to meet for five days, which is more time per clause than the previous Government usually allowed.
The length of the Budget debate was agreed in the usual way, and we had four days' debate instead of the two days that the Opposition originally proposed. We now know why they proposed only two days—there is so little real interest on the Opposition Benches that they could not keep anything near an acceptable complement of their Members in the Chamber.
We tried time and again to agree a timetable with the Opposition. We agreed to their request for a Standing Committee of 35 members, which is 25 per cent. more than the Standing Committee that dealt with the

67
previous Finance Bill. Although we have increased the number and extended the time as far as we reasonably can, it is still beyond their wit and competence to introduce a single amendment for the first stage of the Committee tomorrow on the Floor of the House, which will deal with the windfall tax. We have agreed with the Opposition on what the issues should be. We even agreed to have a later Committee stage, to give them time to get their act together.
The Tories on the Standing Committee should therefore knuckle down, put in the work and stop whingeing. Above all, they should start to get a grip of the Bill that they want to scrutinise. We had no choice but to impose a guillotine motion, to ensure that the Bill is passed before the summer recess.
The Opposition say that they are worried that interested bodies will not have an adequate chance to comment on the Budget. We welcome their scrutiny, which is why we published the Bill in draft before its formal publication. We provided that amendments could be tabled from Monday evening, even before Second Reading, but still the Opposition have not tabled one that is in order.
The election on 1 May showed decisively that the British people wanted Britain to be set on a new course. The Finance Bill puts our manifesto commitments into practice. It starts to equip our country for the future and it meets the people's priorities. The Opposition should stop trying to re-fight the battles of the election, because the British people have made their choice. We shall not allow the Opposition to obstruct the will of the British people or the people's priorities. The Finance Bill keeps our promises to the British people and stands up for the people's priorities. I commend the timetable motion to the House.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 342, Noes 175.

Division No. 53]

[6.33 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Blears, Ms Hazel

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Blizzard, Bob

Ainger, Nick

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Borrow, David

Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Bradshaw, Ben

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Ashton, Joe

Atkins, Charlotte

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Austin, John

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Banks, Tony

Browne, Desmond (Kilmamock)

Barnes, Harry

Buck, Ms Karen

Barron, Kevin

Burden, Richard

Battle, John

Burgon, Colin

Bayley, Hugh

Butler, Christine

Beard, Nigel

Byers, Stephen

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Bennett, Andrew F

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Benton, Joe

Canavan, Dennis

Best, Harold

Cann, Jamie

Betts, Clive

Caplin, Ivor

Blackman, Liz

Casale, Roger

68

Caton, Martin

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Cawsey, Ian

Godman, Dr Norman A

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Godsiff, Roger

Chaytor, David

Goggins, Paul

Chisholm, Malcolm

Golding, Mrs Llin

Clapham, Michael

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Graham, Thomas

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Grocott, Bruce

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Grogan, John

Clelland, David

Gunnell, John

Clwyd, Ann

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Coaker, Vernon

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Cohen, Harry

Hanson, David

Coleman, Iain (Hammersmith)

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Colman, Tony (Putney)

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Connarty, Michael

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Heppell, John

Cooper, Yvette

Hesford, Stephen

Corbett, Robin

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hill, Keith

Corston, Ms Jean

Hinchliffe, David

Cousins, Jim

Hoey, Kate

Cox, Tom

Home Robertson, John

Cranston, Ross

Hood, Jimmy

Crausby, David

Hoon, Geoffrey

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Hope, Phil

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)

Hoyle, Lindsay

Hurst, Alan

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Hutton, John

Dalyell, Tam

Iddon, Dr Brian

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Illsley, Eric

Darvill, Keith

Ingram, Adam

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Davidson, Ian

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Jamieson, David

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Dawson, Hilton

Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Denham, John

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Dismore, Andrew

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Donohoe, Brian H

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Doran, Frank

Jowell, Ms Tessa

Dowd, Jim

Keeble, Ms Sally

Drown, Ms Julia

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Kemp, Fraser

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Edwards, Huw

Khabra, Piara S

Efford, Clive

Kidney, David

Ellman, Ms Louise

Kilfoyle, Peter

Ennis, Jeff

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Etherington, Bill

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Fatchett, Derek

Kingham, Mrs Tess

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Lawrence, Ms Jackie

Fitzsimons, Loma

Laxton, Bob

Flynn, Paul

Lepper, David

Follett, Barbara

Leslie, Christopher

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Foulkes, George

Linton, Martin

Fyfe, Maria

Livingstone, Ken

Galbraith, Sam

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Galloway, George

Lock, David

Gapes, Mike

Love, Andrew

Gardiner, Barry

McAllion, John

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

McAvoy, Thomas

Gerrard, Neil

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Gibson, Dr Ian

McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

69

McDonagh, Siobhain

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Macdonald, Calum

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

McDonnell, John

Ryan, Ms Joan

McIsaac, Shona

Sawford, Phil

Mackinlay, Andrew

Sedgemore, Brian

McLeish, Henry

Sheerman, Barry

McNulty, Tony

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

MacShane, Denis

Shipley, Ms Debra

Mactaggart, Fiona

Short, Rt Hon Clare

McWalter, Tony

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Singh, Marsha

Mallaber, Judy

Skinner, Dennis

Mandelson, Peter

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Maxton, John

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Smitn, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Meale, Alan

Snape, Peter

Michael, Alun

Soley, Clive

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Spellar, John

Milburn, Alan

Squire, Ms Rachel

Miller, Andrew

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Mitchell, Austin

Steinberg, Gerry

Moffatt, Laura

Stevenson, George

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

Stoate, Dr Howard

Morley, Elliot

Stott, Roger

Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Mountford, Kali

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

Mudie, George

Stringer, Graham

Mullin, Chris

Stuart, Ms Gisela (Edgbaston)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Norris, Dan

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Thomss, Gareth (Clwyd W)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

O'Hara, Edward

Timms, Stephen

Olner, Bill

Tipping, Paddy

O'Neill, Martin

Todd, Mark

Organ, Mrs Diana

Touhig, Don

Osborne, Mrs Sandra

Trickett, Jon

Pearson, Ian

Truswell, Paul

Pendry, Tom

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Perham, Ms Linda

Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

Pickthall, Colin

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Pike, Peter L

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Plaskitt, James

Vaz, Keith

Pollard, Kerry

Vis, Dr Rudi

Pond, Chris

Walley, Ms Joan

Pope, Greg

Ward, Ms Claire

Pound, Stephen

Watts, David

Powell, Sir Raymond

White, Brian

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Wicks, Malcolm

Primarolo, Dawn

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Purchase, Ken

Quin, Ms Joyce

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Quinn, Lawrie (Scarborough)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Radice, Giles

Wills, Michael

Rapson, Syd

Winnick, David

Raynsford, Nick

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Wise, Audrey

Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

Woolas, Phil

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Worthington, Tony

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Wray, James

Rogers, Allan

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Rooker, Jeff

Wright, Tony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Rooney, Terry

Wyatt, Derek

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Rowlands, Ted

Tellers for the Ayes:

Roy, Frank

Mr. Kevin Hughes and

Ruane, Chris

Mr. John McAllion.

70

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Harvey, Nick

Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)

Hawkins, Nick

Amess, David

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Arbuthnot, James

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Baker, Norman

Horam, John

Ballard, Mrs Jackie

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Bercow, John

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Blunt, Crispin

Hunter, Andrew

Body, Sir Richard

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Boswell, Tim

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Brady, Graham

Brake, Thomas

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Brand, Dr Peter

Keetch, Paul

Brazier, Julian

Key, Robert

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Burns, Simon

Leigh, Edward

Burstow, Paul

Letwin, Oliver

Butterfill, John

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Cable, Dr Vincent

Lidington, David

Cash, William

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Loughton, Tim

Chidgey, David

Luff, Peter

Chope, Christopher

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Clappison, James

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

MacKay, Andrew

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Maclean, Rt Hon David

McLoughlin, Patrick

Collins, Tim

Madel, Sir David

Colvin, Michael

Maginnis, Ken

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Malins, Humfrey

Cran, James

Maples, John

Curry, Rt Hon David

Mates, Michael

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Day, Stephen

May, Mrs Theresa

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Merchant, Piers

Duncan, Alan

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Duncan Smith, Iain

Nicholls, Patrick

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Oaten, Mark

Evans, Nigel

Öpik, Lembit

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Ottaway, Richard

Faber, David

Page, Richard

Fabricant, Michael

Paice, James

Fallon, Michael

Paterson, Owen

Feam, Ronnie

Prior, David

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Foster, Don (Bath)

Rendel, David

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Robathan, Andrew

Fox, Dr Liam

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Fraser, Christopher

Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Gale, Roger

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Garnier, Edward

St Aubyn, Nick

Gibb, Nick

Sanders, Adrian

Gill, Christopher

Sayeed, Jonathan

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Gray, James

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Green, Damian

Soames, Nicholas

Greenway, John

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Grieve, Dominic

Spicer, Sir Michael

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Spring, Richard

Hague, Rt Hon William

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Steen, Anthony

Hammond, Philip

Streeter, Gary

Hancock, Mike

Stunell, Andrew

Harris, Dr Evan

Swayne, Desmond

71

Syms, Robert

Wells, Bowen

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Whittingdale, John

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Willetts, David

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Willis, Phil

Temple-Morris, Peter

Wilshire, David

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Tredinnick, David

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Trend, Michael

Woodward, Shaun

Tyler, Paul

Yeo, Tim

Tyrie, Andrew

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Viggers, Peter

Walter, Robert

Tellers for the Noes:

Wardle, Charles

Mr. Oliver Heald and

Waterson, Nigel

Mr. Malcolm Moss.

TABLE

Allotted day

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings

First day

Clause 1

7:00 p.m.

Clause 15

10:00 p.m.

Second day

Clause 17

7:00 p.m.

Clause 19

10:00 p.m.

(3) When the Order of the day is read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, the Speaker shall leave the chair without putting any Question and the House shall resolve itself into a Committee forthwith whether or not notice of an instruction to the Committee has been given; and Standing Order No. 66 (Committee of the whole House on bill) shall not apply.
(4) No Motion shall be made as to the order in which proceedings are to be considered in Committee of the whole House.
(5) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to the proceedings to which this paragraph applies.
Standing Committee
2.—(1) The Standing Committee to which the remainder of the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill not later than 23rd July.
(2) The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.
(3) Proceedings in the Standing Committee on 23rd July may continue until Ten o'clock whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion, the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 24th July.
Report and Third Reading
3.—(1) Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the second of those days.
(2) The Third Reading may be proceeded with at the conclusion of the proceedings on consideration, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the interval between stages of a Bill brought in on Ways and Means resolutions.
Business Committee
4.—(1) For the purposes of Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) paragraph 3 of this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on consideration such part of the allotted days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolution as to the proceedings on consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than 25th July.
(3) Any resolution of the Business Committee may be varied by a further Report of the Committee under Standing Order No. 82, whether before or after the date on which the Committee is to report under this paragraph and whether or not that Resolution has been agreed to by the House.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Finance Bill:—
Committee of the whole House
1.—(1) The proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be completed in two allotted days.
(2) The proceedings to be taken on each of those days shall be as shown in the second column, and shall be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the third column, of the following Table:—
(4) No Motion shall be made as to the order in which proceedings are to be taken on consideration, but the Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations to that order.
Procedure in Standing Committee
5.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee, the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
(2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
(3) No Motion shall be made as to the order in which proceedings are to be considered in the Standing Committee, but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.
Report of proceedings in Committee
6. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill, the Chairman shall report such of the Bill's provisions as were committed (or re-committed) to that Committee to the House without putting any Question.
Dilatory Motions
7. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of proceedings on, the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
Exempted business
8. On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall not apply by virtue of paragraph (a) of that paragraph to any proceedings on the Bill after the conclusion of all the proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day.
Private business
9.—(1) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day.
(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.
Conclusion of proceedings
10. For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, whether before the time so appointed or in pursuance of paragraph (a), the Question that the Clause or Schedule, or the Clause or Schedule as amended, be added to the Bill);

(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or new Schedule, the Chairman or the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
11.—(1) Proceedings under paragraph 10 of this Order shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(2) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock and proceedings to which this Order applies have begun before that time—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
Supplemental orders
12.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced.
(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.
(3) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
Saving
13. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution; or

(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Recommittal
14.—(1). References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.
(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.
Interpretation
15. In this Order—
"allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
"the Bill" means the Finance Bill;
"Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House; and
"Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day

  National Health Service (Private Finance) Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I have to announce that the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has not been selected.
  6.48 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Two weeks ago, I announced the outcome of a review of all the major private finance initiative acute schemes in the national health service. I gave the go-ahead to 14 hospital projects that the Government believe are likely to contribute most to the health care needs of their local communities and proceed most rapidly to an affordable, value-for-money financial close. Those not selected had the right to make representations about the decision and the list cannot be regarded as closed until they have all been considered.
  Prioritisation means that the chosen projects can be expected to reach financial close within the next 18 months. As I have stressed throughout, I shall not hesitate to cancel any contract that fails to deliver on time and on price. However, I am confident that work will be well under way on site by the turn of the decade on each of the pathfinder schemes, which will deliver much needed and long overdue hospitals to communities that have waited too long for them.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Can the Minister say whether any of the trusts responded to the opportunity to make representations within 10 days and, if so, how many and which ones?
  Mr. Milburn: A number of trusts responded and have made representations. Today is the last day for representations to be received. From memory, I believe that eight or nine responded. Perhaps I can give the hon. Gentleman a list later. That was his first question; I hope that it may also be his last, but I am probably over-optimistic about that.
  The fact that both the national health service and the private sector—banks, contractors and builders—have given such a warm welcome to the Government's announcement speaks for itself. The House must recognise that four or five years of indecision and inaction had sapped confidence in the viability of the PFI. The prioritisation process has helped to secure confidence on all sides. I make no apology for taking decisive action to unlock the PFI gridlock in the national health service.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend. I will ask just one question. My hon. Friend will know from the disastrous privatisation of the railways that the taxpayer can come a pretty bad second in any of these
  76
  arrangements, particularly in relation to the health service. We want new hospitals to make up for the neglect, but we must ensure that taxpayers will not pay more in the long run than they would have done otherwise, and for an inferior service. Can my hon. Friend assure me that that aspect has been looked at carefully?
  Mr. Milburn: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. I can give her that assurance. Indeed, no PFI scheme will get the go-ahead unless it can demonstrate improved value for money for the taxpayer as well as meeting real strategic health need in local communities. That is the essence of the private finance initiative. I am very pleased to be able to give my hon. Friend that undertaking.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May I press my hon. Friend a little further on that? It is a very important issue, as my hon. Friend clearly recognises. Will there be a public sector comparator that we can examine for each project so that we can see what the real figures are?
  Mr. Milburn: As my hon. Friend possibly realises, to date much of the process of the PFI has been shrouded in secrecy, which has helped to devalue the currency of the private finance initiative in the national health service. I am happy to give an undertaking that in future the public sector comparator will be published at the appropriate time so that hon. Members and, indeed, local communities can better judge for themselves the content of PFI schemes and make sure that they mean improved value for money for the taxpayer.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I press my hon. Friend once again on that matter? I am pleased to hear those responses, which I am sure will be very reassuring. Of the schemes that are proceeding, can we assume that at some stage—perhaps my hon. Friend can say at what stage—information will surface to show that they are more economic in terms of the public sector comparator?
  Mr. Milburn: That is indeed the case. When the final transactions are concluded on the 14 deals—if 14 there are, bearing in mind the representations—we shall make information publicly available to demonstrate the very point that I have just made: that they do indeed make more economic sense from the point of view of the national health service.
  Mr. Michael Jack: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way so early. He criticised the past four to five years as a period of inactivity due to problems with the private finance initiative. Before the end of the Second Reading debate, will he tell us how many district general hospitals valued at, say, £25 million or above were completed in each of the past five years?
  Mr. Milburn: I will endeavour to provide that information for the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The logical question which follows that asked by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is whether the Minister will also publish the criteria for what in shorthand was called the PFI ability. If we are to have comparators, we also have

  77
  to know whether, for example, value for money is measured over 25 or 50 years and whether to take into account the cost of borrowing and payback; we also need to take into account the certainty of the use of the building and the variability of the demand for a particular service.
  Mr. Milburn: All of those are extremely reasonable points. As I understand it, information has already been placed in the Library. Indeed, I wrote to all hon. Members on both sides of the House acquainting them with the prioritisation exercise, the criteria and the assessments that were undertaken. It has been a very open and very fair process. I shall, of course, endeavour to ensure that appropriate information is made available.
  Perhaps one point about which I can assure the hon. Gentleman and some of my hon. Friends is that the PFI represents a good deal on major acute hospital schemes precisely because it includes not just the building of the hospital but the maintenance over the life of the contract. We all know from experience in our own communities the horrendous maintenance backlog that has built up, particularly during the course of the past 18 years. The PFI offers an opportunity not just to have up-to-date hospitals now but to have up-to-date hospitals in five, 10, 15, 20 and 25 years' time. That will be a real boon for the national health service.
  I make no apology for taking that decisive action, but I realise that it has left some trusts and, indeed, some colleagues very disappointed. I can understand their concerns. Perhaps the most shocking thing that I found during my many meetings with colleagues on both sides of the House in the lead-up to the prioritisation announcement was the evidence that they brought with them of the appalling physical state of their local hospital buildings. Years of neglect have contributed to a considerable backlog of restoration and replacement work. Unless we act now, we shall face a real danger that the 21st-century NHS will be operating out of hospitals built in the 19th century.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall try to limit myself after this to one more intervention.
  The Minister is right. Will he give his Department's estimate of the capital repairs and maintenance backlog? Will he also tell us whether the Government are continuing to sustain the Tory Government's 16 per cent. capital reduction in public funding this year, and what the capital reduction will be next year and the year after?
  Mr. Milburn: From memory, I think that the estimated backlog in repairs, from the Department's point of view, amounts to about £2 billion. We shall consider capital and revenue allocations in the light of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's recent Budget announcement allocating a further £1.2 billion for the national health service. Before the hon. Gentleman gets too smug about this, I note that in the Liberal Democrat manifesto the Liberals were talking about putting an extra £500 million into the national health service. We have already trumped that figure. Indeed, we have doubled it.
  As I have said, unless we act now, we shall face the very real danger that the NHS of the 21st century will be operating out of hospitals built in the 19th century. That is why the Government have acted to get the hospital building programme moving. The announcement that
  78
  I made two weeks ago is just the first wave of new hospitals for the next century. I intend to make a further announcement about the second wave in spring next year. The second wave will be based on assessments made by NHS regional offices of the health service need for large capital development projects in their areas.
  In other words, in future it will no longer be the whims of the market that drive hospital building; it will be the needs of patients. No more, no less. As the party that created the national health service and, indeed, first advocated public-private partnerships to improve investment in public services, it is our duty to make the PFI deliver the goods for the benefit of all patients. Now that we have a sensible number of projects in play, we must ensure that they reach financial close without too much delay. That is the purpose of the Bill.
  The Bill makes it clear that NHS trusts have the power to enter into PFI contracts so that the financial community can have the confidence that it needs to provide funding for the most advanced hospital development projects. The Bill should also be seen as another important step in our programme to develop new forms of public-private partnership, of which the PFI is one model. The NHS needs high-quality facilities to deliver world-class services. The PFI undoubtedly has the potential to provide those facilities, but despite all the promises of jam tomorrow, not one major hospital has been built through the PFI since the initiative was first launched in 1992.
  In theory, under the PFI the public sector does not pay to build a hospital; it pays for the delivery of a specified service to agreed quality standards. No payment is made until the new facility is ready, and any diminution in service standards can lead to a reduction in payments. So far, so good. Unfortunately, however, the PFI in the NHS has never left the drawing board. Some small schemes have been brought to fruition—car parks, accommodation blocks and so on—but the urgently needed major hospital building programme has been stopped dead in its tracks.
  Mr. George Stevenson: I am concerned about the interface between smaller and larger schemes. I am sure that most of us welcome my hon. Friend's initiative, but can he give us some assurances about smaller schemes, which are as important to the community as larger schemes? A smaller scheme in my constituency of £1 million has been held up over the past four years. It is in the hands of the West Midlands regional executive committee. No progress has been made.
  Mr. Milburn: I shall be announcing in due course what progress we intend to make with smaller schemes. If the scheme to which my hon. Friend refers involves less than £1 million, it is within the powers of the individual trust to make progress with it. If it is not doing so, I suggest that he takes up the issue with the local trust management. If my hon. Friend wishes, I shall be happy to look into the issue that he has raised.
  Smaller schemes have not been the problem, but little initiative has been forthcoming to provide for urgently needed major hospitals. Time has been wasted in wrestling with apparently insurmountable problems, and £30 million that might have been better spent on direct patient care has been used by NHS trusts on legal, financial and other consultancy fees without one major

  79
  contract being secured. There is always a steep learning curve when initiatives are introduced and tested, and it costs money to obtain expert help. In reality, however, the record of the past few years has been appalling. To expend such a level of public money without one positive result is an unenviable record.
  Mr. Chris Pond: My constituents and my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) will be emphasising the fact that they have waited for years, notwithstanding promises, for a new district hospital. It is only now that the initiative is being put into place. One of the difficulties, as my hon. Friend will accept, is that in such lengthy processes, and despite all the expenditure on consultants, we may end up with hospitals that may not fully meet the needs of the districts that they are designed to serve.
  In the health district within my constituency there are about 500 beds. Every general practitioner in the district considers that provision to be inadequate. With the PFI project negotiated by my hon. Friend's predecessors, who tried to rush the contract through, the proposal amounts to only 400 beds. In the longer term, shall we see measures to ensure that contracts meet the health needs of the districts in which they are to operate? I ask that question while very much welcoming the PFI proposal for Dartford and Gravesham.
  Mr. Milburn: I know that my hon. Friend is an advocate of the proposed new hospital in his constituency. He has been lobbying consistently for progress to be made. I would expect that all health authorities would continue to ensure that PFI projects in their areas, once under way, met local health service requirements. I would expect especially that in the annual contracting round the issue of the number of NHS beds available in any hospital, whether publicly funded or funded through the PFI, would be properly taken into account when commissioners were reaching financial agreements with providers of services.
  Mr. Simon Hughes rose
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene again. I have given him a couple of cracks of the whip already and I know that he will make a long speech. He has also tabled a large number of amendments. I therefore ask him to hold his horses for a moment or two.
  The Government draw no pleasure from the fact that the previous Administration were unable to make the PFI work in the NHS. The real losers—those who suffered most—were the patients in need of treatment and the doctors, nurses and other health professionals who had to work in inadequate facilities. They are why we gave our manifesto commitment to overcome the problems that have plagued the PFI in health, and we are honouring that commitment.
  My hon. Friend the Paymaster General commissioned a rapid review of the PFI across Government, and he has accepted all the recommendations contained in Malcolm Bates's report. My hon. Friend has already announced the creation of a new Treasury private finance task force, which will focus on the quality of PFI transactions. Its
  80
  tasks will include helping central Government Departments and agencies to road-test significant projects for commercial viability before procurement begins. My Department looks forward to working with the task force to deliver real improvements to the NHS-PFI programme in future.
  To complement that work, we are undertaking an overall review of the workings of the PFI in health. We are committed to end delays, to sort out confusion and to develop new forms of public-private partnership that work better and protect the interests of the NHS. The review will help us to secure the market, improve the process and develop the project. We shall be listening to the views of both public and private sectors. The objective will be to identify how to make the best use of skills and expertise from both sectors for the benefit of patients.
  The proposed legislation before us will remove the most significant obstacle in the way of pathfinding schemes. There is no lack of support or interest in the financial community for the PFI in health. Banks are concerned, however, that there is some doubt about whether NHS trusts can enter into PFI contracts. Our legal advice is that the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, which sets out trust powers, provides the power for entry into PFI contracts. At the same time, the PFI is obviously not explicitly referred to in the 1990 Act. Banks remain concerned that they may not be able to recover their money if, at some stage in the future, PFI contracts are found to be ultra vires for the trust. The banks have been chastened by their problems in other sectors and are unwilling to take what they perceive to be an excessive and unnecessary risk without further legislative cover. The possibility of a statutory instrument has already been explored, but it is clear that that would not resolve their concerns.
  In those circumstances, primary legislation is necessary, and the Bill removes any doubt about the power of an NHS trust to enter into contracts under the PFI. The banks concerned with the leading projects, including the one in Dartford, have seen and agreed the wording of the Bill. They have made it clear that the wording satisfies all their outstanding concerns. As a result, they will be prepared to lend into the leading schemes once the Bill is enacted. We believe that the legislation will also provide security and confidence to enable successor schemes to reach financial close without hindrance.
  Clause 1 provides that the powers of an NHS trust include the ability to enter into agreements certified by the Secretary of State as externally financed development agreements, and specifies the circumstances in which the Secretary of State may give a certificate to that effect. In practice, we expect all but the very lowest value contracts to be certified. Individual trusts have thresholds below which they can approve schemes without reference to the Secretary of State. There are three different levels of threshold, which are set in relation to the turnover of the trust. Rather than state an absolute de minimis limit for certification, we propose that contracts whose value is below the trust's delegated limit will not be certified. We shall make that requirement clear in guidance.
  Clause 1(6) of the Bill makes it clear that the validity of such contracts—indeed, any contracts made by NHS trusts in the past, now or in the future—will in no way be affected by the lack of a certificate: they will stand or fall

  81
  on their merits. We know from experience that there has largely been no problem in funding smaller schemes; it is the major, acute schemes that have encountered problems.
  Clause 2 allows any corresponding provision made by Order in Council in respect of Northern Ireland to be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
  It will be apparent from the brevity of the Bill that this legislation is straightforward and uncomplicated.
  Mr. Simon Hughes rose
  Mr. Milburn: I know that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) does not think so, but he must wait his turn.
  The Bill fulfils a manifesto commitment, and its purpose is transparent: to remove any doubt about the power of an NHS trust to enter into contracts under the PFI.
  When the Bill was considered in the other place, a number of amendments were tabled, but were subsequently withdrawn following clarification by my noble Friend Baroness Jay of Paddington. One amendment, however, was accepted, as we agreed that it improved the comprehensibility of the Bill without detracting from the achievement of its objective. The amendment substituted a new subsection (6) in clause 1, which broadens the scope of the original subsection. The provision is in much shorter and simpler terms than its predecessor. It was a victory for plain English, and those are few and far between in the House.
  It is fair to say that there was underlying support for the Bill from all quarters, but one issue of contention arose over the question of services in PFI deals. Concern was expressed that clinical services might be included in a PFI deal. That certainly was the case under the previous Administration, but not under this Government: indeed, it is our stated manifesto policy that clinical services are excluded from the PFI.
  However, we have acknowledged that there is a continuing debate about some of the grey areas, especially the definitions of so-called clinical support services, and we have said that that will be addressed as part of the wider review of the PFI in health that is under way. It is obviously essential to consult widely on such a sensitive issue before decisions are made. Any schemes proposed before the review is complete will be considered case by case. Projects will not be allowed to proceed if they transfer to the private sector categories of services that Ministers believe, in the interests of the health service, should be provided directly by NHS bodies.
  By the end of the year, once the review is complete, we shall have a categorical statement of what may or may not be included in the PFI. I do not propose to anticipate the detail of that review, but I am pleased to be able to repeat for the benefit of hon. Members an assurance given by my hon. Friend in the other place that pathology and radiology services will be excluded from the PFI. I know that there will be other services about which hon. Members will want similar assurances, but I believe strongly that the review should be conducted before conclusions are drawn. Our commitments on pathology and radiology are given in response to specific issues that have been raised during the passage of the Bill, and to act as a signpost for the future.
  82
  It is important that in the future the interests of employees are properly taken into account as they, too, are significant stakeholders in the national health service.
  Lest there be any confusion, I should like to take the opportunity to remove any other doubts about the Government's intentions on the NHS. We will renew the health service. We will tackle bureaucracy and we will replace the internal market. We will do that not behind closed doors, but in a constructive and open partnership with all those who care about the service: the patients who use it and the community health councils that represent them, the clinicians who provide the service, the managers and other staff who support it and the taxpayers who pay for it. Above all, the NHS under this Government will remain a truly national health service, available to all on the basis of clinical need.
  Two weeks ago my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a massive boost to everyone who cares about the NHS by announcing an extra £1.2 billion for patient care. As a result of prioritising major acute schemes, we have also been able to secure the largest new hospital building programme in the history of the NHS. The programme is worth around £1.3 billion. Taken together, those undertakings represent an extra £2.5 billion to take forward the modernisation of the health service.
  It is clear that we are putting the people's priorities first. We are determined to get hospitals built, rather than just talk about them being built. Not one hospital planned under the PFI has yet got off the drawing board. I am determined to put that right. By enacting this legislation, we shall be able to start constructing the new facilities that the NHS so badly needs. We gave a manifesto commitment to sort out the mess in which the PFI had been left, and we are delivering on that commitment. This is a practical, essential and simple measure and I commend it to the House.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. John Maples: I must, first, deal with the Minister's imaginative arithmetic. Of the £1.2 billion, only £1 billion is for England. That represents a lower real increase in spending than the increase that the previous Government proposed for this year. During his speech, we discovered that it also includes next year's capital spending. When asked by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) whether public capital would be available for some of those projects, the Minister said that he was considering how much of that £1 billion would be available.
  Mr. Milburn: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House how much his Government had allocated for the national health service next year?
  Mr. Maples: We would have proposed a settlement similar to this year's. As the Minister knows, the figure for this year is £1.6 billion, and it does not include capital spending—almost all of it is for hospital spending. If the Government can match our spending record over the past 18 years, why do they not commit themselves to doing so?
  At Health questions three weeks ago, I invited the Secretary of State to say whether he would match the 3.1 per cent. a year real increase in spending over the past

  83
  18 years, but he declined to do so. He might like to take this opportunity to do so, but I doubt that he will because he knows how difficult that would be. The Government will certainly not match it next year.
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): Would the shadow Secretary of State care to give us the average real increase for the past three years?
  Mr. Maples: I am talking about a long-term average: the Secretary of State keeps referring to long-term plans. He picks three years because four years ago the figure was 5.9 per cent., and he conveniently wants to leave that year out. If he chose four years, the average would be extremely good. We can all play with numbers, and he deliberately picks three years because it leaves out an almost 6 per cent. real increase in spending in the previous year. He refuses to commit the Government, who have had 18 years to think about what they will do with the national health service. He has spent all that time criticising the previous Government, yet he refuses to commit himself to bettering our spending record.
  It is not our intention to oppose the Bill: it is our Bill, and had the election been called 10 days later, it would have been introduced by Conservative Ministers. We intend to try to amend it, and to use those amendments to explore the Government's thinking, because the PFI involves some complex issues. We and many people outside the House want to be clear about what is involved.
  The Minister is clearly an enthusiast of the private finance initiative, but his enthusiasm was not, until recently, shared by many in his party. One must be careful when using the word "hypocrisy" in the House. It certainly does not apply to the Minister, but this is a massive exercise in collective hypocrisy by the Labour party. It says one thing in opposition and does another in government.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and I plan to have a little section high on the menu of health debates entitled "words for eating" to remind Labour Members what they were saying until a few weeks ago.
  Ms Bridget Prentice: Oh no, this is the same speech as the hon. Gentleman made three weeks ago.
  Mr. Maples: No, these are different words for eating. We have a large residue of quotations; we shall mine this seam for some time to come.
  The Financial Times of 11 April referred to the private finance initiative, and we were told that
  "The move marks Labour's final conversion to using the PR in the NHS after years of warning that the government's plans to have the private sector design, build, finance and operate hospitals were merely a front for privatisation."
  When she was shadow Secretary of State for Health, the Secretary of State for Social Security, the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), said—as recently as April last year—
  "The Tories have made NHS hospitals reliant on private finance … a policy strongly opposed by Labour."
  A few weeks earlier, the right hon. Lady had said:
  "The latest scheme for privatising the NHS is the Private Finance Initiative."
  84
  When asked a couple of weeks earlier by the BBC whether she objected to the use of the PFI for building hospitals, the right hon. Lady had replied:
  "Well we certainly do, because under this Government this is a new trick to privatise the health service … they're using the PR as a raft for, a sort of ramp for privatising the NHS."
  All that was said only a few months ago. The right hon. Lady's predecessor, the President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), said:
  "Market testing represents creeping privatisation; as does the PFI."
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: If there were reservations about the PFI—
  Mr. Maples: And there were.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Yes, there should be no doubt that some of us had reservations because of a PFI project that had been approved in 1988, under a Conservative Government. That was the Dartford River Crossing plc project, and the Opposition—as they now are—would do well to consider it. Under privately financed options, the cost was to be £234 million; under publicly financed options, it was to be £180 million. The additional cost arising from the PFI was £54 million. When Labour was elected, it had to find a way of ensuring that penal costs of that nature did not fall on the taxpayer. That is what the Labour Government have done, and that is why the PFI is now so much more acceptable.
  Mr. Maples: The quotations that I have given do not express reservations; they anathematise the whole process, describing it as privatisation of the national health service. The hon. Gentleman should have addressed himself to the point that I was making—but, of course, he is not the only person not to do so.
  As ever when we are mining these seams of words, the Secretary of State for Health features largely. He was on to the subject a long time ago. In 1986, when he was the Opposition's deputy health spokesman, he said—he has, very decently, changed his views since then; I suspect that he held his earlier views until he was given his present job and realised the magnitude of the task in front of him—that a similar proposal was
  "quite unacceptable to the forthcoming Labour Government and that any such arrangements entered into now will be terminated by that Government."
  Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that my letter, from which he has quoted, referred to the PFI. The PFI was invented by the then Government in 1992; the letter was written in 1986. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what my letter was actually about?
  Mr. Maples: The right hon. Gentleman's letter was about a private-public partnership for the building of a psychiatric hospital on the site of the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham. He was anathematising such private-public partnerships. That is not entirely surprising, because we know what the right hon. Gentleman thinks of business men. Only four or five years ago, he described them as
  "stinking, lousy, thieving, incompetent scum".

  85
  Presumably, those are the people whom the right hon. Gentleman is now trying to charm into becoming involved in private-public partnerships.
  Mr. Dobson: May I put the record straight again? If the hon. Gentleman is always going to quote from The Sun, his quotations may not always be accurate. If he looks at other newspapers, he will find that most of that abuse was directed at the Tory Government. To the extent that it was directed at business people, it was directed at millionaires who paid poverty wages. What does the hon. Gentleman call such people?
  Mr. Maples: I think that what the right hon. Gentleman said applied more widely than that. I must say that it is interesting to note how slow he is to catch up with the Labour party's new orthodoxy. I thought that The Sun was now a reliable source of information on political issues. So it has suddenly become unreliable, has it?
  Mr. Charles Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how much money was raised from privatisations and oil revenues during the 18 years of Conservative government? How much of that money was given away in tax handouts and social security benefits to deal with high unemployment, and how much was invested to deal with public needs? Does he not concede that the reason for the PFI is the need to invest in the public sector, because his Government threw away and squandered public resources?
  Mr. Maples: I agree that the PFI is needed for investment in the public sector. That is why the last Conservative Government invented the idea.
  A 1995 Labour party policy document on the NHS, interestingly entitled "Reviewing the NHS"—that seems to be what Labour seems to spend most of its time doing with the NHS—described the PFI as "creeping privatisation", and I must say that we saw a little of that hostility to it on the Government Benches this afternoon. The document does, however, show how far we have come, how soon reality breaks in on a Government, how quickly our policy has become Labour policy, how soon history is rewritten—
  Mr. John Gunnell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maples: No, I would like to make a little progress. I have given way an awful lot.
  The document also shows how far Labour is willing to take the policy. It was described to us as commercialisation of the health service, but it appears that the Secretary of State plans the ultimate in commercialisation, although he may choose to deny it. According to the 9 July issue of BMA News Review, as part of the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the NHS,
  "Supermarkets will be allowed to print the NHS logo on carrier bags under government plans".
  "Expressions of interest" have been invited
  "from Safeway, Kwik Save, Boots"—
  [Interruption.] It is from BMA News Review. I do not know whether it is true, but if it is, we will take no more lectures on commercialisation or privatisation from Labour Members.
  86
  Let me now turn to the policy that is under discussion. Let us look at the Conservative record on that policy. Notwithstanding what the Minister said, it is fair to remind the House that it was invented by a Conservative Government, who had two aims: first, to relieve pressure on public spending, which, as we all know and as the Labour Government are discovering, is infinite and difficult to meet, and to achieve better solutions. Our second purpose, which should not be ignored, was to find local, entrepreneurial, imaginative solutions to local problems, to encourage local trust managers to come up with those solutions, to—if I may use the jargon—let a thousand flowers bloom.
  Mr. Stevenson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maples: No, I will not.
  That was based on the realisation that central planning from the top in Whitehall has not worked in the health service. The man in Richmond house does not know best. He cannot know the best way to run pathology services in Nottingham, and canteens and car parks in Chester; but there is a good chance that local managers in those areas do, and may have some original ideas. There is a possibility of better, more efficient solutions, not just financial but medical.
  Mr. Stevenson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maples: I would like to get this section of my speech out of the way. I have given way an awful lot so far.
  There is a possibility of such novel, imaginative local solutions to problems large and small, from building car parks to building hospitals. The NHS executive guidance published in 1993—shortly after the PFI became an option for the NHS—stated:
  "The additional scope for using private capital in the NHS will mean additional resources for health care. We must aim to use the new arrangements to benefit patients to the greatest extent, either through provision of services to patients or by finding more efficient ways of providing support services."
  It was never a leasing arrangement; it was never just a piece of financial engineering. It was about efficiency and effectiveness in the provision of services.
  Mr. Gunnell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maples: I want to finish this section of my speech.
  An answer to a parliamentary question reveals that, by January this year, 32 PFI schemes worth over £1 million each had been completed and put into operation. By June this year—according to a parliamentary answer given by the Minister himself, obviously referring to the years before he was responsible for policy—61 projects worth over £1 million had full business case approval, to a total value of £800 million, and 151 had outline business case approval, to a total value of nearly £3 billion. Twenty-five PFI schemes for new hospitals had reached preferred bidder stage, five had full business case approval and one had been signed in November 1996.
  When Labour rubbishes our record and talks about five years of indecision, let us remember the truth. This is our policy. It was, I remind the House, introduced in the teeth of Labour opposition. Many projects had already been

  87
  successfully completed, and many more were in the pipeline. The Minister was able to give the go-ahead to 14 projects two weeks ago because we got the projects to that stage. If it were not for us, there would be no private finance initiative and no new hospitals being built in Norwich or Dartford.
  Mr. Gunnell: Would the hon. Gentleman like to comment on the grand announcement made on 29 January last year by the then Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), of a £50 million scheme at St. James's hospital in Leeds? Not surprisingly, the scheme has not been approved as one of the 14 that can go ahead. People at the hospital accept that the scheme cannot go ahead. Despite all the trumpeting, the scheme cannot go ahead. I was told that the hospital would present a better scheme than the one that was announced so grandly. The Conservative Administration's PFI mechanisms were ineffective and did not result in the major developments that they wanted. There was a residual liabilities measure to clear up the mess, but my right hon. Friend the Minister had to introduce another Bill to make it clear that companies should adhere to their agreements.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions should not be speeches.
  Mr. Maples: Hon. Members seem to want to make bits of their speeches in the middle of mine. Perhaps they would do me the courtesy of waiting.
  I have given the figures on our achievements under the PFI. It has been said that there is a steep learning curve for such new approaches. I gather that there were particular and specific problems with the Leeds project. No doubt the hon. Gentleman is making representations to the Minister about it and I am glad that he is able to do that.
  Mr. David Rendel: The hon. Gentleman seems to think that that is a specific case. Will he comment on the Royal Berkshire trust and the priority care trust in Newbury, both of which were ready to go ahead with new hospital buildings before the PFI scheme started? Both were delayed under the PFI scheme and neither has gone ahead. The Royal Berkshire has now decided that it cannot proceed under the private finance initiative.
  Mr. Maples: I do not know the details of that scheme and cannot comment on it. In case it has escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice, perhaps I should tell him that I am the Opposition spokesman on this subject and not the Minister who answers questions about it.
  I am delighted that Labour has converted to the PFI and that 14 schemes will proceed. Of course, two of those were signed by us and several of the others have full business case approval. The Minister spoke about a £1.3 billion scheme, but there is no guarantee that the 12 projects or the two that have been signed for will be built. He spoke about work being under way on them by the end of the decade. Therefore, there is still a period of uncertainty.
  The Minister heralded the hospital building programme as the biggest ever announced, but it is the biggest cancellation of such a programme that has ever been
  88
  announced because 23 schemes were cancelled. The Minister's stance has changed somewhat, because on 10 June he said that schemes that failed to make the list, for whatever reason, would be invited to stop any further work, decline any tenders they had and stand down preferred partners. The projects would then be considered nationally alongside schemes that were competing for limited public sector capital.
  In his announcement, the Minister hinted that successful schemes either would go forward in the second wave of new model PFI projects or would compete for public sector capital. Today, he went further and said that he had invited comments on the projects and was considering specifically whether they could be taken forward in a new wave of PFI projects next year. I shall be delighted if that proves possible. There is no need to stand all these projects down just because they have not made the cut on his first assessment and first decision. If they stand down their proposals and partners and stop work, it will be extremely difficult to get them going again. I am prepared to bet that they would be unlikely to start again and if they are stood down, even temporarily, those 23 places will not get new hospitals under Labour.
  The redevelopment of Walsgrave hospital in Coventry is one of the 23 schemes. It serves my constituency and is an important acute hospital and a regional tertiary referral centre. It is important to us that the project should be allowed to see whether it can reach the criteria.
  Labour's view of the PFI is rather like its view of the management of the health service, and that is where it differs so much from us. Labour sees the health service being run from the top down rather than from the bottom up. It is not interested in local solutions or local entrepreneurship. The advice to those who run trusts is, "Do not bother thinking up original ways to do things because if they do not fit Ministers' concepts of health service need, you can forget it." Matters are dictated by Ministers' views of health service need, which is an appalling way to attempt to motivate local trusts and health authorities. [Interruption.]
  The evidence lies in what the Minister said. He said that matters were prioritised solely on the basis of health service need and that that would be his criterion for the future. That is not the way to motivate local trusts and health authorities to come up with solutions to local problems. Apparently, health service need will be determined in Richmond house and not in Camden, Darlington or Warwick. That is a mistake, but it is symptomatic of the Government's approach.
  The Government plan to scrap the internal market, fundholding and internal competition, and propose to replace them with heavy central planning and some local consensus designed to involve people but which is unlikely to give them any power to go with their responsibility. That is a giant step backwards. It did not work before and it will not work this time. There will be a massive loss of efficiency and effectiveness and reduced cost control, and it will abolish local incentives to try to find different ways of doing things. I am worried that Labour views the initiative as a way of financing buildings and not as a way of seeking new ways to provide services. It sees it as a method of getting round public spending constraints.

  89
  On 10 June, the Minister spoke about concentrating resources on schemes that have high health service need. He intends to abandon the "thousand flowers" approach and adopt an approach in which health service need dictates new capital investment. That confirms my fear.
  Mr. Stevenson: What is wrong with that?
  Mr. Maples: Part of the purpose of the PFI, which we introduced, was to encourage local trusts and health authorities to come up with imaginative local solutions to their problems. If the programme is dictated by the Government's assessment of health service need, that will not happen.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Gunnell rose—
  Mr. Maples: I have already given way to both hon. Members, who made extremely long speeches in the middle of mine. Hon. Members have until 10 o'clock to make speeches.
  It is not necessary to concentrate PFI resources because they are not limited like public sector capital. As I have said, that will not work because it did not work before. That is why we introduced the PFI. There must be incentives for local trusts and managers, and the message to health authorities and trusts from the Government's decision is depressing. It is that the man in Whitehall, in Richmond house, knows best.
  A recent survey by the NHS confederation showed that, unsurprisingly, managers want more autonomy. Some 62 per cent. of them wanted more autonomy to manage local services and about 60 per cent. said that new alliances with the private and voluntary sector should be pursued. The people who manage the NHS are, apparently, to be ignored. Their views are to be of no significance when compared with the assessment of health service need by Ministers and civil servants.
  Over the next two or three years, this issue will be the battleground on the NHS. The Government plan to reimpose central planning and control in place of the local diversity and management that we began to introduce. Management will lose incentives to improve efficiency and control costs and to respond directly to patient need and choice. The health service will lose efficiency and effectiveness, medically and financially, and managers will lose the incentive to manage creatively and respond to local need, which is what they want to do.
  The evidence is on our side. GP fundholders have made improvements to their practices and to the quality of their services. There have been improvements in meeting the patients charter standards and there has been increased efficiency and cost savings. All those matters have improved the response to patient need and the quality and quantity of health care. The Government are adopting methods that did not work in the past and will not work in future. Unless they are prepared to spend much more, fewer patients will be treated, there will be lower capital investment, higher costs, lower responsiveness and longer waiting lists. We shall make those matters the test of their policy because they will not match our record on spending. Their planned reforms will not match our record on efficiency and the outcome will therefore be worse.
  90
  I invite the Minister to reply today or in Committee to two specific questions on the PFI, about which we have tabled amendments. The first is the criteria that will be used. He said that he had published those with his statement on, I think, 3 July, but they were outline and sketchy criteria. We need much more detail to understand and to evaluate how he plans to operate the policy.
  In a speech in early June, the Minister criticised us for not publishing enough information. He said that there would be
  "no attempt to conceal any information",
  and promised, if I may put it like that, to provide as much information as possible. I invite him to do that. It is not just us who want that. Those submitting the schemes and those who monitor and manage the health service would like that information too, so I hope that he will provide it.
  I hope that the Minister will deal with the issue of risk. What are the criteria on risk transfer? If there is no risk transfer, it is simply a leasing operation—just financial engineering. Risk transfer is vital, because without it the process will be the same as borrowing, but more expensive because the Treasury can probably borrow more cheaply than private sector schemes. Problems will be created for the future because the health service will be committed simply to a long stream of payments, rather than such expenditure counting as public sector capital spending.
  There must be some genuine transfer of risk. I am sure that the Minister accepts that. It was mentioned in all the PFI documents, both before and after the election, but we need to know what the criteria are. What are the quantitative hurdles that have to be met? Off-balance-sheet financing has caused much trouble in the private sector and we would not want that to happen in the public sector. Of course, if it did, it would cause problems for future NHS spending.
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has issued a note calling for a 20 per cent. financial risk transfer. Some early Treasury documents called for a 30 per cent. transfer. At the moment, there does not seem to be any clear guideline on that, so I should be grateful if the Minister would deal with it.
  The second subject that I invite the Minister to address is clinical services. He said that he was considering the subject and that he would return to it in the House. The question of what services can be included is important. The greater the service element, the greater the potential for real risk transfer. Paragraph 14 of the Treasury's review, which it commissioned from Malcolm Bates and which was published a few weeks ago, states:
  "Departments should ensure there is a significant level of service content in their transactions, consistent with protection of the public interest.
  Service content is important. Departments should avoid de facto asset procurement. Government's ultimate interest is in the service delivered from an asset not the nature of the asset itself."
  I am sure that the Minister agrees.
  Our approach was a local one. We were prepared to consider a wide range of different arrangements. My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), the previous Secretary of State for Health, made it clear that he was reluctant about clinical services in any way being subjected to privatisation, but he did say that he would consider non-NHS involvement if local clinicians favoured that. The Minister should be prepared to consider as wide a list as possible.

  91
  The Government would have a problem in drawing up a list because technology and medical practice are changing. Some criteria need to be established, although we will have to allow the Government some latitude and ask them to explain each decision. However, they would be making a mistake if they boxed themselves in. I am surprised and disappointed that they have already ruled out X-ray and pathology services.
  There is a danger for the Government—as they would no doubt say there was for us in this—in getting hung up on ideology. The NHS buys in an enormous number of things from the private sector and private sector employees. It buys in all its drugs, all its supplies and quite a lot of waiting-list surgery. An answer to a parliamentary question in January contained a figure that surprised me: expenditure on the purchase of health care from non-NHS providers in England for 1995–96 amounted to £800 million. We are talking about operations and procedures—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) want to intervene? He keeps talking. If he wants to intervene, I will let him, as long as he will then be quiet.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I will intervene. I was saying to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) that, before the election, we had tremendous difficulty getting Conservative Members to talk openly about clinical services being included. Indeed, I remember an interview between Jeremy Paxman and the then Secretary of State for Health, in which Mr. Paxman dragged the words out at the very end of the interview, and the then Secretary of State looked extremely embarrassed. Opposition spokesmen now liberally talk about these matters. It was obvious that they were trying to avoid telling the truth to the electorate before the election.
  Mr. Maples: My right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State said in a 1995 Department of Health press notice that
  "there is no question of clinical staff or clinical support staff being employed by non-NHS employers unless such a change has the agreement of local clinicians."
  The hon. Gentleman is making a phoney point, and he knows it.
  We should not get hung up on ideology, and I mean that in a genuine and constructive spirit of trying to ensure that the PFI achieves its potential. We already buy in an enormous amount from the private sector. I gave the figure of £800 million-worth of health care, not drugs and supplies, being bought in from the non-NHS sector. That was 4 per cent. of hospital and community health service spending in that year, which is not an insignificant amount.
  We should be careful about saying that there is some ideological barrier about clinical support services. There is a possibility of gaining valuable advances in quality and quantity of service by subjecting such services to PFI treatment. Even by that test, the average GP's practice would fail because most of them are small private businesses that have independent contracts with the NHS. GPs' properties are not owned by the NHS and GPs are not employed by it, so do not let us get hung up on definitions because ultimately the only criterion should be what is best for patients.
  92
  Perhaps the best way to run a pathology service in a big city is through one concentrated facility, used by all hospitals, both public and private. If so, why not allow someone to build, finance and run it privately? Some capital spending projects may not qualify for the PFI without some service inclusion. A study by Meara Management Consultancy for the Institute of Health Services Management states:
  "Small schemes, particularly those in the elderly and mental health care fields, may only succeed if clinical services are included in the FM"—
  financial management—
  "package."
  What exactly is Labour's policy? Is there an ideological dimension? Are there some no-go areas, even if local clinicians agree to such a package, or are the Government open to a range of proposals and possibilities? Our amendments are designed to explore that.
  The PFI offers great scope for improving health services without increasing public spending, but if the PFI projects merely replicate what the public sector would have done anyway, a large part of the objective of the policy will have been missed. I urge the Government to reconsider their attitude to local solutions, which they should encourage. They will not gain much advantage if they simply tailor a project that they wanted to do anyway to fit the PFI criteria that they have established. I urge the Minister to meet his high standards of disclosure and in particular to be completely open about risk transfer. Simply rechristening finance leases as PFI projects will lay up huge financial problems for the future.
  The Government are in danger of getting the worst of both worlds: projects that they wanted to do anyway, with no local creative input or incentives, moved off the balance sheet in a temporary trick to reduce public spending and to avoid its controls. If one of our European partners did that in an attempt to meet the Maastricht criteria, we would rightly call it a fudge and that is exactly what it would be. I hope, therefore, that the Government will not allow their ideology to get in the way of optimum solutions, but, given their record so far, I fear the worst.
  7.47 pm
  Dr. Howard Stoate: I am pleased to be called to speak on the Bill as it is important to my constituents. One of the first schemes that will be built, I hope, after the Bill has been passed is that for the Dartford and Gravesham NHS trust. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) has already said, the people of north-west Kent have waited far too long for the hospital. They have waited more than 18 years for it—since the time I became a doctor in the region and almost exactly the period that the Opposition were in Government.
  I am glad that the Secretary of State for Health and his colleagues have been able to find time in the first three months of the Labour Government to enact the Bill because it is so important, particularly for the people of Dartford and Gravesham and all the people throughout the country who are also waiting for their facility to be built. We pledged to make the PFI work and we will.
  The Bill is short and to the point. It does its job of allaying the fears of the people financing PFI projects in the NHS about protection against the failure of NHS trusts. It is the Bill that has been needed to do that.

  93
  The National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Act 1996 served a similar purpose. Under the Conservatives, I suspect that the bankers thought that they needed that legislation because, like many people, they did not wholly believe what the Conservatives were saying about their commitment to the NHS. I am sure that there is much less need under Labour, because everyone knows that we are committed to the national health service, which we founded almost 50 years ago.
  In being short and to the point, the Bill does not address some of the concerns that are being expressed by the medical profession and others about the scope of the private finance initiative in the health service. I know that attempts were made in another place to amend the Bill, but I do not believe that this closely focused piece of legislation is the right means. I want the Bill to complete its passage through Parliament, so that work on new and improved facilities for the people of Dartford and other areas can start on time. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can join me in September to break the ground on this project.
  The concerns cannot be ignored as they go to the heart of our understanding of what our national health service represents. One of the concerns is the nature of the services that will be run by the private partners in a PFI hospital. Of course, it is not a new concern, as services are already passing out of the hands of trusts to be run by private contractors. An attempt was made in another place to exclude clinical services from the scope of those that could be transferred to a private partner. The difficulty is in defining clinical services, as I believe my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench have already found, and which is the subject of tonight's debate.
  The British Medical Association, of which I am a member, has already made a start and included in its definition of clinical services dietetics, physiotherapy, pathology and radiology—which my hon. Friend the Minister has already assured us will not be privatised. We must build on that and I am pleased that the Department is working on producing a definition of clinical services. I trust and hope that there will be wide consultation with the medical profession and with those working in the NHS, as well as with those representing patients.
  Mr. Jack: As a doctor, perhaps the hon. Gentleman could help me—[Laughter.] I always look to the right people for advice. That is why I am asking a question. Does the hon. Gentleman consider haemodialysis a clinical service?
  Dr. Stoate: Yes, I do, and I hope that that will be included in the definition of clinical services as eventually set out by the Government. As I said, it is the subject of discussion and negotiation. No doubt, a full statement will be made at some time in the future. I would certainly include it within clinical services.
  In protecting clinical services, we must not lose sight of the importance of other services to the care of patients in the NHS. Old jokes about leaving hospital in a worse condition than on admission are not funny if the cause is poor cleaning or catering services that have been allowed to decline as a result of cost cutting. Further contracting out of those and other services, if they are not defined as clinical, must involve unions and community health councils to ensure that the interests of staff and patients are recognised.
  94
  Another concern is the involvement of private health care providers in PH consortiums. Initially, the major hospital projects are mainly in the hands of construction companies. That is no bad thing as the construction industry has taken a severe drubbing over the past 18 years and so is now welcoming this boost to their fortunes. Once hospitals are built, will construction companies continue to be interested in the facilities of a hospital for the long term? In the private sector, such expertise lies mainly with private health contractors and providers. There are signs that companies in the United Kingdom and the United States are well aware of that and are looking for opportunities within PH projects.
  I want the best for the NHS, for the best price, and I am not afraid of private sector involvement where that is appropriate—but I do not want a takeover of health care by stealth. I would like the Minister's assurance that interest in PFI projects will not end with approval. I want to know that the Government will take a close look at any changes in PFI consortiums and the ownership of private partners, to ensure that they are for the benefit of the NHS. Trusts must not become secondary purchasers of health care with all the providers in the private sector.
  In the five years since the PFI was introduced by the Conservative Government in 1992, no major hospital building was started. The Labour party made a manifesto commitment to make the PFI work in the NHS, and within our first five months building will start on the new hospital for Dartford and Gravesham. The 50th anniversary next year of the start of the NHS will be a true celebration of a health service available to all, on the basis of need, not ability to pay. I am pleased to support the Bill.
  7.53 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: At 5.28 am today, with the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), I drove the first Bakerloo line train through the tunnel from south bank to north bank, after nine months' closure.
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman will need an early night then.
  Mr. Hughes: That is a good try, but the Minister ain't seen nothing yet.
  This evening, the Government are trying to drive through, in one sitting, the first health service Bill of this Parliament. On behalf of my colleagues, I want to register our severe disapproval of yet another abuse of the powers of government. I believed that the Labour Government would try to conduct their business properly, but they are not. So far, six Bills have had a Second Reading. The Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill was the subject of a guillotine motion, and it was then pushed through on the Floor of the House. The latter action was, arguably, valid because it was a constitutional Bill. We have just debated a guillotine motion on the Finance Bill—not unheard of, but not always necessary. The Plant Varieties Bill went through all its stages in one day. It may not have been a Bill to shake the foundations of the globe, but it raised many important scientific questions. The Firearms (Amendment) Bill was rushed through on the Floor of the House instead of going into Standing Committee. Part of the Education (Schools) Bill has also

  95
  been dealt with on the Floor. That is not the fault of the Minister—I simply say to the Government that it is arrogance and they should not behave that way. The evidence to support why the Government should not behave with such arrogance has come in this debate from the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) and his neighbour the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond), who have raised major concerns about the Bill.
  I am surrounded by a significantly larger number of Liberal Democrat colleagues than I was before the election. One reason why they are here is that the public were extremely sceptical of both the Conservative Government's and the Labour Opposition's positions on the health service, and rightly so. Many of my hon. Friends were, in large measure, elected because we did not believe that a Labour Government would put enough public finance into the NHS, and the proof of the pudding is in what the Chancellor has been telling us ever since election day.
  We take a fundamentally different position from that of the old Government and that of the new, both on the general structure of the NHS and on the Bill. I respect the Minister. We do not believe—and I hope that the Government do not believe—in a top-down health service. However, when he told the House recently that the Government do not intend to recreate regional health authorities, it sounded as though the obvious tier for strategic planning in England, elected and democratically accountable, had been abolished at a stroke.
  We do not support the view of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) on the health service—that we simply let a thousand flowers bloom and allow anybody who thinks he wants a PFI project to dream one up and pop it up to the Government for approval, without any intention of seeing it as part of a strategic planning process. The approach has been proven to be far from right, not least because so few projects have been approved and because a system non-strategically planned—as my hon. Friends the Members for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) and for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) can show—has resulted in many projects in the pipeline never getting through, however strategically important they might have been. There was no prioritisation.
  The Minister has said, and I accept that it is an improvement, that there will be central scrutiny and prioritisation. I hope that over the relatively long summer holiday, when the hon. Gentleman is lying on the beach, he will reflect on his words and realise that it would be far better for him—I hope that he keeps his job for as long as the Government are in office—to have regional strategic planning as that would make his job better and it would be better for the health service. Matters should not be decided only in Richmond house or Whitehall; they should be decided around the country.
  We should not tonight rush through Second Reading, Committee stage, Report and Third Reading. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon said that we have until 10 o'clock. I hate to tell him, but we have until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning. The Minister might wear a bit by then. My hon. Friends are in good spirits and good form and may well keep the Government up for some considerable time yet.
  96
  We want to ask hard questions partly because—as the hon. Member for Gravesham, my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford or I could tell the House—many schemes proposed under the PFI end up as scaled-down versions of what the commissioning authority wanted. The commissioning authority might say that it wants, for example, 500 beds, but it is told that it can have only 300 or 400 beds. In my own local hospital trust—Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospital NHS trust—the PFI scheme failed because the trust was presented with ever smaller proposals, and the trust finally said, "Thank you very much, but we can do it much better ourselves." Projects have therefore returned to the public sector, and the PFI has disappeared from the agenda.
  We have to consider some very serious issues. Regardless of how undemocratic health authorities may still be—even after replacement of Tory nominees by other nominees, and however much they may consult and reach a view that they must provide 500 beds, for example—it will not be much of a planned health service if the private sector ultimately does not deliver what authorities have asked for. There are, therefore, severe doubts not only about the Bill's points of substance but even about some of its practicalities.
  The Order Paper summarises the Liberal Democrats' principal objections to the Bill. The first is that the PFI is clearly one of those financing systems—which can be improved and tempered—that is driven by someone saying, "We think that we can make a profit out of this scheme, but not out of that one." The scheme is driven by commercial profitability—private sector partners do not join it to make a loss—rather than by strategic and locally calculated health need.
  Like me, many hon. Members represent areas that have high levels of health deprivation, morbidity and mortality. The areas that most need the health service, however, are not those that, for self-evident reasons, will provide the biggest returns.
  Mr. Stevenson: I am particularly interested in the local point made by the hon. Gentleman. What does he say about the situation in my area in which a PFI scheme that has had the support of the district health authority, the community health council, the trusts and the local community has been held up for four years? How can that be top-down consultation—surely it must be bottom up? The project has been held up because of the system that the Bill is designed to expedite.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We have tabled an amendment to the Bill to provide consultation with and approval by both the public and the authorities. I do not know the details of the scheme that he mentioned, but he said that such consultation has occurred. Once it has crossed that threshold, the scheme should get off the starting blocks.
  If the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) will bear with me, I will also tell the House how we can better fund schemes in the constituencies of all hon. Members, because the Liberal Democrats have an answer. I am not speaking in the debate only to be critical without providing a constructive option. My right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has said that the Liberal Democrats are "the constructive Opposition", and today we will oppose constructively.

  97
  We must, however, ensure that schemes—regardless of which hon. Member's constituency they are in—are priorities in the larger scheme of things. Perhaps the scheme in the constituency of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South is a very good one, but—in a time of limited health resources, even with private finance—it may not be the most important one in his county, district, borough or region. We must consider that factor. My colleagues and I believe that schemes must pass also the test of being regionally and strategically important before being considered a priority.
  The Minister said that the PH process is the best method of getting money into the health service. My hon. Friends and I disagree with him on that point and think that, if he conducts his review openly and honestly, he, too, will reach a different conclusion. We do not believe that there is evidence to support his conclusion. Until very recently, even those at the Treasury said that they did not believe that the PFI was the best way to accomplish that goal.
  Mr. Milburn: On a point of information for the hon. Gentleman, I said that our PFI review would examine a variety of means of establishing public-private partnerships, of which the PFI is certainly one possibility. We will look beyond the PFI, and we are certainly not wedded to the Tories' version of the PFI. I should make that clear to him now.
  Mr. Hughes: The Minister knows that I welcome that statement. One of the burdens of our case is that there should have been such consideration before the general election. The Labour party should have reached a view on establishing a better scheme. The Liberal Democrats think that a better scheme—I will be honest about it, and it is not a secret, a perfect answer or even terribly original, although I hope that the Government will consider it in their review—would be a capital-funding bank for health service projects, which can be organised both regionally and nationally. Parallel organisations, although in a different context, are regional development agencies.
  The Minister and other hon. Members will know that such a move has been advocated most recently by the King's Fund as a way in which to ensure that one agency provides both public capital funding and private capital funding. Such an agency would be better because everyone would apply at the same time and with the same criteria. We could do away with variable interest rates, and people would not have to operate by different timetables. We would also be able to pool resources by using that method of obtaining private finance. There would be many benefits.
  I will not pretend—as I did not pretend in debates on charging or on rationing in the health service, which will come regardless of what we pretend—that we will be able to manage the health service without private money. We never have and we never will operate the NHS without private money, and the question is only one of how we will do so. Liberal Democrats believe that rather than arranging such finance on a local and ad hoc basis, we should arrange it more strategically, both regionally and nationally.
  Mr. Maples: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there should be some type of bank that contains private and public money, is he aware that all the money spent
  98
  as loans by that bank would be public spending and count as part of the public sector borrowing requirement? How would he get round that?
  Mr. Hughes: No, that consequence would not follow; it is a separate matter. The hon. Gentleman knows enough about the health sector to know that a separate debate is occurring in which the Treasury is very defensive—we all know the score—about what constitutes public sector borrowing. He knows also—because it was his predecessors' idea—that the PFI scheme was his predecessors' method of getting round that problem and that accounting criterion.
  A very odd accountancy fiction—it is no secret; it is the argument—is that spending money on lease payments for health services, like hire-purchase payments on a car, does not constitute public expenditure, whereas buying services or a car outright does constitute public expenditure. No one in the real world believes that there is a difference in the types of payment, because it is all money going from the public purse into a private pocket.
  The former Financial Secretary might believe that there is a difference in leasing. The issue, however, is how we define what is public expenditure and what is not. As he knows, the Treasury's position in that debate is under attack and is no longer generally accepted.
  Mr. Jack: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will first tell the House how accounting financial reporting standard 5 relates to his comments. Secondly, will he tell us, in the mechanism of repaying that private capital as some type of lease payment, where the money will come from? Thirdly, is it not the case that that private money would attract a greater rate of return or interest than the public money that goes with it? Therefore, by definition, that money would be more costly in terms of public expenditure. Perhaps he will deal with those three points.
  Mr. Hughes: I cannot deal with the first point, because I have not a clue about it. I can, however, deal with the second and third points. The first issue—it is not only a health service issue—is how one defines public expenditure. It has to do with the public-private financing of, for example, the railways and public transport. It has to do with whether or not we take capital receipts for housing purposes as public expenditure. The same debate on spending crosses Government Departments. The Treasury has always defended its position that certain things count as public expenditure and others do not.
  When the previous Government were in power, and when the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) was a member of it, they pursued private sector finance because they believed it would not count towards public expenditure totals. I understand why they did it, but I support the current Minister's view that we need to consider afresh whether there are better ways of producing, at low cost to the public purse, the same gearing or ratio of public to private sector investment.
  I cite another obvious example. When the previous Government set about establishing city technology colleges around the country, the theory was that 80 per cent. of the money would come from the private sector and 20 per cent. from the public sector. In broad-brush terms, the reverse happened—20 per cent. came from the private sector and 80 per cent. from the public sector

  99
  because, in the end, it was not seen as a saleable proposition. We have to examine not only what maximises public investment in the health service, at the lowest cost to the taxpayer, but what maximises private investment.
  There are two other substantive reasons why my colleagues and I believe that the Bill is inadequately drafted. It is a bit rich for the Government to proceed as they are, given that in opposition they went hammer and tongs at the Tory Government about the threat of privatising the NHS and, in particular, clinical services. I remember the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who was then the shadow Secretary of State for Health, going on about the privatisation of clinical services during Question Time after Question Time, and seeking assurances that they would not be included.
  If clinical services are not to come under the PFI, they should not be included in the Bill. It is no good the new Government saying they are terribly sorry, they will not include clinical services but they will be left in the Bill. I understand the semantic argument that there is a grey area in respect of back-up services, but whose Bill is it? The answer is that it is a Tory Bill, not a Labour Bill at all. It was taken off the shelf at Richmond house—I saw it there before the election.
  Mr. Milburn: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that he has a solution to this thorny problem, perhaps he will give us a list now of clinical and non-clinical services. Let him give us a list if he thinks it is as easy as that.
  Mr. Hughes: When we deal with the amendments that we have tabled, we shall deal with exactly that matter. It is not an easy issue, but we have provided a definition and included it in an amendment. Our proposal is much better than the Bill as drafted. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that there should be a list, the way to proceed is to draft a Bill that contains a general definition and includes a schedule which we can amend by orders under secondary legislation. He knows that as well as I do. Two categories have already been defined—his colleague in another place mentioned radiology and pathology, which are straightforward. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are not."] My hon. Friends who have dealt with this matter professionally will tell the Minister that they are not that much less straightforward than many other categories.
  The point is that the Government should not introduce their first primary legislation without having thought through its implications. I know that the Minister has not been in opposition for 18 years, although his party has, but the issue has been around for several years; the PFI has been around since 1992. It is no good saying in February, March or April that clinical services must not be privatised, but then coming to the House in July with proposals to include them in the PFI.
  Finally, consultation must be built into the Bill. It may be that there was widespread, local consultation in Dartford, Gravesham or anywhere else. That is very helpful, but there is nothing in the Bill to require it; there is no guarantee. Health authorities are not the most democratic of institutions, and health trust boards certainly are not—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State
  100
  for Health says that they will be. With the greatest respect, as long as their members are appointed by him, they will not be democratic bodies, and with a week's notice to get in the nominations, they certainly will not be. I welcome the idea that we review their membership.
  The Bill should self-evidently not be going through all its stages in one sitting. If we are to have a proper debate on which services are clinical services, the Bill should go into Standing Committee where we can debate it and try to get it right. We are here to get legislation right, not to rush it through to meet a self-imposed Government deadline. When this Parliament began, no date was fixed for the end of term. The Government have control of the agenda, and, as far as anyone can see, they have their own Back Benchers entirely under control, apart from one or two. They therefore have to deliver the answers.
  We are going to probe as hard as we can and remain consistent with the position we have adopted for the past five years, unlike the Government who have done a somersault. The reality, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) made abundantly clear and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil has often made clear to the Prime Minister, is that we are facing not a future in which there will be a great bonanza of funding for the health service, but a future in which capital funding from the public purse will be significantly pared down. If we are to rely on the private sector under a Labour Government, which many Labour supporters think is a bit funny anyway, we want to know what the rules are and that it is done with the public's consent and in the public's best interest.
  On this issue, the Conservative Opposition are not really an Opposition at all. We are the people who are going to tell the Government, as we told their predecessors, that the PFI is not the right way forward. The Government have not thought it through, and it is a pity that they are trying to bulldoze the Bill through the House on a summer's evening, hoping that no one notices. We hope that people will notice and realise that it is a bad way to legislate.
  8.16 pm
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: I have some reservations about the general principles of the Bill, but I must commend the Minister of State, Department of Health, on dealing with a difficult situation carefully and cleverly. The problems that the Bill is designed to tackle present him with a number of difficulties.
  It has not come over loud and clear from the Opposition, but we have a deteriorating national health service infrastructure, which is very much a result of neglect over the past 18 years. Hon. Members present will know what problems that has caused to their constituents. The previous Government's private finance initiative has very apparently been a failure in that, as my hon. Friend the Minister made clear, few schemes have come to fruition.
  One of the difficulties of dealing with the capital infrastructure in the NHS is the way in which the market-based organisational structure of the previous Government—the internal market—has driven wedges between various elements of the NHS. I am also aware that the Minister speaks against a background, which we understand, of extremely limited options for public expenditure and of a radically changing NHS. I shall deal with those points as they manifest themselves in Wakefield.

  101
  The Secretary of State and the Minister are aware that my constituents are in the main served by Pinderfields district general hospital. They may also be aware that a substantial part of that hospital provides care in huts constructed to care for soldiers injured in the second world war, before I was born and, I imagine, before most, if not all, hon. Members here were born. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not all."] Most, I said, not all.
  That situation has a knock-on effect on the operation of the hospital. A hospital with those facilities has difficulties in attracting top-quality staff, who consider the capital arrangements, the buildings and the working conditions before applying for a post. Pinderfields has sometimes been concerned about its inability to attract high-quality consultants.
  The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), who was an Under-Secretary of State for Health under the previous Government, is in his seat. He knows that I have often spoken about how my constituents have been deceived by commitments given by the previous regional health authority under the former Government about the arrangements for the closure of facilities.
  I was particularly angry about the closure of Manygates hospital, in which I and my two children were born. A clear commitment was given to my constituents as part of the public consultation process that that facility would be replaced by a purpose-built maternity facility at Pinderfields hospital. That has never happened. My constituents are rightly aggrieved about having been misled when the community health council and others accepted the closure in the formal process, only to find that the previous Government, through the health authority at district and regional level, did not follow through on the commitment that had been given.
  Pinderfields hospital developed a private finance initiative project that included a new maternity facility, but, for reasons that were no surprise to my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) or me, the proposal was not approved in the list recently published by the Department of Health. It was no surprise, because the project was developed against a background of an organisational shambles in the running of the health service in Wakefield over the past few years under the previous Government. That situation is a direct consequence of the internal market.
  Since the introduction of the internal market, we have had two competing acute trusts serving the east and west of the Wakefield metropolitan district. We have a higher than average level of GP fundholding. The former Under-Secretary will remember the evidence I produced of a clear two-tier system, with patients of fundholders in Wakefield being given priority over those of non-fundholders at one hospital.
  It was proved and accepted by the health authority that that was a logical consequence of the system introduced by the previous Government. The only way in which the health authority could deal with the situation was by moving to total GP fundholding on a locality commissioning basis, which we now have in Wakefield. Since April, we have also had a merged acute trust—the Pinderfields and Pontefract trust.
  I suspect that one reason why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister did not bring forward the Pinderfields PFI project was the uncertainty over the arrangements for future acute hospital
  102
  provision in the Wakefield area. The two trusts were previously based on district general hospitals at either end of the area. PFI schemes were being brought forward for both hospitals. A decision has to be made on what provision will be made and what the new PFI project will be.
  The current review of acute provision, which began after the public consultation process that resulted in the creation of a single trust, is being carried out by Newchurch and Co. I am concerned about the fact that that is the same company that was invited by the previous Government in January 1993 to advise authorities and trusts on the private finance initiative. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look into that.
  Questions could be asked about the objectivity of the company in looking at acute provision, when it has also been given a similar role by the previous Government on the PFI. That may be perfectly honourable, but questions are being asked about whether it is appropriate for the company to be involved in those two areas, which may come into conflict.
  In my area and elsewhere, there is a lack of clarity about the future balance between primary care and hospital care. Probably as a consequence of the move towards fundholding, some huge GP complexes, the size of small cottage hospitals, are being constructed in Wakefield. I know of no strategic debate having taken place about the implications of that for the future construction under the private finance initiative of acute hospital provision.
  One huge complex close to completion on Barnsley road in Wakefield, near where I live, will offer minor surgery, clinical investigations and low-dependency beds. I do not object to a move towards such provision, but when considering a Bill about the PFI, we must think about what capital developments will be needed in years to come. My slight worry about the PFI arrangements is that we may lock ourselves into models that will not be appropriate in even five years.
  The private finance initiative has added to the obvious lack of clear direction resulting from the internal market mess that the previous Government made of the good-quality provision that we have traditionally had in my area. I accept the amendments to the scheme made by my hon. Friend the Minister. I have listened carefully to the differences from the model offered by the previous Government. My perception of the PFI has been as a political never never land.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) pointed out earlier that the revenue implications of the scheme as operated under the previous Government have been unclear. We are not sure what expenditure problems we are building up for future years. I am particularly concerned about that.
  That may be a never never area for national politicians, but it is not for the NHS work force. I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Minister said about the grey area in clinical and non-clinical services. I am concerned that PFI schemes may result in some people being placed in the employment of a private sector employer and finding their conditions of employment far worse.
  I accept that the Minister is reviewing the issue. I should like to put in a plea for those who are regarded as at the bottom end of the clinical team. Hospital cleaners and porters are key people, whom I regard as an integral

  103
  part of the clinical team. My impression is that my hon. Friend understands the need to consider the future employment of people in such positions.
  I vividly recall my first operation in hospital. I will not go into detail, as it was a somewhat delicate operation, the particulars of which could embarrass one or two people here, including me.
  I was all set for the operating theatre, having been given a pre-med, and I was in some distress because I was not looking forward to the operation. The person who gave me most comfort was the lady sweeping the floor. She was prepared to talk to me and to reassure me that the operation would not be as bad as I thought. She turned out to be right. I have not forgotten that that woman took time out to talk to me, despite being under pressure because she was working for a privatised company in an NHS hospital. She made a difference to my experience of hospital.
  We should understand that the cleaners and porters of this world, who are already low-paid, deserve not to be driven further down the scale. I draw great comfort from the fact that I know that is not on my right hon. Friend's agenda. I look forward to the review to which the Minister of State has committed the Government.
  Audrey Wise: Perhaps my hon. Friend will remember that, when he and I were involved in an inquiry into maternity services, great stress was laid by user organisations on the need for absolute cleanliness in maternity wards. In latter years, those organisations, such as the National Childbirth Trust, have had to advise mothers-to-be to take their own cleaning materials into hospital to do their own cleaning immediately after giving birth. That reinforces my hon. Friend's argument about the importance of the function of cleaners, which is valuable in preventing infection.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend has made an important point. She deserves great credit for what came out of that report on maternity services. I vividly remember how members of the Select Committee on Health were told about the consequences of a deterioration in cleanliness, which were judged to be a direct result of compulsory competitive tendering.
  Mr. Dobson: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the terms and conditions of ancillary staff. I am glad to report that, on a visit to Halifax, where the Calderdale PFI is a welcome development, I discovered that the terms and conditions of the ancillary staff are an improvement on those that they had when services were contracted out at the Halifax hospitals.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reassurance. I know that he has taken on board the concerns that I have expressed, as well as those expressed by other hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  I will not detain the House for much longer, although the Liberal Democrats have said that we might be in for a late night, but I have one worry. We have been handed the PFI model by the previous Government. In my constituency, the models governing future delivery are not
  104
  clear because of the increased role of GPs. I do not argue against that, because I do not believe that we have ever properly developed primary care along the lines envisaged by the NHS in 1946. If we are not careful, however, the PFI will lock us into what will soon become old-fashioned models of care. We need to watch carefully for that.
  The delivery of community care had been moving away from the institutional model of care homes and nursing homes. As a result of 18 years of Conservative government, however, it is sad to note that the institutional model, which was outdated when the Conservatives came to power, has been re-established.
  If one considers the huge building programme for care homes and nursing homes it is clear that we are moving in the opposite direction to that taken by the majority of other European countries. That backward step is a direct consequence of handing the provision of that care to private companies. They have invested in the easiest form of provision—bricks and mortar—rather than in real care within the community.
  Dr. Peter Brand: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what has happened in community care is a direct consequence of the private sector dictating how things should be provided rather than the community deciding?
  Mr. Hinchliffe: The hon. Gentleman has understood my point. I am not necessarily saying that there are no good models in the private sector. I accept that there are some excellent models, with regard to community care, for example, in telecommunications and the ability to contact people in their homes.
  I am concerned, however, that, by handing over community care to the private sector, we have taken a significant step backwards, particularly in relation to the care of the elderly. We could do better. I hope that the Secretary of State will understand my concern that the PFI could lock us into old-fashioned models that could be overtaken by far better alternatives, which are on the horizon.
  The Minister of State, who knows Wakefield well, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have listened to my concerns, and I am grateful for the reassurance that my right hon. Friend has given me. I hope that the Minister will respond to one or two of the other points that I have raised.
  8.35 pm
  Mr. John MacGregor: I support the Bill, and welcome the late conversion of the Labour party to the PFI concept in the NHS. I never cease to be fascinated when I hear members of the Labour Front Bench extolling the virtues of privatisation and the PFI, because I recollect from the past 18 years how often they were opposed to both. I am pleased to see their late conversion, because it shows that we won the argument.
  I support the Bill principally because of its effect on the Norfolk and Norwich hospital in my constituency. As the Minister of State knows, it will be one of the first large acute hospital PFI projects, and I hope that it will start shortly. It will undoubtedly be one of the most expensive, and will provide 21st-century, state-of-the-art hospital facilities for my constituents and for people throughout Norfolk.

  105
  I support two points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), which were doubted by the Minister. First, he referred to the expenditure allocated in the Budget to the NHS next year. It simply is no good to argue that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), the previous Chancellor, allocated less for next year according to his three-year expenditure programme. My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that my right hon. and learned Friend allocated for this year, 1997–98, a bigger increase for the health service than the current Chancellor has allocated for next year.
  The reason for that is quite simple, as the Minister of State knows perfectly well, because the allocation for the year ahead is frequently increased in the current expenditure round as one moves into the final year and takes something from the reserves. All that the current Chancellor has done is bring forward to now rather than November the announcement of next year's public expenditure increases, and taken those increases out of the reserves. It is therefore absolutely comparable with what my right hon. and learned Friend did in November. The facts are clear. The previous Government provided for a bigger increase for this year than the current Government have provided for next year. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
  Secondly, my hon. Friend was also right to say that this is a Tory Bill, which, of course, is one reason for my support. It would undoubtedly have been brought before the House if it had been possible to hold the election a little later. I am sure the Minister knows that to be exactly the case, because, as he almost said in his opening speech, the Bill is intended to remove any doubts.
  I agree. The 1996 legislation gave the banking consortiums that intended to help finance the PFI the assurances they sought. I am informed that the Norfolk and Norwich project would have gone ahead, and the Octagon partnership was quite content with assurances of that legislation, until one of the banks involved in the Dartford hospital project raised certain doubts. The Minister of State's legal advice was probably perfectly correct, but in order to provide the belt and braces that one of the banks involved in the Dartford hospital project appears to want, the Bill has had to be introduced. When it was seen that one of the banks involved in the hospital project had raised doubts, those involved in other projects also wanted the safety of belt and braces.
  That is why I support the project. I know that there were discussions, because I was heavily involved in them before the election. The Norfolk and Norwich project was the up-and-coming project. I know that there was cross-party agreement on it.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Clearly, the Bill and the project need bankers to support them. The right hon. Gentleman may be about to deal with the issue, but can he tell us whether he believes that the community should also support PFI projects? If so, how does he reconcile his position with the overwhelming view of the elected authority in Norwich, which does not support the project?
  Mr. MacGregor: I do not know which authority the hon. Gentleman means. Does he mean the Norwich Labour-controlled city council? If so, I am coming to that subject later. I do not agree with the council. I have
  106
  consistently said that I support the project in my constituency. I certainly support the PH approach. We had almost achieved our ends—in fact, I think that we would have done so, were it not for the doubt raised by one of the banks in relation to the Dartford project.
  This is a simple Bill that deals with a straightforward point in the correct way, as it would have done before the election. That is why I hope that it will be passed quickly.
  I have, for a long time—since the mid-1980s—been heavily involved in trying to get the Norfolk and Norwich hospital to its present state. There are a number of reasons for the delay. The issue that we are addressing tonight—the clarification of the legal powers in the Bill—was not one of the causes of the delay. There are three main reasons. The first involved the inevitable complexities and legal problems of putting land together and of reaching agreement among all the parties to bring the project to reality.
  The second reason involved the framing of the PFI template. As the Minister correctly said, it was one of the biggest projects, and putting it together was a complex business. The Minister spoke of a steep learning curve, and I agree. As a result of that work, we shall have a template that will make it much easier for other PFI projects to go ahead more quickly—many of the details and problems have been thrashed out. I pay tribute to the chairman of the Norfolk and Norwich health trust, Michael Falcon, and its chief executive, Malcolm Stamp, for all the work they have done in getting the project to this point.
  The third reason—this answers the question posed by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—is the one which, above all others, caused the delay, and it has nothing to do with the PH. There have been endless arguments over the siting of the hospital. I originally opposed the idea of the hospital coming to Colney in my constituency. I believed that Hellesdon—the site being proposed in the early 1980s—was the right one.
  The main reason why I was anxious for the hospital to be located in Hellesdon was that the project was in an advanced state of development, and I could foresee a delay of 10 years if, at a very late stage, a decision was taken to change the site of the hospital; but that is what happened. The decision was taken, not least because of pressure from the consultants, to change the site of the hospital, which has led to a 10-year delay.
  The arguments about the siting of the hospital have continued. Ever since the decision was taken to move from Hellesdon to Colney, I have been wholly in support of the Colney project. There have been some issues to sort out, but they have nearly all been resolved. The only remaining issues involve access and whether the road structure is adequate to deal with what will undoubtedly be an expanding hospital.
  Curiously, the delay has brought two benefits. First, we have able to get a more modern hospital than we would have had 10 years ago; we have been able to take advantage of the advances in medical science and organisation. Secondly, the site has been located to the Norwich research park, which will enable the hospital and the research institutions to do a great deal of work on medical research and development that might not otherwise have taken place so easily. Therefore, the delay has brought some benefits.
  The argument seems to be continuing, not least in Norwich city council and among certain people in Norwich. They argue for returning to the site in the

  107
  centre of Norwich where the present hospital is located. I am convinced that that would lead to another delay of at least 10 years before the people of Norwich and Norfolk got their new hospital. That is why I have been so strongly opposed to having the hospital in the centre of Norwich. There are other arguments: the majority of people using the hospital would find it much more difficult to gain access to the hospital there than if it were located at the new site at Colney.
  Some groups are still exerting pressure. I am glad to see that the two Norwich Labour Members of Parliament seem to have come round to the view that the hospital should be at Colney. But, even today, some groups in Norwich are arguing against the Colney site. In a letter in today's Eastern Daily Press, the secretary of the Keep Our Hospital in Norwich Group mentioned a meeting that the group had just had with officials in the Department of Health. The letter concludes:
  "The officials appeared genuinely interested in the Keep Our Hospital in Norwich alternative and have gone away to evaluate its financial cost compared with that of Colney."
  I know that the Minister has been extremely helpful in considering the matter of the site. He has been extremely fair, and has quickly brought himself up to speed on the matter. He has been supportive of the idea that the hospital must be at Colney. I am certain that we would not see the hospital in many people's lifetime were it to be moved back to the centre of Norwich. The Minister has been robust on the issue and I ask him to continue to be so.
  Once the Bill has been passed—which I hope will happen tonight, and which will clear up any doubts about the financing—work can finally commence on the site within a matter of months, if not weeks. That can happen provided that the Minister sticks to his position. That is why, above all, I support the Bill tonight.
  8.46 pm
  Mr. Charles Clarke: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in the debate. I am glad to follow the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor). I shall later comment on the aspects of Norwich to which he referred.
  I support the Bill as a whole, principally because it is the most effective and practical way of getting hospitals built. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister of State on his determination to ensure that the problems of inadequate hospital buildings that exist up and down the country are solved by the Government as rapidly as possible.
  I think that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) was being a little disingenuous; he omitted to mention the massive sell-offs and the massive squandering of the oil revenues during the Conservative years. In contrast to what happened in other European countries, that money was not spent on health or education, but was simply frittered away. It was those Conservative actions that led to the need for us to look at propositions such as the PFI in order to raise funds.
  I also support the Bill because it encourages public-private partnerships. Many areas of management of the public sector gain from such a partnership, and the Bill will encourage that approach.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Given what the hon. Gentleman has said about spending on health during the Tory years,
  108
  I take it that he will expect his Government to spend at least as much per year in real terms as the Tories did, over each year of this Government. I am talking about public expenditure, not about extra private finance.
  Mr. Clarke: That is what I hope. That is the answer as given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I, too, share that hope. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House hope that we shall achieve the growth and success that will allow far higher investment in the public sector, not just in health, but in education.
  I wish to address two specific issues. The first involves the process of the PFI itself. It is critical that the process is open and democratically accountable and that people can feel that they are part of, and understand, it. Although there are issues of commercial confidentiality in any private finance deal and although there is some confusion about whether the problem has to do with openness in NHS decision-taking structures—which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is trying to address—or with openness in the PFI process itself, it is absolutely essential that we support what my hon. Friend the Minister of State said in an earlier debate, that
  "It is the people's national health service".—[Official Report, 15 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 272.]
  The people have the right to know what is being done in their name and with their money. I hope that the review to which the Minister of State referred will set up new processes that fully reflect that aim and require genuine openness and public consultation, so that people will feel that the new developments are for them. Those are not simply internal NHS processes, although the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) relating to working conditions are critically important; community commitment to the developments is also a factor. Although not a major theme in the debate, there are questions to be asked about how effectively some community health councils are representing the communities that they serve.
  I want to draw attention to the need to take into account environmental considerations. That is important in the context of the PFI, because some developers have told me that they would greatly prefer to develop on green-field sites rather than in city centres. There are serious environmental issues that must be considered. The current NHS process looks at the environment for patients, staff and visitors, but not for the wider community; nor is it simply a matter of formal planning approval. The new PFI processes should ensure that a full-scale environmental impact assessment of a new hospital or health development is carried out.
  Environmental impact must be a major factor in making choices, and to illustrate that point, I refer to two parliamentary questions that I asked recently. When I asked my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence
  "what guidance his Department currently applies in ensuring that full account is taken of the environmental impact of its new building programmes",
  he answered:
  "My Department carries out an environmental assessment on all new buildings likely to generate environmental effects. The environmental assessment is included in the formal consultations with the local planning authority as part of the planning process."—[Official Report, 19 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 264.]

  109
  However, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health, accurately reflecting the policies that he inherited, had to answer:
  "Policy on environmental issues is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which produces guidance for local authorities to use when considering planning applications by NHS Trusts for new building projects."
  He went on to say:
  "NHS Estates, an Executive Agency of the Department of Health has issued 'A strategic guide to environmental policy for General Managers and Chief Executives'—[Official Report, 26 June 1997: Vol. 296, c. 621.]
  What the Ministry of Defence can do, the Department of Health should be able to do. It must be recognised that all these developments have major local environmental implications, and full weight should be given to such factors when making a decision. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State can give full consideration to both those aspects—openness and accountability and environmental impact—and offer the House the necessary assurances on both matters.
  My second theme is the issue of the Norwich hospital. For the reasons stated by the right hon. Member for South Norfolk, the Norfolk and Norwich hospital is the most expensive of all the projects either agreed or approved by the Department. The new site was located in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency until boundary changes placed it in my constituency of Norwich, South, along with the Norwich research park and the John Innes centre—a net gain to me and a net loss to him over which we can wrangle in future.
  Like the right hon. Gentleman, I emphasise that most people in Norwich believe that the new hospital should be in Norwich. However, because of the problems that I have just outlined, many in my constituency—obviously, I cannot speak more widely than that—did not believe that the chosen site was the right one, because the PFI process that the previous Government went through was flawed: it was not properly open and did not take account of environmental factors. I do not say that the procedures were not followed—I am sure that they were—but it was not a correct process, which is why my constituents welcome the decision of my hon. Friend the Minister of State to review the whole process.
  The right hon. Member for South Norfolk says that the delays to the PFI project were entirely due to petty political squabbling between the local councils, both Labour and Liberal Democrat, but that is not a sustainable position. The fact is that the process lacked clarity—the question whether the new hospital was to be the second or the first Norwich hospital and a whole series of other issues led to disputes within and between political parties. There is little to be gained from going into the history of the dispute and, with respect to the right hon. Gentleman, it diminishes the force of the rest of his argument to suggest that party political arguments were the most serious problem.
  In the light of those failures under the Tories, I want to take the opportunity of this debate to ask my hon. Friend the Minister to do everything in his power to ensure, first, that the new Norwich hospital has proper transport and good access. The right hon. Member for South Norfolk referred to that issue, which is of great concern to local people, especially elderly people, and it must be sorted out. Secondly, I ask my hon. Friend to ensure that bed
  110
  numbers are kept under constant review, as there are serious doubts in Norwich as to whether the bed numbers planned for the new hospital will be adequate. Thirdly, constructive uses must be found for the sites of the hospitals that are to be closed—the Department owns the sites, so its attitude is extremely important. Fourthly, there must be proper primary care—including accident and emergency care—available in the city of Norwich.
  I hope that my hon. Friend can offer assurances on those matters, so that the benefits of the new health care PFI process, which I strongly support and for which the Bill provides a legal foundation, can be felt by the people of Norwich in their entirety.
  8.56 pm
  Mr. John Horam: It is a rare pleasure, in a House with such a large Labour majority, to speak in support of a Tory Bill.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: There may be more.
  Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman is right; there may be more conversions along the road, as reality seeps in on this new Labour Government.
  It is also a pleasure to speak in favour of a Bill with which I was personally associated. It is almost word for word what the previous Government would have passed, perhaps with Labour help, if the general election had been called even a week later than it was.
  I am delighted that the Government have adopted our Bill so fully. I note what the Minister of State said about one small change for the sake of clearer English, and I wholly support that; if more Bills were written in clearer English, the House would be delighted.
  I must even disagree profoundly with the contention of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—who is looking at me with fond affection from the second row—that the Government are not right to push the Bill through in an evening. I think that they are absolutely right to do so.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman would think that.
  Mr. Horam: Although it prevents me watching on television the last night of the Royal Opera house, Covent Garden, which I very much regret, it is sensible for the Bill to complete all its stages in one evening, because it is the type of simple Bill, with all-party support, broadly speaking, which should be pushed through quickly. It is totally different from the Finance Bill, which my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench rightly made a lot of fuss about earlier. The Bill is needed—[Interruption.] I have provoked an intervention. I knew that I should never have departed from the path. The Bill is simple, clear and has broad all-party support, so it should pass quickly.
  Mr. Hughes: If, as the former Minister rightly says, the Bill was on the shelf when he left the Department of Health, why did not the Government introduce it weeks ago, instead of waiting for the last few days before the summer recess and then being obliged to rush it through the House? He must agree that there would have been a better way.
  Mr. Horam: There it is; harmony has been restored. I have no doubt that the Government could have passed the Bill more quickly and with greater scrutiny if they had so wished, but they did not do so.

  111
  This support may be unwelcome to the Government. Let me point out that the reason for the Bill is Labour's habitual financial incontinence. The banks have gradually become extremely suspicious about lending to organisations that are not wholly part of central Government—local authorities, trusts or whatever. They have become suspicious, because there is a long history of the usual improvident loony Labour councils getting into financial difficulties and trying to borrow money at great length from City bankers and so on.
  One thinks especially of the swap arrangements entered into by the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham—an incident that is embedded in the memory of all City bankers because, in the end, the court decided that it was ultra vires for the borough to engage in such practices. That was another example of an improvident loony Labour council doing things that were crackers, causing the City to become very leery of lending to bona fide organisations such as health trusts and local authorities, because it could no longer trust Labour. I believe that it is now discovering that it can no longer trust Labour in national Government, never mind local government, as a result of the events of the past few weeks, but that is a party political point.
  There is another reason why I am glad that the Bill has been introduced. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) said, it is, we hope, the final full conversion of the Labour party to the private finance initiative process. As has been said, for many years Labour opposed the PFI, and those of us who were Health Ministers in the previous Government remember a constant stream of shadow Health Ministers—I hope that Labour has a better record in government than in opposition—inveighing against the PFI process as creeping privatisation, totally unacceptable, ideologically unsound and so on.
  I hope that the Minister of State, who has persuaded the Government that the PFI is sensible, can bring the trade unions with him. The House will remember the Unison advertisement—in the Manchester Evening News, I believe—which said that the PFI was so unacceptable that it was the worst thing to happen to the national health service since 1947. The advertisement appeared in connection with the South Manchester University Hospitals NHS trust scheme—one of the 14 schemes that the Minister of State has prioritised. I hope, therefore, that the Government will bring the trade unions with them.
  When we were in government and the Opposition were opposing our proposals, we had to put up with the criticism that the implementation of the PFI was a mess and that it was going too slowly. Astonishingly and amusingly, within weeks of a Labour Government being elected, two huge schemes are given the go-ahead. How could that have happened if all the underlying work had not been thoroughly done? Within a few weeks of that, another dozen schemes are out into the open, which can proceed within the next 18 months. That could not have happened if all the groundwork had not been done.
  The Minister of State has walked into a rich inheritance. When he opened the doors of Richmond house, he could not have conceived that such a cornucopia of schemes was waiting for him to pick up and advance. Indeed, as Lord Jenkin of Roding said in another place, Labour took
  112
  over at an extremely fortunate moment in the history of the private finance initiative, and I am interested to see that the Government are advancing it.
  I shall risk another intervention from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey by saying that we are used to the Liberal Democrats taking credit for things that other people do. Hon. Members will know those little leaflets that come through letter-boxes when a Labour council has done something and the Liberal Democrats claim credit for it, or when a Conservative council does something and the Liberal Democrats are very sharp to claim credit for it immediately. They may have voted against it in some cases—
  Dr. Brand: We deliver leaflets.
  Mr. Horam: Yes, the Liberal Democrats do deliver leaflets. They endlessly deliver leaflets. They do not canvass, but they deliver leaflets.
  Even by comparison with the Liberal Democrats, who have a tendency to take credit for things that they have not done, the Minister's announcement the other day was astonishing. However, as has been said, it was not an announcement of progress on schemes, but a cancellation announcement. Apart from the 14 schemes that were going ahead anyway, 23 had been cancelled or delayed, or whatever phrase one may choose. I feel sorry for the new Labour Members—
  Mr. Milburn: As the hon. Gentleman is so confident about all those schemes, on what time scale does he think that they would have gone ahead? Will he remind us how many successes there were under the "let a thousand flowers bloom" philosophy? How many hospitals were built?
  Mr. Horam: The schemes would have gone ahead more quickly than under a Labour Government, because we would not have stopped for innumerable reviews. Thirty-eight reviews are now being conducted—indeed, they overlap. The hon. Gentleman had to exclude some hospitals from the PH scheme, because the London review does not report until later in the year. He is therefore not on to a good point.
  New Labour Members representing Gloucester, Peterborough, Leeds, Rochdale and elsewhere can simply thank the Government for the fact that the schemes that were going ahead under the Conservatives have now been delayed, cancelled or are otherwise a problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon said in his opening remarks, the hon. Gentleman is imposing central planning. We are now moving back to the cosy Stalinism that the health service knew for so long, but from which, under the regime that we put in place, it was gradually escaping. We deliberately motivated people and gave them the power to make decisions.
  An important issue over the years to come will be the difference between the two sides of the House: the Conservative party believes in local decision making, whereas the Labour party believes in central planning. The Labour party believes that Richmond house and Quarry house know best; we believe that local managers have their ears to the ground and know how to do the job.
  We believe that that is the way forward on the vexed issue of clinical support services, which the Liberal Democrats also raised. Why do we need to define clinical

  113
  support services? Why must we constantly invent things that are out and things that are in? Why not simply let local clinicians decide whether radiology or pathology are now out? Why debate the matter here? Local people can decide in the light of their experience what works in their area. That is wholly consistent with the Conservative and Liberal Democrat view. I am sorry that the Government have gone to so much trouble to come up with a definition of what is right for clinical support services. It is totally unnecessary. When one hears the British Medical Association say that there must be a clear definition of a clinical support service, one's suspicions that that is the wrong track to go down prove to be well founded. It is an unnecessary ideological battle that need not be fought.
  I welcome the Bill but stress that, although the centre has a role, it is not the heavy-handed central planning role that the Government envisage. I make two recommendations. First, the Government should take more care about the outline business case. In my experience, too many unsatisfactory schemes surmounted that hurdle too quickly. If the Government were much tougher at the outline business case stage of a scheme, it would benefit the whole process. I am sure that that will be taken into account in the years to come.
  Secondly, a point that has not been raised during the debate is the quality of buildings, particularly design quality. Evidence now shows that people's health improves more quickly in the right surroundings, and hospital staff are better motivated if their surroundings are pleasant and they have an input on them. The great danger with the PFI is that it becomes a design-and-build process, in which the architect is employed by the consortium building the hospital and the input from consultants and others involved in the hospital is too little. The danger is that financial and planning considerations simply outweigh concerns of quality, functionality and ability to produce a satisfactory health solution.
  The Minister of State may be aware that, as Minister, I established a committee to examine design quality. The Minister for Arts is also concerned about that issue, and we have addressed a joint conference about the quality of hospital buildings. The Minister of State will know from his own experience that the NHS has a poor record when it comes to quality buildings. For example, St. Thomas's hospital, which was bombed during the war, retains its original Florence Nightingale-influenced design. There is an interesting building next to the hospital, but a very unsatisfactory office block behind it. Those three totally different buildings create an architectural mess that Members of Parliament must look at every day when we stand on the Terrace.
  We must not forget about the quality of new hospital buildings. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to be remembered as the man who built unsightly hospitals all over the country. We want new hospitals to contribute to health care provision and to be good neighbours in their areas.
  I welcome the Bill as a recognition and a continuation of the previous Government's policies. I wish it satisfactory and speedy progress through the House this evening.
  9.10 pm
  Dr. Peter Brand: This is a fascinating debate about a very small Bill. I am amazed by the amount of support that it enjoys on both sides of
  114
  the House, because hon. Members have very different ideas about what the PFI achieves and what the Bill encompasses. I was brought up to believe that words mean what they say and, as a new Member of Parliament, I thought that legislation should say what it means.
  I have received many assurances from the Minister today and in another place about what may form part of the PFI definition and what powers the Bill confers. However, it is difficult to see how the Government, in their new role, are clarifying their approach to the private sector. Today's debate has been confused: the PFI is not equivalent to private sector involvement. The PFI is a form of private sector involvement, but it is not the only form.
  The private sector has been involved in the NHS for many years. I suppose that I should declare an interest in the debate: I am an NHS general practitioner and I have two surgeries that are part of a mini-PFI scheme. We buy in several clinical services from the private sector, such as pathology, radiology and diagnostic imaging. The private sector provides many magnetic resonance intensifier services in this country. The great test of private sector involvement is that the private sector can make a profit only if it can attract patients or work from those who purchase its services.
  I am confused about Conservative Members' attitudes to the PFI. Accountability must be written in by contract. Those who are involved in PFI delivery will confirm that such contracts are long term. There is nothing wrong with involving the private sector, but it must be accountable. I have problems with the Bill as it stands because the Government have not yet defined how they will operate the purchasing-providing split in the NHS.
  Under the previous Government, private sector involvement depended on competition to deliver quality and value for money. If we are to have not purchasing-providing, but a form of cosy commissioning and delivery by favoured friends, we must become very good at guessing what the national health service will need not just in two years or five years, but in 10 years.
  Hon. Members may remember a wonderful television programme in which Jim Hacker gave out an efficiency award to a hospital that was fully staffed and fully equipped but without any patients. It is bad enough to have a white elephant building in the district, but if that building has services attached, it is so embarrassing that people will fill it and use the service even though, clinically, the need for that service may well have been superseded.
  A valuable point was made about the community care element developing much greater units to look after older people than we would like to see, because that is the only condition under which the private sector is prepared to deliver that service at the cost that we are prepared to provide. That is a big lesson for us about the PFI.
  I am very disappointed that an amendment to restrict the PFI element for trusts to their NHS services was not accepted. With the way in which the regulations are set out at the moment, there is an enormous risk that a trust encouraged by a private sector partner may develop yet another private wing. We have one in my local hospital and it has lost an enormous amount each year. That loss has to be found from the money that goes in, which should be spent on the NHS and acute services.

  115
  The Bill is, I am afraid, too short. It is nice to have a short Bill, but it needs to define slightly more what it is trying to do. The Labour party has not spent the past 18 years working out an alternative to the PFI to get more capital funding into the NHS, which many other public services get.
  When the Deputy Prime Minister was in opposition, he used to appear frequently on the "Today" programme, telling us that the public sector borrowing requirement was an artificial straitjacket and that he had all sorts of schemes to get round it. There are indeed schemes to get round it, and I hope that some will be found. The idea of having a bank for the health service estate makes tremendous sense. Assets could be held against the borrowing by the organisation very much along the lines of housing associations, which receive both private and public money. It would be a very good way to expand our building programme.
  I urge the Minister to look at the amendments that we tabled. He clearly needs the Bill to pass through the House. It is essential that a number of projects start, but I would not want the Bill to be an indication of the Government's intent towards public and private partnership for the NHS, as it gives the wrong message to patients in the NHS and certainly to all of us who work there.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: I do not share the Liberal Democrats' concern about the Bill. It is a relatively simple matter. The concern of most of us is where the Government will go with the private finance initiative.
  I listened very carefully to the Minister, particularly to the end of his speech and the "soundbitey" section where he said that the Government would fulfil the people's priorities for the health service. The question that I ask him is the question that the people of Hexham ask me: will they will get a new general hospital?
  Hexham general hospital was proceeding towards a successful conclusion in the PFI when the Minister put it on to the "do not proceed" list. There was widespread anger in the area when that happened, because the people of Hexham had campaigned for years for a new district general hospital. When it was within our grasp that we would get one, it was then put on the "do not proceed" list. The campaign had run for six years. There are cars throughout the constituency that still have stickers on the back saying, "Save our general hospital service in Hexham". It is a huge concern to the people locally because Hexham district hospital serves one of the largest rural catchment areas of any hospital, ranging from some of the most isolated parts of the country right up to the boundaries of the city of Newcastle. It is the only hospital that lies between Newcastle and Carlisle. Therefore, if patients have to go for treatment in Newcastle, in many cases it will mean a 60-mile round trip. The Minister will appreciate that the hospital is of enormous importance.
  There was a feeling in Hexham that the hospital was doomed. It is a small district general hospital and there are real problems in maintaining adequate levels of service in such a small hospital. The feeling was that the national health bureaucracy did not like small hospitals and that it thought that big was always beautiful.
  116
  It was an exciting idea when the previous Government agreed that the district general hospital at Hexham should be linked with a large teaching hospital in Newcastle—the Royal Victoria infirmary—in a joint trust. All the support services of a big, expert and nationally recognised hospital could help the small district general hospital fulfil its important health care role. The consultants would travel from Newcastle to Hexham rather than patients having to travel from Hexham to Newcastle to see consultants. It was an imaginative idea. Only better physical surroundings were needed.
  The hospital—I hope that the House will forgive me for perhaps being parochial, but I am raising an important local issue—was a wartime emergency provision. It was built to treat soldiers who had been wounded during the second world war, who returned for long periods of treatment. The majority of the buildings date from that period. Providing an adequate level of health service in such physical surroundings is extremely difficult. The maintenance staff have perpetual nightmares over provisions such as heating to keep the building warm during the winter for the benefit of patients.
  Within the core fabric that I have described, however, is an excellent hospital. The nursing and medical care is renowned. The people of Hexham and of surrounding areas value the hospital as a facility of enormous importance.
  There was great concern about the way in which the hospital was scored under the new prioritising system that the Government have produced. It scored three out of five on the health services scale. That is what the people of the hospital cannot understand. The service provided by the hospital is of supreme importance and those concerned feel that such a low score cannot possibly be right. It may be that because the area scored well for those hospitals that were approved there was concern about putting too many schemes forward at one time, thinking that the area would have too large a share of the cake, and accordingly Hexham was scored down.
  The hospital has appealed, if that is the right word, against the rating of three out of five. I wish the Minister to give an assurance that he will revisit that scale. If the hospital does not feature in the next wave, to be announced in the spring, we shall have real problems in providing an adequate health service in a rural area.
  The building has not had maintenance money spent on it because a new hospital was within sight. It is clearly not sensible to pour a large amount of money into the fabric of a time-expired building, but if there is now a huge delay in reconstruction there will be difficult times in maintaining patient care in Hexham.
  This is not merely a parochial matter. The hospital treats 10,000 or more patients a year. When the reorganisation of health services in Newcastle was planned, the near closure of the Newcastle general hospital was based on the ground that many patients would continue to be treated in a hospital on the site at Hexham. If Hexham were to fail to operate, that would have a severe implication for medical services throughout Newcastle.
  I ask the Minister to accept that it is essential for the people of Hexham that they have a new hospital. They hope earnestly that he will ensure that provision for such a hospital goes forward in the next phase that he has announced today.
  9.24 pm
  Mr. Michael Jack: This has been a useful and informative debate on the next stage of the private finance initiative in the national health service.
  It is important to reflect on and respond to some of the points that the Minister made when he dealt with my intervention. Delay in achieving major hospital projects is nothing new. Despite having the biggest ever capital expenditure programme for NHS hospitals, the previous Government still had one major hospital project worth £25 million every year.
  The problem that the Minister did not mention was that it used to take on average 10 years from the inception of an idea to the fruition of a project for a major district general hospital. The idea that delay has suddenly become the order of the day because of the private financial initiative is unnecessarily and unfairly misleading.
  Mr. Milburn: The right hon. Gentleman asked about projects worth more than £25 million that have been given the go-ahead. The better comparison is with projects that are worth more than £38 million, because that is the value of the lowest capital development in the schemes for which I have just given the go-ahead. He may be interested to know that only two hospitals with such a value were built in the past five years. He should be a little cautious about trumpeting the previous Government's success.
  Mr. Jack: We can all trade numbers, but the Minister reminded us that all he has done is to give the go-ahead to continue to negotiate. There is no guarantee that on any particular date in the next 18 months that he cares to give us, any or all of those projects will have been completed to a financial close. The Minister's intervention does not lessen my point that delay in bringing complicated projects, such as hospitals, to fruition is not a new phenomenon.
  The Minister was a little unfair to the private finance initiative. He gave a somewhat one-sided view, and forgot to remind the House that the initiative is already doing excellent business outside the health service in the provision of prisons, roads, underground trains, information technology systems, Government accommodation and universities. It provides millions, if not billions, of pounds of public investment and gives better value for money.
  That brings me to the central point of the private finance initiative. I doubt whether some Liberal Democrat Members have understood and focused on the purpose of the process. Its purpose is to buy services for the public using a method that gives better value for money than the old, conventional method of public procurement. If one starts from that point, it makes a great deal of sense. In no way does that simple formulation corrupt our fundamental belief that the national health service should provide treatment to patients free at the point of consumption. There is no conflict. I shall have more to say about the formulation of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I accept that the PFI does not necessarily determine the quality of service and the fact that it is free to patients. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one of the questions that must be answered is whether deferred payment under the system of private
  118
  finance—payments over time—will be much more expensive in the long term than the alternative, which is to pay now? It may be difficult to find the money immediately, but at least the payment would be less.
  Mr. Jack: Deferred payment over time—a sort of hire-purchase arrangement—would not be private finance; no accounting officer would agree with that. We are talking about payments over time for services rendered, against a given specification of output. It is no longer my task to explain that to the House; it is the Minister's task—but I am glad to see him nodding in agreement.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) put his finger on why we are here this evening. He rightly reminded us of Hammersmith and Fulham, a Labour local authority that walked away from its obligations. Hammersmith and Fulham sowed the seeds of doubt in the financial community. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice)—who is trying to attract my attention from a sedentary position—wants another example, let me remind her of the real reason why we are having this debate. Deutsche Morgan Grenfell observed what Allerdale council had done—as late as January this year: it took as long as that for it to wake up to the situation. Labour was the largest party at the time, and subsequently ran the authority. In more recent times, it was Allerdale that walked away from a timeshare arrangement, bringing the issue of vires and public bodies into question. That is why we are debating the Bill, which my party thoroughly supports. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington did the House a great service in reminding us of such action by local authorities.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) also did us a service by reminding us how hard he had campaigned for his local Norfolk and Norwich hospital. When I was at the Treasury, my right hon. Friend was a stalwart campaigner on all aspects of that issue. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) is not in his place. Our former hon. Friends Jacques Arnold and Bob Dunn did heroic work to ensure that the Dartford project reached the stage that it has now reached.
  Perhaps the Minister will learn a lesson if he recalls what his right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) said some time ago when we—who were then in government—had the temerity to put Dartford and Gravesham hospital on what we called a B list. In those days, two and a half years ago, we had a ranking system. We were chastised and accused of watering down the project in some way, but—because we let the thousand flowers grow—Dartford and Gravesham bloomed a darn sight faster than many other projects. It matured rapidly, proving to be an excellent PFI project, and is now one of the "flagship" and "pathfinder" projects that the Minister seeks to make his own, as though he had done all the hard work. In fact, all the hard work was done by those in the NHS trust, by my former hon. Friends and by others who helped to advance the project.
  I do not blame the Minister for trying to capture one or two early points of success. He is a good Minister, but he has his own ambitions: he wants to get things done. We also wanted to get things done. As the Minister will know from his officials, a process of rationalisation was undertaken to ensure that the best projects had the best chance of making it to the end. We will probe the Minister a little about his attitude to, for example, the so-called

  119
  affordability gap. Addressing that problem was germane to ensuring that some projects stood a real chance of making it to the finishing line.
  We also want to probe the Government on another issue. Instead of allowing local people to generate local projects, meet local needs and make their own progress, the Bill and the mechanism outlined by the Minister will bring back, centrally, the strategic NHS hospital programme. We want to know more about how that will work.
  In a telling speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) told us, when dealing with the important subject of clinical services, that he had advised the Government not to become "boxed in". I asked the hon. Member for Dartford—who is a doctor—about one aspect of clinical services: I asked him whether haemodialysis was a clinical service. I think that he said yes. The publication, "Private Opportunity and Public Benefit" describes the provision of haemodialysis treatment by South Tees acute hospital trust on the Darlington Memorial hospital site. The Minister chose not to mention that, which is sad. He will know the detail of that excellent PFI project. It is on his doorstep and it provides his constituents with clinical services. I have never heard it said that it is not a clinical service or that in some way it is not a PFI project. The Minister might usefully draw on the example of a service that is plainly benefiting his constituents.
  Dr. Brand: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jack: No. I should like to bring my speech to a close.
  That shows that under the private finance initiative clinical services are already making a contribution. I do not blame the Minister for thinking carefully about this important issue and I look forward to hearing his future definition.
  At the centre of the Bill is the issue of giving legal certainty to those who wish to provide finance for hospital projects under the PFI. We are taking an important step to remove doubt, and it is a pity that the banks did not express their reservations earlier. If they had, we would have been able to bring more projects to fruition quicker. I am glad to be able to welcome the Bill.
  The Minister chastised us when he said that the nasty Tories had made a complete mess. He said that all the delays were due to us. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Before the Minister joins in the "Hear, hears", perhaps I should say that I shall not break the confidences that were shared with me when I was a Treasury Minister. Before the debate, I looked at old papers on this matter. I remind the Minister that on one of the projects mentioned in the debate the developers decided to change the contractual arrangements so that they could obtain tax benefit. The trust became involved and decided that it wanted to look at the specification with a view to increasing the number of beds by about 100. The contractors suddenly decided that they wanted to put in a large claim for extra operational costs over the life of the contract.
  The Minister should look at why there have been delays, because some of them were not the fault of the Conservative Government: they were due to a combination
  120
  of factors involving local hospital trusts and the construction industry and its bankers. He will learn to understand the difficulties in PFI contractual negotiations. These are complex matters, but in giving the Bill a Second Reading we are taking an important step to removing the last legal impediment to an important process whose foundations we put in place.
  9.37 pm
  Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) for his support for the Bill and to hon. Members in all parts of the House who have taken part in this wide-ranging debate. I remind the House that the Bill is a simple, short and effective measure with a single purpose—to get new hospitals built. It is intended to unlock the PFI gridlock that has built up in recent years in the NHS.
  The Bill's secondary purpose is to re-establish the confidence that has been so badly dented in the NHS and in the private sector in the ability of public-private partnerships to work for the benefit of patients. The Bill is not the final word on the PFI or on the future of public-private partnerships in the NHS. The aim of the review is to get such issues right in future. I assure the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) that we shall return to this issue. I am happy to receive views from hon. Members on both sides of the House about how we can take such partnerships forward.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) complained that the Bill was progressing too quickly and accused the Government of arrogance in trying to get the Bill through this evening. Where has he been for the past 18 years? Has he visited some of the communities that have been waiting for these hospitals, which are long overdue, much needed and now have the chance of going ahead? We need to get on with it. Without the Bill, there is a simple alternative: those hospitals in Norwich, Dartford and elsewhere would not be built. It is as simple as that.
  Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
  Mr. Milburn: I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to speak later, so, if he can just contain himself, I will continue.
  Some hon. Members referred to specific projects in their constituencies. The right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) talked about the important Norfolk and Norwich hospital. He said that the endless arguments in the local community are the reason for the delay. The reason for the delay has nothing to do with endless arguments in the community. It is about the need to tie up the technical, legal and financial niceties and the Bill is an important step in that direction.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) made some important points about the process leading up to where we are now in relation to Norfolk and Norwich hospital. I understand some of the concerns in the community, particularly in the city of Norwich, about the location of Colney hospital and about the process surrounding the PFI. We are seeking to address those concerns, but there is a simple alternative for the people of Norwich and of Norfolk: either to go ahead with the Colney PFI or not to have a new hospital.

  121
  Whatever reservations and concerns they may have about the process, above all, people in Norfolk and in Norwich want their new hospital. Of course we will try to co-operate with the city council and with others in trying to address the concerns to which my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South alluded about the future of primary care and about proper access to the site, but it is time to look to the future rather than harking back to the past.
  Dr. Ian Gibson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, besides giving first-class care to the people of Norfolk and Norwich, the localisation of the hospital on the research park will attract world-class research institutes and perhaps even a postgraduate medical school, which will provide badly needed jobs for the people of Norfolk and Norwich?
  Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is right. The Norfolk and Norwich PH deal will not just improve the quality of patient care in Norfolk and Norwich, but provide economic regeneration opportunities. I look forward to that added value developing in the next few months and years.
  Mr. MacGregor: I agree with that. When I was talking about delays, I was looking back over many years and it was the siting that caused those delays. We must above all avoid that happening again, so will the Minister confirm that the meeting that I referred to, which gave the impression that the siting was being reconsidered, is wrong and that there is no question but that the site should be at Colney?
  Mr. Milburn: I confirm two things. First, there is a simple choice: Colney or bust. The people of Norfolk and Norwich want Colney—they want a new hospital. Secondly, frankly, it is extremely important that any Government address community concerns. I am intent on doing that. I want to open up the PFI process, and we will come to that when we discuss some of the amendments. It is important that we re-establish the confidence not just of the private sector and the NHS in the PFI, but of the community—the public—because we are talking about their hospitals and their health service. I hope that I can be helpful in dealing with some of the concerns expressed by my hon. Friends and others in Norwich.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South raised some general concerns about the need to be open and accountable in relation to the PFI. Our review of the PH and future partnerships between the public and private sectors will include that point. Environmental considerations are important and they will be properly taken into account.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) referred to the danger of becoming locked into outdated forms of care if we go down the PFI route. That is a real concern on both sides of the House. However, whether a hospital is provided through the PFI or through the public sector, there is a danger of getting locked into inappropriate forms of care. That is why it is important, as the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) said, that we design buildings, especially hospitals, in a more flexible way so that they can have a variety of purposes and be geared accordingly.
  122
  We need only look back over the past 30 or 40 years to see the changes in the nature of health care in this country. If we look forward 30 or 40 years, the possibilities are endless—but so are the dangers. That is why flexibility in building design will be extremely important.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) invited me to a sod-cutting ceremony—if that is the right phrase—and I would be delighted to cut a sod with him in Dartford. He expressed concern about the future of staff interests, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield. He referred to some of the services that, potentially, could be transferred to the private sector under PH deals.
  As I have already made clear, we have ruled out any clinical services being part of a PH deal. We have ruled out radiology and pathology being any part of a PFI deal. We have also said this evening that there will be a proper review of other services in order to produce a definitive dividing line between clinical and non-clinical services. That is extremely important and it will help to deal with a number of concerns.
  The hon. Member for Orpington railed against prioritisation and accused us of cancelling a whole host of hospital projects for which he had responsibility when he was a Health Minister. He told the House, and me in particular, that we needed to be more rigorous about rooting out poor PFI projects. He is right—we do need to be more rigorous. We need to ensure that if public money is going into the health service through any sort of capital development, it goes to the projects that are most needed. That is why we will prioritise projects on the basis of NHS need, not on the whim of the market and not on the basis of a consortium and trust cobbling together a deal that manages to pass a number of Treasury hurdles. We will prioritise on the basis of clinical, patient and strategic need. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that and stop carping about the prioritisation exercise.
  The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) produced a long litany of quotations from former Labour spokesmen about the PFI. The one thing that he did not quote was Labour's manifesto at the general election. It is important, so I will remind him of what it said about the PFI:
  "The Tory attempt to use private money to build hospitals has failed to deliver. Labour will overcome the problems that have plagued the Private Finance Initiative, end the delays, sort out the confusion and develop new forms of public private partnership that work better and protect the interests of the NHS."
  The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon may have difficulty with the concept, but we believe in keeping our promises. We are keeping our promises: we are unlocking the PFI gridlock, we will end the uncertainty, we will build hospitals and we will develop new forms of public-private partnership.
  The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon and the right hon. Member for Fylde talked about the success story of the previous Administration's hospital building programme. If they will take a bit of advice from me, I suggest that a bit of humility would not come amiss. In the past five or six years, using the public sector route, the previous Administration managed to build only two major hospitals. Moreover, under the previous Government, not a single new hospital was built using the PH route—although an endless raft of self-congratulatory

  123
  press releases was issued by Richmond house. I am interested not in issuing press releases or in making promises or talking about building hospitals but in building hospitals and in delivering the goods, for the good of patients.
  The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon made a point—to which several hon. Members returned—on cancellation. I can tell them that projects that have not been prioritised in the first wave will still have an opportunity to progress and that no project—whether it is in Hexham or anywhere else—has reached the end of the road. In future, however, NHS regional offices will examine projects proposed for their area and determine which meet the greatest health service need. Patients' needs and genuine health service needs—not the ability of private sector consortiums and trusts to cobble together a deal—will drive the hospital building programme.
  I know that there are pressing needs in Hexham and elsewhere across the country, and the Government want to re-examine some of those projects.
  Mr. Maples: The Minister had a go at the previous Government's hospital building programme. Will he give the House a cast-iron, 100 per cent. assurance that any one of the 14 hospitals that he has listed will be built?
  Mr. Milburn: I give a cast-iron guarantee that not a single hospital would have been built if we had not prioritised. For four or five years, the previous Administration tried with the PFI to build hospitals, but they did not succeed. I am confident that the pathfinder schemes will result in new hospitals being built in the communities that need them.
  I have been clear from the outset, however, that the Government—as guardians of the public purse—will not accept a deal at any price. I will not hesitate to cancel projects that fail to deliver on time or at the right price. I do not think that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon would expect me to do anything other than that.
  The Bill is a very important measure and is urgently needed. The NHS and local communities are tired of empty promises and of hospitals that are planned but never built. The Bill will help to forge a constructive partnership between the public and the private sectors, harnessing the strengths of both. I think that it provides an excellent foundation for the future. Above all else, it will achieve something that has not been achieved in the past five years: building new, much needed hospitals in the communities that need and deserve them.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills),
  That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
  Question agreed to.
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Clause 1

  POWERS OF NHS TRUSTS TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS
  9.54 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 1, line 13, at end insert—
  '(aa) he is satisfied that the agreement has been the subject of full public consultation in the area which it is to effect; and'.
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 15, at end insert
  'and
  (c) the agreement has been approved by the health authority for the relevant area'.
  Mr. Hughes: Both amendments are about consultation. They stress the importance of ensuring that PFI projects are the subject of full public consultation in the area affected, which is the import of amendment No. 11, and that they have been approved by the health authority for the relevant area, which is the import of amendment No. 5.
  There are two substantive points to make. The first is that there is at present no adequate provision in law for consultation. Lord Ezra moved a similar but not identical amendment in another place. The Minister's reply was that there had to be consultation with the community health council. That is a statutory form of consultation, but it does not of itself guarantee that the public are involved in any significant way. Community health councils have an appropriate watchdog function, but there is often a much wider interest engendered than that in the community health councils. Some are very good; some are not.
  We have to go further, and not just because it is right to do so as a matter of principle. What Baroness Jay said in another place was insufficient. She said that she would consider extending the consultation further, and I hope that the Secretary of State will say that he has thought about what that means, and that, if he cannot accept the amendment, he will read into the record a guarantee of proper consultation in the community.
  The first substantive point is that there is absolutely no point in consulting people and then blatantly ignoring what they say, which is a regular experience in the health service.
  I cite a constituency example. A couple of years ago, there was a consultation exercise on proposals put forward by the Guy's and St. Thomas' hospital NHS trust about what to do with the services at Guy's hospital. More than 1,000 responses opposed the proposals and 20 supported them, 17 of which had a vested interest in their going ahead. The public were effectively ignored. It is like the Duke of York leading people to the top of the hill and then down again. It is not good enough. Consultation means that there is a duty to take into account what people say; if one does not, one should explain why not.
  Secondly—I cite the same example—we all know that private finance initiative schemes often start off as one thing and end up as something else. It is no good

  125
  consulting on scheme 1 if what comes out the other end is scheme 2. Between scheme 1 being consulted on and scheme 2 being agreed, the project often goes to the board of the trust. It then becomes commercially confidential, and we are told that we cannot know what is going on because it would prejudice either the tenderers, when there are several, or the final negotiation.
  The final product becomes something entirely different, which goes against the principle of consultation. It is no good any hon. Member or any Minister, new or old, pretending that that does not happen, because it does. I seek an assurance that any scheme that reaches the stage of final consideration will have been the subject of consultation in the form in which it was originally proposed.
  The hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice), who is on the Government Front Bench, represents a constituency in the same part of the world as mine. She knows that, in the constituency example that I R gave earlier, the proposal that emerged after discussions with the local contractor provided for fewer beds and facilities than that originally consulted on. Thomas Guy house at Guy's hospital has just begun to be opened in the past few weeks. What is going into it is not what was originally planned. The ground rules have changed.
  I have accepted that what the Minister has said is progress. Outline business cases were all meant to be secret. Once they were agreed and discussed, they went between the local trust, the regional outpost, the Treasury and the Department of Health—all in secret and without the chance for questions. That is not good enough. We must arrive at a system in which we consult widely at the beginning.
  It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report progress.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
  That, at this day's sitting, the National Health Service (Private Finance) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
  Question agreed to.
  Again considered in Committee.
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  Mr. Hughes: After that traditional interruption, we can go on a bit. I think that the hon. Member for Lewisham, East realised that we had not made much progress. We were being generous by not forcing a Division on that motion.
  I want to press the Government on what the Minister of State said in his press notice of 10 June, which he probably does not remember offhand. I shall remind him. In that press notice, and in a parliamentary answer, he said that information about outstanding PFI projects should be made available by trusts unless that would affect on-going negotiations. I welcome that. He also said that trusts should include information about their proposals and actions in their annual reports.
  Will the Minister elaborate on that? He will realise that the definition of an on-going negotiation can cover almost everything. Most trusts would say that they could not say anything if negotiations were going on. Indeed, most
  126
  trusts have said that. What the Minister has offered is therefore not much of an advance on the present position. I say that not in hostility, but from experience. We are often given the answer, "I am sorry, we cannot tell you. This is about on-going negotiations."
  We want better and wider consultation. On that basis, the Government could easily accept the amendment. I hope that they will do so, and will not regard it as problematical. The Minister should be brave, regardless of what his brief says, and decide that the amendment is straightforward and can be included. I look forward to that as a helpful sign of things to come.
  The second issue that I should like to raise is also important. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) may also want to talk about it. There is growing concern about the provision in clause 1(3):
  "The Secretary of State may give a certificate under this section if—
  (a) in his opinion the purpose or main purpose of the agreement is the provision of facilities in connection with the discharge by the trust of any of its functions".
  I think that the Minister will know what I am about to say. Under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, there are two ways in which trust functions can be defined. Having looked at the legislation, I am surprised that we can define them in such a way as to exclude any reference to providing NHS services. I am concerned about that. I have not misread the provision, because that concern has been expressed by others, specifically by consultants and consultant associations. It means that one could have a PFI scheme that had nothing to do with NHS functions.
  We need to be alert to that, because we have been down that road before. When the water companies were privatised, we found that, before too long, a lot of the new water authorities were doing all sorts of things that had absolutely zero to do with the provision of water. I accept that they used to be involved with fishing and things like that, but suddenly they were running hotels, tourist facilities and boating lakes.
  It is an important matter, and I specifically ask the Minister to consider it. If he cannot address that problem now, the substantive 1990 Act will have to be amended to ensure that we do not run the risk of PFI proposals that have nothing to do with NHS core services being approved because the law allows that.
  That is the specific reason why we need consultation. Later tonight, we will have a debate about clinical services, which is controversial. There may, for example, be a proposal by a trust to run a residential home with no nursing care. The community health council might say that that is not the job of a local NHS trust, and that council certainly should be consulted about such proposals.
  In relation to a trust's plans, we should know who is consulted, at what stage in the proceedings, and about what. We should also be clear about the extent of the trust's activities and how far they deviate from the NHS provision. I hope that the Minister will give a positive response.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: I should like to expand on the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).

  127
  The National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 contains two options. Most trusts were set up under the first, under which they were given the functions of owning and managing what had previously been NHS hospitals. Under the second option, or the alternative, they were given the function of providing and managing hospitals and other facilities.
  It is my understanding, and that of many of my colleagues in the health service, that the second alternative function was given in 1996 by the previous Secretary of State to those trusts that were engaging in PFI schemes. It is of great concern to us that, because that provision persists, a loophole may exist to allow private companies to provide more and more private facilities in conjunction with NHS trusts. That would mean that NHS facilities would have to piggy-back on huge private provision.
  I have every sympathy with what the Government are trying to do to get the new hospitals built, but my colleagues and I urge them to consider the great danger that exists. We could choose that second option as a means of delivering health care. It has been taken by many European countries and used to excess in the United States.
  I know, however, that the Liberal Democrats want properly planned health provision, and I have always assumed that everyone on the Government Benches wants the same. We do not wish to slide unwittingly into private health care. I am not clear, therefore, whether the Government really understand what they are doing. I say that cautiously, because I know that they have a great deal of experience. I hope that they have thought about it a lot.
  I beg the Minister to reconsider. The Bill is not strong enough without, or even with, the amendments. We must ensure that the health service functions are defined clearly before it passes into law. We must ensure that the trusts know exactly what they should be providing. We do not want to allow the PFI to be the gateway towards a slide to privatisation.
  Dr. Vincent Cable: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I recognise that many Liberal Democrat and Labour Members face a dilemma over the legislation. There are crumbling hospitals, and the only option on offer is an unacceptable system of financing.
  The dilemma in my case is particularly acute, as I share a district hospital, the West Middlesex, with the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mrs. Keen). The problem is painfully apparent. The hospital has been in physical decline almost since it was first erected as a workhouse in the 19th century. In many parts of the third world, it would already have been closed as unfit for human habitation. People feel so passionately about it that, a few years ago, our local health service campaigners staged a hunger strike to demand that the hospital be rebuilt.
  But there is only one proposal on offer. The public consultation that has been offered, although probably more extensive than in many other cases, has been perfunctory. The perfunctory public consultation consisted largely of a public meeting, attended by about 50 people. We were essentially asked to take on trust the judgment of the hospital managers, and to accept that there was no alternative to the mechanism.
  128
  I have resolved the dilemma by today writing to the Minister of State to support the hospital trusts and to support the appeal of my neighbour, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth, for the PFI to be reconsidered. It narrowly missed the cut by one place. Given the options available, that seems to be the sensible way forward.
  Many of our anxieties about the proposal could be eased if proper mechanisms for public consultation were built into the legislation. There are two main arguments about public consultation. The first is that, even in areas such as mine, which is desperate for a new hospital, the public need to be reassured about many things. We are talking about the permanent disposal of public assets, and about economic mechanisms that are questionable even on a common-sense level.
  Many of the contractors involved in the PFI, including the ones involved in my case, are used to operating on an international level. They have the option of PFI projects in Malaysia, Thailand or China, where they can get a 20 per cent. return. They are looking for the same sort of returns here, and those returns will have to be paid for. Although the PFI enables them to get round the limits on capital expenditure, five or 10 years down the track there will be an enormous recurrent burden on the trusts, and it is not at all clear that they will be able to sustain it. A process of explanation to the public is badly needed to ensure that the mechanism is properly understood and sustainable.
  Amendment No. 11 is geared to building in a statutory strengthening of the public consultation process. Amendment No. 5 aims to build in the role of the health authority. The health authority is necessary, for two reasons. First, the authority carries with it an obligation to consult the community health councils. The CHCs are often not particularly dynamic institutions, but they are repositories of understanding, experience and commitment to the NHS.
  Building in a mechanism for obligatory consultation with the CHC creates an important safeguard. By making it necessary to clear such matters with the health authorities, we create an embryonic planning surveillance. As we understand it, many of the PFIs are not satisfying the test of strategic need.
  The Minister of State may be familiar with the valuable research that appeared in the British Medical Journal in April. It gave a dispassionate review of the progress of many of the PFIs. In each case, the assessment showed that the bed reduction was roughly 20 to 25 per cent. removed from the status quo—often way below the health authority's planning assumption. We therefore believe that public consultation and health authority provision is a necessary safeguard that should be built into the legislation. Were that available, many anxieties about the legislation would be eased.
  Two years ago, a rudimentary system of public consultation was built into the NHS code of practice. We are essentially asking that the spirit of that code of practice should be honoured and entrenched in this legislation.
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Donald Gorrie: The duty of this place, as I see it, is to try to ensure that our public services are run in a democratically accountable fashion. The best way to do that in the health service would be to

  129
  make democracy penetrate, which it does not at present. There is no democracy in the health service at all, and until we change that, which is the Liberal Democrats' goal, we will have to make do with consultation. I therefore strongly support the notion of having better consultation written into the Bill.
  That is especially necessary because my experience in Edinburgh is that there is often a dispute between the public perception and the wishes of the important consultants who drive projects through in the health board. All professions have their own politics, and in medical politics there is a great deal of aggrandisement of people's professional opportunities. Doctors are human, too, and some of them have strong Napoleonic tendencies.
  In Edinburgh, there is a private finance initiative proposal to renew the Royal infirmary on a new site and there is strong thrust behind having it as big and as all-purpose as possible, at the expense of other hospitals. Public opinion is in favour of greater diffusion and of having more services, for example, at the Western General hospital. That hospital is to have directly funded—not PFI—facilities, which is a welcome step on the part of the Government.
  It is necessary to have really good public consultation to determine the public's views on, for example, the siting of maternity services—whether to have one huge facility, or two facilities, which is what most people want. In order to counter specialists' legitimate professional drive, it is important to have good consultation—but the only real answer is to have some democracy.
  Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to Opposition Members for reminding us of the principle that important decisions taken about private finance schemes—or, indeed, any major change in the national health service—should not be taken by politicians or bureaucrats locked away in ivory towers, without any consideration for the public who will use, or at least have to live with, the new hospital planned for their community. Nor should decisions be taken without the full involvement and support of the health authorities responsible for planning local health care strategies. I agree with those principles, but I cannot support the amendment.
  Arrangements already exist to ensure public consultation on significant changes in the health service, which may well be the result of a major private finance initiative scheme, and to ensure full health authority involvement in taking PFI schemes forward. In addition—this is an extremely important point, which I hope Opposition Members will heed—our review of the PFI will specifically address how better to engage both health authorities and the public from the outset of proposed PFI schemes.
  For any PFI scheme to receive a green light, it must demonstrate strategic health need, and the public have to be properly consulted about the make-up of their local health service. There is a simple maxim: the public have a right to know what is being planned for their local health service, because it belongs to them. It does not belong to trust management, and certainly not to private consortiums; nor does it belong to Minister sitting in Richmond house.
  We have taken an important first step. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was good enough to acknowledge, a
  130
  circular was recently issued to the NHS which had annexed to it the text of two parliamentary questions that I had answered about public information being provided by the NHS about PFI schemes. The circular also asks the NHS to be as open as possible and to give as much information as possible, as long as it is compatible with commercial confidentiality.
  Amendment No. 5 is unnecessary, because all health authorities must already provide formal support for PFI schemes, and must do so well before the Secretary of State comes to certify an agreement. When a scheme is submitted to the Department of Health for approval of its full business case, the health authorities which are the main purchasers from the trust must provide the Department with a formal statement of their support for the scheme.
  The amendment would add nothing to existing arrangements, therefore, and I give Liberal Democrat Members a clear assurance that the Government will not allow a PFI scheme that lacks formal health authority support to proceed.
  Amendment No. 11, requiring the Secretary of State to satisfy himself that full public consultation had taken place before he issued a certificate, is unnecessary for similar reasons. When I recently announced the wider review of the PFI and health—the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey mentioned the speech I made and the press notice that was issued—I said that, in future, we would have to be satisfied that schemes had taken due account of the needs and wishes of local communities.
  I am more than happy to reiterate that promise tonight. No PFI scheme that involves a significant change in services will be allowed to proceed unless a proper consultation exercise has been carried out.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister. We hope to respond to what he says, and obviously we shall not push things if he is able to assure us. Can he tell us, first, whether that promise applies from now on and immediately, and not only at the end of the review? Secondly, can he confirm that a proper consultation exercise has not been carried out if only the health authority and community health council have been consulted?
  Mr. Milburn: Of course I want full and meaningful consultation to take place, and when there is a significant change in the make-up of local health services being planned for the local community, of course it is right and proper—indeed, a statutory obligation—for health authorities to consult the local community health council.
  Whatever Liberal Democrat Members think, I believe that, by and large, CHCs do an extremely good job as the patient's watchdog, and have a duty to represent the interests of the patient when it comes to the major changes in service provision that a PFI scheme, especially a new hospital, represents. Although it is impossible to consult every member of the public about every major change to the provision of local health services, I would expect key stakeholders to be consulted in future, and I say to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that in future, when significant changes in services are proposed, we shall expect that proper consultation exercise to be carried out.
  Mr. Hughes: I am just trying to ensure that I am clear in my mind that this will apply from now on, and not only

  131
  from the end of the review. The Minister may be about to come on to this point, but if the scheme changes, as schemes often do, must there also be consultation on the changed scheme, if anything has happened that counts as a significant change?
  Mr. Milburn: There is already a vehicle for local stakeholders—the CHC, local trusts, local commissions, local authorities and others—to make representations. That is the annual contracting process between the purchaser and the provider, in which the health authority must assess whether developments that are taking place in providers are appropriate to meet local health care needs.
  The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) referred to the recent British Medical Journal article about bed numbers. When it comes to annual contracting between the health authority and the trust, I would expect issues about bed numbers to be properly considered. Other stakeholders should have an opportunity to be involved in that process and make appropriate representations.
  The other important issue raised by the hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) was trust establishment orders. I am well aware of the concerns. Indeed, I have met ACHCEW—the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales—on a number of occasions to try to deal with its concerns directly.
  We propose to issue directions to NHS trusts to make it clear that their income generation activities should not be to the detriment of their NHS patients. The 1990 Act is extremely clear: the interests of NHS patients come first, and the primary duty of NHS trusts is to look after the interests of NHS patients. Income generation activities, including private patient facilities, are secondary. I hope that the directions we propose to issue in the near future will help to address some of the concerns that have been expressed tonight.
  The Bill's purpose is to provide reassurance to the banks that propose to lend into the PH that NHS trusts have the power to enter those contracts, and it has the support of those banks.
  I wish to make a general point at the outset of our Committee stage. To introduce amendments for which there is no substantive need achieves precisely nothing, and serves only one purpose: to create uncertainty on the face of a Bill intended to eliminate doubt. I hope that Opposition Members will bear that in mind.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am keen that we should act in good faith. On amendment No. 5, I accept what the Minister said about consultation with health authorities. He may have worked out already that the original intention was that we should have proper consultation at regional level, but, because the Government inherited no regional health authorities and have not yet put them back, they cannot consult something which does not exist and which I have not yet persuaded them to re-create. I therefore accept that the lower health authorities are not there to be consulted.
  On the consultation issue, we accept that the Minister's response is a sign of his good faith. I simply ask that, before the guidance is finalised, we can discuss those issues with him and offer our practical experience of how
  132
  changes in the process mean that we must be very careful. Sometimes, the annual contracting process, or the annual report, does not occur sufficiently quickly, and the ball game changes between the time when the proposal is made and when the decision is taken. On that basis, and given the Minister's willingness to have the widest possible consultation with the appropriate people, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Jack: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 15, at end insert
  'and
  '(c) he is satisfied that all the terms of the agreement have been finalised and that the necessary finance has been committed:
  and no certificate given under this section may subsequently be withdrawn or amended.'.
  I hope that the Minister will take this amendment in the spirit in which it was tabled—as a constructive contribution to make his new arrangement work better.
  The terms under which a certificate can be granted are not defined in the Bill. If the circumstances under which the Secretary of State can grant a certificate were more tightly defined, that would benefit the Minister and the Secretary of State, and help them achieve their objective of using this useful piece of legislation to ensure that they not only gave comfort to the banks, but enabled all the ducks of the agreement to be put well and truly in a proverbial row.
  Granting the certificate is important and it confers the ultimate seal of approval on any deal. It says to those who wish to become involved financially in an externally financed development agreement that, legally, it is all right to do so. In my earlier remarks, I hinted at the problems that private finance deals have faced in the past. At the last minute, bankers have entered the negotiations and sought additional gain by reopening the discussions.
  10.30 pm
  Our amendment seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State does not grant a certificate until he is satisfied that all the terms of the agreement have been met and, importantly, that the necessary finance has been committed. In the past, the finance appeared to be in place, but sudden disagreement between the construction side of the consortium and the bankers led to the bankers' withdrawing and the project falling to pieces. The Secretary of State should make it clear that, although he has the power to grant the certificate, he will not do so until all the necessary elements are in place. That would be the ultimate carrot, and would ensure that deals were concluded properly.
  The remaining part of the amendment states:
  "no certificate given under this section may subsequently be withdrawn or amended."
  It addresses a perceived deficiency in the Bill. Although it may never be the Secretary of State's intention to deny granting the seal of approval, the Bill does not say that. In theory, we believe that an assurance that no certificate given under this section may subsequently be withdrawn or amended provides added security for the financial contracting parties to the arrangement and underpins further the benefits of the legislation.

  133
  I hope that the Minister will confirm the circumstances under which the Secretary of State will use those powers. We believe that our amendment is constructive. It would add value to granting powers by way of certificate and ensure that deals, once arranged and negotiated fully, proceeded to financial closure. The fact that there could be no alteration or amendment thereafter would add greater certainty to the legislation.
  Mr. Richard Allan: I hope to persuade the Committee of the importance of the finality issue, which is introduced by the amendment, in terms of local health planning. Most of my criticisms will be directed at the previous Government's handling of capital investment in the national health service. However, if this Government are to improve matters, they must learn from those failures and respond to them in the legislation.
  I shall illustrate my point by referring to the example of Sheffield's proposed new hospital for women, to be situated on the Stone Grove site. Despite achieving a top mark in terms of NHS need, it was not chosen for fast-track development. The Minister kindly received the delegation comprising me and the hon. Members for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), and explained the decision to us. I shall not rehearse the issues tonight, but I hope that the proposal will qualify for the substantial public funding that the Minister said that his Department would generously provide.
  The history of the project to replace Jessop hospital, where I was born, demonstrates the need for Government to make any future decisions final and binding. The new hospital was proposed more than 10 years ago, when the PFI was only a twinkle in the Prime Minister's eye. Four or five years ago, the parties were on the verge of signing a Treasury-funded deal but, in response to NHS guidelines, they decided to wait a few months for the outcome of a local strategic review. By the time that review backed the project and found that it would meet desperate local need, the rules had changed again. The parties were sent down the "thousand flowers" route, pursuing the elusive quarry of a new publicly funded hospital—which was rather like joining the previous Government in a hunt for a unicorn.
  At the time, the trust was given a written guarantee that Treasury funds would be made available if its PFI bid failed. The Minister in question is no longer able to deliver that funding and the new Government do not seem willing simply to pick up those responsibilities. Once again, we have another change in the rules governing funding for capital projects.
  I accept that the Minister has a genuine desire to improve funding arrangements and make them better in future, so I urge him to accept the amendment as a sign of his genuine commitment to local health planners, as it would give them complete confidence that once a certificate was signed, it would be honoured. Let us avoid a repeat of the disappointment that is felt by people in Sheffield as they suffer delays in much needed facilities as a result of the rules changing every time they get a project together.
  Mr. Milburn: I assure the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) that I understand the very real concerns in his city that the project did not get the
  134
  go-ahead in the first wave. I can also tell him that it is recognised that the project has a high strategic health need. It will be considered with other schemes for possible prioritisation in the future. The whole idea behind the prioritisation process is to do just what the hon. Gentleman wants—to bring clarity where it has been lacking, to sort out the confusion and to bring certainty to the national health service and the private sector.
  In future, schemes across the country that are regarded as having the highest strategic health service need will be chosen and prioritised and then driven through the PFI. In future, the PFI process will really deliver the goods. The problem, as we heard earlier, was that too many projects were in the pipeline. The previous Government simply were not able to deliver them all. One of the most telling speeches in our earlier debate was made by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), who urged me to be more robust and to prioritise. That is precisely what we have done. I am convinced that, in future, there will be much greater clarity, and as a consequence we shall get more hospitals built.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister accept, then, that there must be a regional element in strategic planning? If he is holding to his view of a fortnight ago, that there will not be any re-creation of democratic regional authorities, how is there regional strategic assessment involving the public and not just the bureaucrats in the regional outposts?
  Mr. Milburn: Just on a small point of detail, there were never democratic regional health authorities. It is certainly not our intention to re-create the regional health authority structure, but we shall ask the regional offices of the national health service to undertake a full, impartial, fair and objective assessment of capital development schemes in their areas. When they have assessed where the highest strategic need is in their regions, those schemes will be submitted for prioritisation nationally. Once they have been prioritised nationally, we shall seek to make progress on them.
  To overcome the problems that the hon. Gentleman addressed earlier, on public consultation, I reiterate that we shall expect any major NHS changes to be subject to full, public consultation at the appropriate point. It is pointless doing that before prioritisation, because if a scheme is not to be prioritised, there is no point in consulting on it. If it is to be prioritised, there is, of course, a need to ensure that the scheme has backing not only from the national health service and the private sector, but, most important, from the local community. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I think he seeks.
  Mr. Hughes indicated dissent.
  Mr. Milburn: Obviously, not quite.
  Mr. Hughes: That was a fair and straight answer, but does it mean that, at regional level, at the appropriate stage—I use the example of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan)—my hon. Friend would be able to know what the region was thinking and have some input into the regional process, and that it would not happen in secret, behind closed doors and involve only those who work for the NHS?
  Mr. Milburn: That access to information will not be at regional level. It will be at trust level and health

  135
  authority level. I agree that, all too often, the PFI process has been shrouded in secrecy. I accept that and I am determined to stamp out such secrecy. I want the process to be as open as possible. We must get the balance right, however, between public openness and ensuring that there is no risk to commercial confidentiality. I shall get that balance right, and I give an undertaking that in future the health authority and the trust concerned will be consulting widely and taking Members and other representatives into their confidence. Indeed, I have asked them to do that already, and the process has already begun. It is a process that will continue in future.
  Dr. Brand: Does the Minister recognise that there are some services of concern to the public that go wider than the area covered by one health authority or trust? I am thinking about radiotherapy services, which are both vital and capital intensive. Access to them is extremely important to people throughout a region. I hope that we shall see something more proactive from the Minister's Administration than we saw from the previous bunch of Ministers.
  When the regional outpost was pushed to give a lead on where it would like to see investment in a new site, for example, it washed its hands of the matter and said, "This is a matter for local trusts and districts to negotiate." That is clearly not a satisfactory way of establishing a vital service. Members of the public should have a say on whether the facility is to be based in a part of the region that is accessible and to which they can relate.
  Mr. Milburn: If there are services that cross trust and health authority boundaries and which impact substantially upon the make-up of local NHS services, consultation should take place as a matter of course. That should be happening already as a matter of course. I shall, of course, consider the specific matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised with me.
  I hope that I have satisfied some of the concerns that have been expressed from the Liberal Democrat Benches. I shall now take up the matters raised by the official Opposition. I appreciate the concern of the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) to ensure that the Secretary of State does not certify what might be described as a dud contract. Legally, however, the amendment does not achieve anything.
  Part of the amendment would require the Secretary of State to be satisfied that the terms of the agreement had been finalised. In law, that is approaching gobbledegook, and I shall explain why. Certification is precisely that which confirms that an agreement is an externally financed agreement for the purposes of the Bill. Until then, there is no agreement within the terms of the Bill. The Secretary of State may reasonably be expected to ensure that the commercial contract for a PFI deal has been signed before he certifies that contract as an externally financed development agreement—for short, an EFDA—and he will do that in any event.
  I shall move on further down the PFI process to explain how the amendment would be inoperable, for it would require the Secretary of State to satisfy himself that the necessary finance had been committed. It is a point that the right hon. Member for Fylde was keen to stress. That
  136
  would have to be done before the Secretary of State certified an agreement. That requirement would again be legal gobbledegook.
  I know that the right hon. Gentleman recognises that the purpose of the Bill is to reassure bankers who are considering putting up capital for private finance schemes in the NHS. Bankers will be willing to put up capital once an agreement has been certified, but not before. The amendment would merely serve to ensure that bankers refused to finance NHS schemes, thus undermining the purpose behind the Bill.
  The rest of the amendment is beside the point. It states that no certificate, once given, could be withdrawn. I am advised that once an agreement has been certified, it is once and for all an externally financed development agreement. If the certificate were withdrawn, it would have no effect, as the original act of certification would have conferred permanent validity on the agreement.
  The amendment also stipulates that a certificate, once given, could not be amended. As I said, once a certificate has been given, it is a once-and-for-all EFDA. That is not to say that there would be no circumstances under which the certificate, as drafted, might cease to apply to at least part of the agreement. Under those circumstances, recertification could take place, and we do not need to legislate for that.
  10.45 pm
  Mr. Jack: The Minister has just said something intriguing. He said that there may be circumstances under which part of an arrangement could be subject to recertification, but that no legal mechanism is required to enable that to occur. Would he be kind enough to describe a circumstance in which such a process would operate, and to tell me how the Secretary of State would address the problem?
  Mr. Milburn: The obvious example is when one of the facility providers in a PFI deal either withdraws or is unable to fulfil its part of the contract, for whatever reason. The EFDA will have been given against a whole PFI deal, but will inevitably cover specific parts of it, so if an element comes adrift for whatever reason, recertification may be necessary. The original certification would have been given for a PFI deal, part of which was no longer operable. Those are the circumstances that I envisage, but frankly it is a pretty minor point.
  Mr. Jack: May I press the Minister on that point? He is giving the impression that deals can be subdivided. It was my understanding that a certificate was granted in respect of bankers, who may be external to any service provision in which other parts of the consortium providing the PFI may be involved. The bankers provide the money. If two bankers were involved and one of them ran into a problem and was unable to provide the money, would the mechanism that the Minister has just described work?
  Mr. Milburn: There are endless possibilities. The basic point is that if an EFDA has been given and a PFI deal has been certified, and subsequent to that, a component of the PFI deal comes adrift, the deal may need to be recertified. Frankly, that is not a major issue.
  Part of the amendment is unnecessary, part is beside the point and the requirement to confirm finance before certifying the agreement would stop the hospital building

  137
  programme in its tracks. For those reasons, I invite the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. If he does not, I invite the Committee to reject it.
  Mr. Jack: We have had an interesting insight into what we can prise out of the Minister when we propose a straightforward, simple and helpful amendment. We have discovered a new dimension to the potential granting of not just one certificate but subsequent certificates under various, perhaps obscure, circumstances in which the nature of the provision of parts of a contractual arrangement changes.
  It would useful if the Minister were to consider publishing explanatory guidance, to ensure that those who read in Hansard the slightly uncertain explanation of the variations on those terms know exactly where they stand. I remind the Minister that the whole purpose of the legislation is to remove doubt about the legality of entering into financial arrangements. We have seen an interesting scintilla of what might happen if something went wrong.
  The Minister said that the Secretary of State would not use the mechanism unless all the financial ducks were in a row, but, on the basis of experience, I think that the Secretary of State could derive added value and advantage from making it absolutely clear that, unless all the promises of finance were in place, a certificate would not be granted. It might happen the other way round: the bankers might say, "We will provide the money, subject to the Secretary of State's signing on the dotted line." We need further clarification.
  I am, however, at least 75 per cent. satisfied that a final lock on the use of the legislation is provided by the Bill as currently drafted. Subject to the Minister's agreement to make a clear public statement about the second point that he raised, perhaps in a parliamentary answer—he nods; I am grateful to him—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Dr. Brand: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 15, at end insert
  'and
  (c) in his opinion the agreement is compatible with the fair distribution of capital and revenue spending within a regional strategic framework.'.
  The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 7, in page 1, line 15, at end insert
  'and
  (c) the agreement has been subject to a public and published report by the Audit Commission who shall give their assessment of the value for money provided.'.
  No. 2, in page 1, line 15, at end insert—
  '(3A) The Secretary of State shall not give a certificate under this section unless he is satisfied that the agreement meets the criteria published pursuant to subsection (3B) below and the National Audit Office has confirmed that those criteria have been met.'.
  No. 3, in page 1, line 15, at end insert—
  '(3B) The Secretary of State shall publish details of the criteria which must be met before an externally financed development agreement is certified under this Act, including criteria relating to—

  (a) value for money;

  (b) risk transfer;

  138

  (c) affordability;

  (d) adequate prior consultation;

  (e) such other relevant considerations as he may think fit.'.

  Dr. Brand: I have been told that I must not talk about my previous and current jobs, but I was delighted to hear the Government commit themselves to abolishing two-tierism in the NHS. I am, however, a little worried by the announcements that have been made about the PFI to date. There is clearly two-tierism in capital development in the NHS. Projects that are "PFI—able"that, apparently, is a new term that we must all learn—can go on to their own list and climb up it, and if they are lucky and reach the top 14 they will succeed, but we have heard nothing about the assessment of other schemes within regions which are just as essential. Are those schemes being assessed? Are they being considered for public expenditure?
  It is not just a case of finding the capital; it is running the service that will take up the resources that are so desperately needed, and if there is to be some sort of resource allocation system, account must be taken of future needs. We discussed that at length earlier.
  We also spoke earlier about the need for a regional overview. It is no good allowing schemes to go ahead in one part of a region because the private sector is particularly interested in juicy ways of generating extra income for a particular trust, or for the erection of a particular set of PFI buildings. As I said earlier, there is also the question of the distribution of regional services, which should go where clinical need is greatest and not necessarily where the private sector believes that the PFI can generate more money.
  We are not asking for something impossible. I am sure that the Minister already has this in mind, but I am a bit concerned that we have heard nothing from him about the effects that the PFI is having on other new services which need to be developed in the NHS.
  Mr. Jack: I hope that the Committee will not mind if I spend some time on our amendments in the group. I have some important points for the Minister. Our amendments provide a two-part check and balance on whether the deal that the Secretary of State is sanctioning, via the mechanism that is the subject of the Bill, fulfils his objectives.
  Because of the importance of the PFI mechanism and its role in the health service, there is a need for the National Audit Office to become involved. To date, the Government have shown no reluctance to involve the NAO in some important issues. The Chancellor of the Exchequer used it to underpin some of his Budget assumptions, and if he is prepared to use it, the Secretary of State for Health might be tempted down that road.
  The NAO submitted a memorandum to the Select Committee on the Treasury when it considered the private finance initiative. I shall quote briefly from that to give weight to our amendment. It states:
  "Although the NAO's investigative work on PFI projects has just begun, it is quite clear that a key issue will be the way PFI projects handle risk: who bears what risks, how much risk traditionally borne by the public sector is transferred to the private sector, and at what price."
  That issue is central to many of the proposals that will be implemented through the private finance initiative which is certified by the mechanism with which the Bill

  139
  deals. Our amendment seeks to qualify the way in which the certificates should be issued and shows the importance that we attach to such matters in the context of risk and risk transfer.
  The National Audit Office has already demonstrated the role that it can play and it has been consulted by Departments in the recent past on the matters that we are debating. The Minister has said that he is planning some substantial changes to the way in which the PFI operates. He spoke about what he called new public-private partnerships. He is thinking about new mechanisms and I appreciate that at this stage they may be only a small glint in his eye. However, a glint means that he has an idea and perhaps he can say whether those mechanisms would come under the definition of externally financed arrangements and would be subject to the amendments.
  The Minister has shown that he attaches great importance to the private finance initiative. In Library research paper 97/88 the Minister is quoted as saying that
  "the truth is that when there is limited public capital, it is PFI or bust."
  The "or bust" bit worries me because is shows a cavalier desire to achieve his objectives come what may. That is why our amendment sensibly suggests the checks and balances that the NAO would provide. That would make sure that the Minister did not go too far down the road of becoming bust. The benefit of the NAO's views would add value to the proceedings.
  On 10 June, the Minister spoke to stakeholders on looking at other possible models of structuring private finance schemes. I was interested that he wanted to improve value for money. That again is one of the aspects of our amendment, so I ask him again to give the Committee some insight into exactly what the other ideas that he is considering are. It is good to be innovative, but I want to make certain that we cover all possible contingencies. A tick in the box from the NAO would be extremely helpful. As I have said, it has been useful in giving examples of what is good practice to other Government Departments.
  11 pm
  Amendment No. 2 interlocks with amendment No. 3 in saying that the use of the procedure that we have outlined depends on all of us having a clear idea of the criteria that will be deployed to achieve the Bill's stated aims and other relevant issues. The Minister placed in the Library a document entitled "Review Criteria". I wanted to find out a little more about how he was going to approach the question of what would or would not be a PFI arrangement and, by means of a parliamentary answer, he confirmed to me:
  "The criteria for measuring health service need is expected to be similar to that used to assess service need in the recent Private Finance Initiative prioritisation exercise, copies of which have been placed in the Library."—[Official Report, 10 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 577.]
  I was grateful that the Minister did that because it gives a clear insight into some of the reasons why we have tabled the amendment.
  Paragraph 10 of the document discusses "service need". It leads us to probe carefully what criteria the Minister and the Secretary of State for Health will follow in
  140
  determining the way in which the PFI operates. In listing a number of factors that the Minister will take into account, why has he not distinguished in any way, shape or form the statistical weighting that he attaches to these criteria? From the way in which he has laid out the document,
  "improved clinical quality of services"
  carries precisely the same weighting as
  "improved strategic fit of services".
  Will we get a more detailed explanation of exactly what all these factors mean? What exactly does "improved" mean in
  "improved clinical quality of services"?
  Improved relative to what? Will the Minister publish data that will enable us to come to conclusions?
  On quality of services, I have asked the Minister questions in another context about the word "quality". So far, quality is not a statistically defined word or term that the Minister has been prepared to use, but, if we are going to have stated criteria, as our amendment suggests, we need to have this information published and in considerable detail, so that we may follow the matter more closely.
  The same could be said of other items here. I could go through them in detail, but I will not. I want to pick out just one or two things that are particularly important. "Improved strategic fit" of services is mentioned. Liberal Democrat Members may be interested in probing that subject as it goes to the heart of the matter. How exactly will the Minister's new mechanism to determine future PFI projects—the ones that are the subject of his further representations and of further PFI arrangements, and which may ultimately be the subject of public capital arrangements—fit into this wonderful phrase "improved strategic fit" of services? Bearing it in mind that the Minister has brought back in-house the whole question of the way in which hospital investment will operate, he owes it to the Committee to let us into the secret of what "improved strategic fit" means.
  The projects on the Minister's winners list are very interesting. North Yorkshire, the north-east, north Durham, Bishop Auckland and south Tees are all winners and, I am sure, worthy projects, but they are awfully close to each other. The Minister may wish to correct me, but my understanding is that an independent consultants' report asked some searching questions about whether the Bishop Auckland project was viable. The Minister may say that subsequent to the health authority receiving that report, the project was amended and became viable. What we do not know is how Darlington hospital, in the Minister's constituency, now fares with the arrival on the winners list of Bishop Auckland.
  Does the Minister intend to use some sort of Paretean criteria in deciding future winners in his strategic overview? A case could be made that worthy as north Durham, Bishop Auckland and south Tees are, until we have a better insight into what the wonderful phrase "improved strategic fit" means, we shall have no idea of the criteria and whether they will lock on to a good private finance initiative project.
  Will the Minister publish a Green Paper which would allow all of us to contribute our views to the debate that he wants on the grand strategy that he is now devising?

  141
  Will he publish a White Paper laying down in clear, unequivocal terms, not only what "improved strategic fit" means, but what
  "provide better access to services"
  means? That is an important point in relation to the criteria which are the subject of our amendment. Does
  "provide better access to services"
  mean—to go back to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) who, sadly, is not in his place—more Hexhams, where we reduce the distance people have to travel to acute NHS hospitals? Does it mean removing services from regional centres and spreading them around so that people can get easier access? Or does it mean having fewer district general hospitals, but with better services so that access to them therefore provides better access to services? It is that sort of vague phraseology that needs to be tied down if, when devising new criteria, the exercise is to be more transparent—to pick up on the Minister's words—and be seen to be what it is. It is extremely important that we have that information.
  It is also extremely important to look at another phrase,
  "make more effective use of resources."
  What would be the Minister's reaction, in the context both of risk valuation and of getting better value for money by making more effective use of resources, if in his new world he were to receive non-compliant bids from organisations which had been invited to compete for private finance initiative projects?
  I refer the Minister to section 10 and to schedule 2 (6)(1) of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, which provide that NHS trusts should obtain value for money. Later in the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) will deal with the matter of clinical services. What will happen in a situation, however, in which the Minister has defined all the criteria that will guide his decision-making process but in which a consortium submits a bid that does not comply with his criteria and yet demonstrably provides the best value for money, perhaps by including a range of clinical services?
  Under the new criteria, what would the Minister or the Secretary of State do to comply with those provisions of the 1990 Act? Would such a bid be in or out? If the Minister is to achieve his objective of making more effective use of resources, he will definitely have to answer those questions.
  As amendment No. 3 states, risk transfer will be a very important criterion. As the Minister knows, risk transfer is very much to do with putting health care provision in the hands of whichever part of the health care equation can best handle it. More specifically, the design risk of a hospital, for example, would be best handled by the private sector partner. In his reply, I hope that the Minister will tell us whether there will be any changes to the already published PFI documentation, which provides clear guidance on risk transfer. Does he propose to maintain that guidance, to change it or to put different mathematical weightings on the risk that he thinks should be transferred?
  The Minister knows also that there is a fundamental problem in PFI affordability, because of the differential way in which the NHS deals with the write-down of capital over 60 years and PFI projects operate for periods between 20 or 30 years. He knows also that a substantial
  142
  sum will have to be allocated to his winners list so that they can make the grade. He told us, however, that subsequent schemes will have to be affordable without the provision of any further central support. Will he highlight how, in his new world, that affordability gap will be closed? Unless he changes the criteria in the NHS—which, so far, he has not said that he will do—the matter of smoothing affordability, as he described it, will remain.
  I think that I have said enough to show clearly—
  Dr. TongeHear, hear.
  Mr. Jack: I am glad that there is so much support. Having had a modicum of responsibility for operation of the PFI, I can tell hon. Members that, if we do not very carefully define our terms and criteria, not only will those who are trying to do business under the PFI not know where they are going, but the NHS will not be able to achieve its objectives. I therefore look forward to the Minister shedding some light on the issue.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall speak briefly to amendment No. 7 and the question of an Audit Commission report, but I must tell the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) that neither my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) nor I dissent from the proposition that we need to know what the criteria are to be—my hon. Friend was simply suggesting that the Conservative spokesman had made his case adequately on that point.
  The Audit Commission has already done some useful work on the PFI and has shown itself to be competent, interested and able, and it might well be better that an existing body be given the responsibility rather than our creating new bodies or setting up quangos to do the job.
  11.15 pm
  The important point about amendment No. 7, which is not dissimilar to amendment No. 2 tabled by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), is that the report should be public and published and that, given criteria that we all understand, the value-for-money assessment should be considered regularly by the body which does the assessment throughout the whole procedure. The Minister might come back to us and say that he has something else in mind, or the review may show that another body could do the job—that is fine, but one of the things that the health service desperately lacks is independent, objective, consistent accountability. We have to build that in, because I am never prepared to trust any Government with the statistics and the assessment of what goes on in the health service, and I do not think that the public are, either.
  Mr. Milburn: I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), who has great knowledge of and expertise in these matters. He made some extremely important points about affordability, risk transfer and value for money. Those matters are currently dealt with by the PFI process, as he knows. However—I say this advisedly—the right hon. Gentleman is in some danger of putting the cart before the horse. I remind him that the purpose of the Bill is to get existing PFI deals delivered.

  143
  I take no pleasure in saying that the previous Administration failed in that, and I am not going to repeat those mistakes.
  The first stage in the process of getting new capital development under way in the national health service is to get the Bill on the statute book, to get deals delivered and then to move on. We shall certainly be looking at different forms of public-private partnership and at ways to improve the PFI as one form of that partnership. The right hon. Member for Fylde asked me for details on how we might do that. We shall be considering a number of issues in our PFI review.
  We shall try to ensure that we no longer go through the endless process of reinventing the wheel when it comes to PFI documentation. One of the real boons of recent years is that because of the steep learning curve that I described earlier, a mass of information and expertise is now locked in the system, and it is important to take advantage of it so that NHS trusts no longer have to reinvent the wheel for every PFI they enter into. That is why standardisation of documents and contracts will form such an important part of the process in future.
  Similarly, I should like improved competition in the PFI and more bidders in place for longer during the PFI process. Such competition might help to improve value for money from the point of view of the public sector and from that of the taxpayer. These will be the subject of detailed further consideration when we undertake our PFI review. I repeat the invitation that I issued earlier: I am happy to receive representations from right hon. and hon. Members of all parties and, indeed, from my right hon. and hon. Friends to ensure that there is a full consultation exercise that takes account of as many views as possible from the House and from the public and private sectors.
  The right hon. Member for Fylde went into detail about the criteria that had been used for the initial prioritisation exercise. The criteria may not apply as fully and in the same detail to the next round of prioritisation. It is important for him to understand that at the outset.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked for transparency. He has a bit of a cheek, given the lack of transparency from the previous Government on the private finance initiative, most notably their failure even to publish the number of PFI deals under consideration, the number in the pipeline and their assumed capital value. We have put that right and we shall ensure more openness and transparency in future. In that spirit, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there will be criteria, appropriate weighting and a proper process for future prioritisation exercises. I shall ensure that those criteria are made fully available so that the public can see that the assessments undertaken by the region and the capital prioritisation group in the NHS executive are done fairly and objectively.
  Mr. Jack: I am grateful to the Minister for his kindness in answering one half of the range of questions that I asked. One of our amendments deals with the National Audit Office. I understand the Minister's reluctance to go all the way, but can he assure me that the National Audit
  144
  Office's expertise might be used at least in a sampling operation to ensure that deals done under the new arrangements meet his criteria?
  Mr. Milburn: If the right hon. Gentleman gives me a moment or two, I shall come to the point about the NAO and the Audit Commission when I deal with the amendments individually.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the north-east schemes. It is important to set the record straight. He knows full well that the decisions on Northern and Yorkshire schemes were taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I absented myself from those decisions, for reasons that are crystal clear. It was important that I should do that. All the schemes that the right hon. Gentleman highlighted—south Tees, north Durham and Bishop Auckland—had been well highlighted for many years as front runners for the PFI. I do not believe that there were any surprises there, although if the right hon. Gentleman has information to the contrary I should be happy for him to share it with me.
  During the previous 17 years, from 1980 to 1997, just two new hospitals were built in north-eastern England. I am pleased about my right hon. Friend's decision, because it means that the region, together with others, will catch up. We shall provide long-overdue facilities not just in my part of the world but in communities up and down the country.
  Some of the issues that the right hon. Gentleman has highlighted may appear in another guise, but that is a subject for further consideration. I assure him that our criteria will be made publicly available.
  I shall now deal with each amendment in turn, starting with amendment No. 6. We can sign up to the fair distribution of revenue and capital. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is well aware, we want to ensure a fairer distribution of NHS resources. In particular, we want to ensure that NHS need is properly taken into account in the allocation of resources for secondary and primary care services. I shall make a further announcement about that in due course.
  However, I am afraid that there are fundamental problems with the amendment. The first concerns its drafting. It refers to the need to ensure that the agreement is
  "compatible with the fair distribution of capital and revenue spending within a regional … framework."
  I am afraid that terms such as "compatible", "fair distribution" and "regional framework" are very imprecise. Frankly, it is that lack of precision, aside from any other factor, which makes it impossible to accept the amendments. The PFI has already been lawyer-fest and they have done very well out it. The last thing that I intend to do is to give lawyers yet more business. That is why I am determined that the Bill should be properly and precisely drafted.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I declare my interest as someone who trained and practised as a lawyer. The Minister cannot have it both ways; one cannot have plain English on the one hand yet reject things that are drafted to be absolutely plain. The Minister must certify that any agreement is fair, within a regional strategic framework and compatible. If he cannot do that, it is his problem, not ours. We think that the amendment is clear.
  Mr. Milburn: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is clear, but I am afraid that it does not stack up.

  145
  It is by no means clear whether the amendment—I am happy to be advised on it—contemplates simply ensuring equality between trusts within each region or more general equality between all trusts by using a regional strategic framework. I am unclear; I guess that NHS trusts would be unclear, and certainly the private sector would be unclear. The only people who would be making business from that lack of clarity would be the aforementioned lawyers.
  We can be quite sure that the Bill is not the means by which to address such issues. As I said recently, in future we will prioritise capital schemes. In doing so, we will take health service need as the driving force. We want a well-thought-out and rational capital expenditure policy that covers PFI schemes and publicly funded schemes. Above all, any consideration of the proper allocation of resources to trusts needs to take place long before the agreement is submitted to the Secretary of State for certification.
  The amendment does nothing to improve the fair distribution of resources, however the hon. Gentleman defines fair. I am afraid that it suffers from being hopelessly imprecise. I know that the intentions behind it are good, but I am afraid that when it comes to defining words on the statute book, good intent is not quite good enough. It would introduce a further element of uncertainty into a Bill that is designed to end that. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) to withdraw the amendment. If he will not do so, I invite the Committee to reject it.
  Amendment No. 7 refers to the assessment by the Audit Commission. The Secretary of State's certification identifies that an agreement is an externally financed development agreement, an EFDA, under the terms of the Bill. That certification will usually take place when the contract is signed between the NHS trust and the private sector. For that reason, the Audit Commission cannot assess the value for money of an agreement in advance of its certification since there will be no legally binding agreement for it to assess.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will be aware that the Audit Commission's main task is to audit expenditure already incurred and decisions already taken, not to provide a form of guarantee in advance that a particular proposal represents value for money.
  The right hon. Member for Fylde asked about the National Audit Office. It will not examine an agreement retrospectively to assess its value for money. I am more than happy for either the Audit Commission or the NAO to consider PFI deals for value for money. I positively invite them to do so. We have nothing to hide.
  We believe that if a PFI deal has been certified, by definition it gives improved value for money and improved risk transfer for the public purse. If the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey are seeking further assurance about the role of the NAO and the Audit Commission, I am more than happy to invite them to scour each PFI deal to which we give the go-ahead to re-establish that confidence in the process about which I spoke earlier.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey might want to bear in mind a final point about the Audit Commission. The amendment would require the commission to publish its value-for-money assessment of a proposed scheme, but it would not require
  146
  the commission's views to be taken into account. Of course, Ministers always have due consideration for Audit Commission reports; it is an extremely important body and its reports are extremely influential, but, as drafted, the amendment does not give the hon. Gentleman what I suspect he wants—for me to take on board the Audit Commission's views. For those reasons, I invite him to think again, save the Committee a bit of time, allow us to make progress and not press the amendment.
  11.30 pm
  On amendment No. 3, there has been more than a little reinventing of the wheel. The criteria that have to be met before a PFI scheme is allowed to proceed are well known. They include criteria referred to in the amendment, including value for money, risk transfer and affordability. All those factors have to be taken into account well before an agreement is certified. In particular, they have to be taken into account when the Department of Health is asked to approve the full business case for a PFI scheme. Unless the criteria are met, a scheme will not be allowed to progress beyond that point and achieve certification.
  The requirement for adequate prior consultation proposed in the amendment is an odd and subjective test. The right hon. Member for Fylde has just been giving us his views on subjectivity and on the need to improve objectivity. When he reconsiders the amendment, I am sure that he will agree that its wording—where it calls for "adequate prior consultation"—is inadequate. As I said, as part of our PFI review, we shall certainly want to look again at consultation arrangements to secure the right balance between the maximum public openness and the minimum risk to commercial confidentiality.
  I shall turn finally to amendment No. 3—[Interruption.] I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie), the deputy Chief Whip, supports me in my endeavours. As I have not been in favour of amendment No. 3, it follows that I shall not be in favour of amendment No. 2. Criteria such as value for money are considered before my Department or, indeed, the Treasury, approves the full business case for a PFI scheme. The amendment simply enshrines in law what already happens and, in doing so, complicates the Bill without achieving any changes in practice.
  For all those reasons, I invite the right hon. Member for Fylde not to press his amendment. If he will not do so, I invite the Committee to reject it.
  Dr. Brand: We shall not press amendment No. 7 to a Division. But it would be good if the Minister could give an undertaking that the Audit Commission's annual management letter will be published. The Audit Commission considers the NHS and its effectiveness; it would be a good sign of open government if that letter were to be published.
  The Minister has been reassuring all night, but he has lost me on amendment No. 6. I am not a lawyer, so I am not qualified to assess such things, but the amendment is absolutely clear. It states that we expect the Minister, before acting as final arbiter of a PFI scheme, to ensure that "PFI-ability"—as the night goes on, that phrase becomes more difficult to say—does not milk resources from other essential developments that a region needs. We have not received a reassurance on

  147
  that matter. The PFI cannot be taken in isolation, distinct from other capital and service developments. I should therefore like to stress that the amendment is necessary.
  The other important issue is an acknowledgement that there is a need for a regional strategy. I hope that, in pressing the amendment, we will have the support of the Deputy Prime Minister, who I know has a great interest in regionalisation.
  Mr. Jack: I am grateful to the Minister, whose response to our points has been very courteous, for stating that he is to publish the details of the criteria outlined in amendment No. 3. However, I did not hear the hoped-for assurance that he would go a little further in terms of the details that he will provide. The point about publication is to press him to go beyond the rather bland statements in the criteria he used to select the 14 projects that are now able to proceed with negotiations.
  The Minister looks pained—he is probably tired, because it is the first time he has been up as late as this. I know that it is difficult to concentrate on these matters, but those of us who have a genuine interest in those who need new hospitals will continue to press the Minister until he is alert to answer our questions. We need some numerical or objective measures to understand what are his new criteria.
  Mr. Milburn rose—
  Mr. Jack: I shall give way in a minute. The Minister is a careful man and I have always admired the care with which he addresses the House of Commons. However, I would remind him of the terms he gave me in a reply, in which he said that the new review would be a bit different from the existing one. He stated that
  "the criteria for measuring health service need is expected to be similar to that used to assess service need in the recent Private Finance Initiative prioritisation exercise".—[Official Report, 10 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 584.]
  That and other answers to parliamentary questions definitely led me to believe that there would be more than a passing similarity to the points made here. Can I tempt the Minister to the Dispatch Box to satisfy me on that point?
  Mr. Milburn: The right hon. Gentleman has anticipated what I was going to say. We expect the criteria to be similar, but we will be making decision in due course. When we have made the decision, we will, of course, publish the criteria.
  Mr. Jack: I hope that that detail will be available to us, because it is very important. Our amendment No. 2 states:
  "The Secretary of State shall not give a certificate under this section unless he is satisfied that the agreement meets the criteria published",
  and then we simply listed those. The Minister said the amendment was not necessary because the criteria would have had to be satisfied in the first place. My interpretation of our amendment is that that was the starting point of the exercise and that, once the criteria had been published, the
  148
  Minister's view of the world would then prevail—but, by definition, it could not prevail until the criteria had been published. We shall watch carefully for the details.
  I am grateful to the Minister for including the National Audit Office in the process and I agree with the way in which that has been done. I remind him that his comments on the question of having standard-form contracts in future borrow entirely from the successful policy we introduced into the Prison Service—or at least, we were getting there, but we were overtaken by events. There was a template arrangement in the Prison Service and I am glad that he borrowed from our good practice.
  On the question of value for money, risk transfer and affordability, my comments about the Northern and Yorkshire region were not meant as a personal criticism of the Minister. However, he did not respond to my important point. My reason for pressing him was that he will achieve neither value for money nor affordability until he can answer questions such as: will having three new district general hospitals in a tight geographic area have any deleterious effect on the existing hospitals such as that in Darlington? Health experts have led me to understand that, as a result of that expanded capacity, there will be surplus capacity in Darlington that will have to be funded.
  We shall look for the opportunity cost factors that will be involved in the exercise that the Minister is carrying out. I say that to save the Minister making an error in future. He is a reasonable man; I am as well, and I like to help Ministers who are moving towards our joint objective of having more PFI hospitals.
  In the light of the assurances given by the Minister, we shall not seek to press amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 26, Noes 216.

  Division No. 54]

  [11.39 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)

  Keetch, Paul

  Baker, Norman

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Livsey, Richard

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Oaten, Mark

  Burstow, Paul

  Öpik, Lembit

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Rendel, David

  Feam, Ronnie

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Sanders, Adrian

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Gorrie, Donald

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Harvey, Nick

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Mr. Paul Tyler and

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Mr. Phil Willis.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Betts, Clive

  Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)

  Blackman, Liz

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Blizzard, Bob

  Banks, Tony

  Borrow, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Barron, Kevin

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Battle, John

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Bayley, Hugh

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Beard, Nigel

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Benton, Joe

  Burden, Richard

  149

  Burgon, Colin

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Butler, Christine

  Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

  Byers, Stephen

  Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)

  Caborn, Richard

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Cann, Jamie

  Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Kidney, David

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Clapham, Michael

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Laxton, Bob

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Lepper, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Clelland, David

  Linton, Martin

  Coaker, Vernon

  Livingstone, Ken

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Coleman, Iain (Hammersmith)

  Lock, David

  Colman, Tony (Putney)

  McAllion, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Cousins, Jim

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Cranston, Ross

  Macdonald, Calum

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  McDonnell, John

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  McFall, John

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  McNamara, Kevin

  Darvill, Keith

  McNulty, Tony

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Davidson, Ian

  McWalter, Tony

  Dawson, Hilton

  McWilliam, John

  Denham, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Dismore, Andrew

  Mallaber, Judy

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Doran, Frank

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Dowd, Jim

  Maxton, John

  Drew, David

  Michael, Alun

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Efford, Clive

  Milburn, Alan

  Ellman, Ms Louise

  Moffatt, Laura

  Ennis, Jeff

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Morley, Elliot

  Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Foulkes, George

  Mountford, Kali

  Gapes, Mike

  Mudie, George

  Gardiner, Barry

  Mullin, Chris

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Morris, Dan

  Graham, Thomas

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Grogan, John

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Osborne, Mrs Sandra

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Pendry, Tom

  Hanson, David

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Pickthall, Colin

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Pike, Peter L

  Heppell, John

  Plaskitt, James

  Hesford, Stephen

  Pond, Chris

  Hill, Keith

  Pound, Stephen

  Hinchliffe, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Home Robertson, John

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Purchase, Ken

  Hope, Phil

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Quinn, Lawrie (Scarborough)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Rapson, Syd

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Raynsford, Nick

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Hurst, Alan

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Hutton, John

  Rooker, Jeff

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Rooney, Terry

  Ingram, Adam

  Roy, Frank

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  150

  Sawford, Phil

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Singh, Marsha

  Tipping, Paddy

  Skinner, Dennis

  Todd, Mark

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Touhig, Don

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Trickett, Jon

  Truswell, Paul

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Spellar, John

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Watts, David

  Stevenson, George

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Woolas, Phil

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Worthington, Tony

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Wray, James

  Stringer, Graham

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela (Edgbaston)

  Wright, Tony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mr. David Jamieson and

  Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)

  Jane Kennedy.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Dr. Evan Harris: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 1, line 15, at end insert
  'and
  (c) if the National Health Service trust has proved to his satisfaction that the agreement would not restrict clinical freedom or patient choice.'.
  The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 4, in, page 1, line 24, leave out from 'property' to end of line 25 and insert—
  '(b) any non—clinical services, and
  (c) any clinical or clinical support services agreed to by local clinicians.'.
  No. 9, in page 1, line 24, leave out from 'property' to end of line 25.
  Dr. Harris: It is unfortunate that, on my first opportunity to speak on national health service legislation in this place, an hour ago I was called to attend a visitor to the House who had collapsed outside the Chamber. I sent him to St. Thomas's hospital, and I am sure that all hon. Members wish him a speedy recovery. It is important to take note that I passed on his care to an NHS paramedic, who passed it on to an NHS ambulance worker. I spoke to an NHS doctor in the company of NHS nurses at the hospital. [Interruption.]
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. There is far too much general chatter in the Chamber. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) should be heard in silence.
  Dr. Harris: Thank you, Mr. Lord. I suspect that that gentleman will have a chest X-ray, which will be conducted by NHS radiographers and examined by an NHS radiologist—it may be the husband of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge). He may have a blood sugar test and give a urine sample, which will be examined by laboratory staff—not pathologists—who are employed by the NHS. I do not think that the gentleman suffered a heart attack, but, if he did, his rehabilitation will

  151
  be provided by NHS occupational therapists. We seek to preserve that NHS clinical team in our amendment No. 9. That team provides the patient care, and its integrity under single, NHS, management, is vital to a good service and adequate care provision in the NHS.
  We believe that the term "service" used in the Bill is too vague. The Minister said, when commenting on another Liberal Democrat amendment, that vagueness is dangerous in legislation such as this. Therefore, we urge the Government to accept amendment No. 9, which seeks to remove the vagueness by deleting the term "service". We are not reassured by statements made by the Minister, his colleagues in another place and by the Secretary of State that—undefined—clinical services will not be subject to the PFI and therefore run by private companies. Without definition, we cannot be reassured on that point.
  We must also reassure those who work in the health service. My former colleagues and other NHS staff view the PFI and private sector involvement in the health service with great suspicion. It is vital that we address the problems of low morale and suspicion among clinical staff as, in many geographical areas and in many specialties, we face a recruitment crisis that affects medical staff, nursing staff, those in the professions allied to medicine and those in support services. Many of my former NHS colleagues say that they will not apply to hospitals that are run under the PFI. I recall that an early draft of the Norfolk and Norwich PFI scheme gave no consideration to accommodating junior hospital doctors on call at night, and the problem was noticed and pointed out only at a late stage in negotiations.
  It is also the case that, in many of the schemes, little provision may be made for circumstances in services which had previously been defined as non-clinical, such as catering, where it is not really in the interests of a company trying to run catering efficiently and for profit to provide food for isolated clinicians working in the middle of the night. Hon. Members on both sides of the House would be gravely concerned if there was not a bite to eat or a drop to drink in the House after 8 pm. That is the danger of not ensuring that the national health service, which does at least have some accountability to those working in it, continues to provide those services.
  At the election, Labour stood for an end—Liberal Democrats support this—to local pay bargaining for nurses and, by implication, other staff. What is it if it is not local pay bargaining when some NHS workers are contracted out—whether or not it be within the undeclared definition of clinical services—to a local contractor and then have to negotiate terms and conditions locally? It is local pay negotiation by the back door. I am sure that hon. Members on the Government Benches will be very keen to preserve the national part of the national health service, to preserve national terms and conditions, as they are pledged to do, but that will not be possible while not excluding the word "services" from the text of the Bill.
  It is important that we recognise the contribution that is made to NHS clinical services by education and research establishments within the NHS. Academic medicine provides approximately 10 per cent. of direct patient service. Many of the education sectors of the health service, including many in my constituency, are provided
  152
  not only by doctors but by research workers and other staff in the hospital. The contiguity of the team in education and in the labs, which provides the service to the hospital, is under threat. Applications to those posts, which are already depleted, will be under threat if we do not reassure staff. The best way to do that is to define clinical services on the face of the Bill, which the Minister ruled out on Second Reading, or to remove the term "services" altogether. That would improve the Bill.
  Amendment No. 8 talks of the need to ensure that patient choice is preserved. We heard concerns about research that shows that bed provision in PFI schemes is between 26 per cent. and 30 per cent. below what health service academics who have looked at this feel is required. The British Medical Journal may not be required reading even for new Labour Members, but it was adequately reported in The Guardian. We have yet to be reassured about that concern.
  There is also a concern that, with time, patient needs will change and that some of the PH schemes will lock the NHS into relatively secret 30-year contracts. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) raised a concern—it has not been answered satisfactorily—about a different choice. A PFI scheme is either a straight leasing scheme with no transfer of risk, where it will clearly be just a more expensive way to raise capital for the NHS, or the risk will be transferred to the private sector, which will want a bigger return to justify this. The private sector is more likely to get a return on matters relating to running services where it can see scope for expansion or where it can be protected against an excess of capacity versus an excess of demand. No reassurance has been given that patient choice will be protected where there is just an excess of demand for a scheme that is locked in for 30 years. That is another unaddressed concern that we have.
  More worrying is the lack of democratic accountability in the NHS at the moment. It was surprising to hear the Secretary of State indicate from a sedentary position on Second Reading that he felt that democracy was being brought into the NHS by the new round of appointments that are about to be made. That is not democratic, and it is barely accountable. It is strange that, in local authorities, where compulsory competitive tendering has led to the private sector employment of people providing vital public services, there is democratic accountability for decisions made, whereas in the health service, where there is little or no democratic accountability, there seems to be no protection or comeback for professional groups that feel that they may be hostages to fortune to whatever private sector company is running their service. We cannot be reassured, as we were invited to be earlier, that terms and conditions might improve under the private sector. They may improve for the first year, but there are many examples of where what is granted in the first year by privatised industries gradually regresses into something worse than we would support.
  For all these reasons, we are suggesting amendments Nos. 8 and 9.
  12 midnight
  Mr. Maples: The Liberal Democrat amendments in this group seem to be like all the others—it is not, of

  153
  course, for me to answer them—in that if they were agreed to they would kill the private finance initiative stone dead. I do not see how amendment No. 8 would ever work. Indeed, it provides for a lawyers' charter. I am surprised that an amendment with the names of three doctors to it should provide for such a charter. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats have their objectives slightly muddled.
  An amendment that would omit any references to services would make it almost impossible to see an PFI project through. I suspect that none of the smaller ones would go through. Even the large ones, those relying on property maintenance services, would be in question. The service element is a crucial element in securing value for money and risk transfer. If it were not present, the project would not fly and it would become straightforward public expenditure.
  I ask the Minister to consider amendment No. 4, which would split the service question into non-clinical services and clinical or clinical support services. I realise that it begs a question and does not assist with the problem of definition, but I ask the Minister rather more to share his thinking with us. I raised some of the considerations on Second Reading and I feel that in his reply—I know that he had many matters to which to respond—he did not deal with them fully.
  It is easy to pose the extremes, and I imagine that the Government have no problem with property services and maintenance as attached to a PFI contract. On the other hand, there is a great deal of problem with open-heart surgery being provided as part of a PFI contract. The difficulty lies in drawing the line, and I am not suggesting that the drawing of it is easy. As the Minister says that he will try to develop some guidance, however, I shall try to develop the matter.
  I am disappointed that the Minister has already ruled out radiography and pathology. I gave an example on Second Reading of a theoretical scheme that might work well in the area of pathology. It may be that something like that, attached to a PFI project, would make the project work, provided that there was value for money and risk transfer. Without those elements the project would not exist. If there were merely the construction of a building, that would not fly for there would be only a leasing deal. There must be a service element attached to the project, and it may be that the logical service lies in a clinical support area. Ruling that out from the start seems to be restricting the possible scope of PFI projects.
  As I said on Second Reading, the NHS already buys in an enormous amount from the private sector without apparently any ideological problem. General practitioners are effectively in the private sector. They represent small businesses that contract independently with the NHS. We buy in all our drugs and other supplies. The year before last, apparently, we spent £800 million directly buying in health care. If that has been acceptable to us all for years, perhaps without realising consciously that it has been happening, I do not understand why it should be unacceptable to include radiography or pathology services in a PFI bid.
  Amendment No. 4 provides that there should be agreement by "local clinicians" to provide the sort of safeguard that the Government would probably require, and one which the previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), had always discussed.
  154
  I shall focus on the issue by asking the Minister what he would do if he received a really good proposal that he wanted to put into effect, that might allow the building of a new district general hospital, but for PFI purposes meant the inclusion of pathology and radiography services—the two examples that he has excluded already. Let us suppose that those services were part of the project and that without them the value-for-money and risk criteria would not be met, but otherwise the proposal would go straight to the top of the Minister's list of priority projects. How would the Minister deal with that? Perhaps he will develop his thinking with us and explain how he proposes to deal with that issue.
  Mr. Milburn: The amendments represent the two extremes on clinical services under PFI. The Liberal Democrat amendment No. 9 would prevent any transfer of services under the private finance initiative, with the consequent wrecking of the leading schemes, especially those at Norwich and at Dartford, and the other 12 schemes that we have prioritised thus far.
  The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) gave a reasonable presentation of his case. However, if he is prepared to wreck the Bill and thus wreck the prospect of new hospitals for those communities, he should have the courage of his convictions and should go to those communities and explain to them why, out of ideological dogma—which is what it is—he is not prepared to let them have those hospitals. It is incumbent on him to do that.
  Amendment No. 9 seems to be designed to prevent the Secretary of State from certifying an agreement under which any services are to be transferred to the private sector. The practical result of that would be that such agreements would not reach financial close, with the consequence that none of the major PFI acute schemes would be built.
  As Liberal Democrat Members have shown a profound lack of understanding of what the PFI does, perhaps I should explain why, under the PFI, some services are transferred to the private sector. The PFI is not an expensive way of raising a loan to build a hospital: it is a way of providing the NHS with a complete service, including buildings and non-clinical support staff, for which the NHS pays. Under the PFI, significant amounts of risk are transferred to the private sector, so that if the service stops, so do the payments by the health service. All the major hospital schemes that are now going ahead have been developed on that basis. The amendment would stop every one of those schemes in its tracks.
  That is not to say that there will not be new forms of public-private partnership in the future. I have already said that our review of PFI will consider other partnership agreements. We shall consult to see whether there are other ways of engaging with the private sector for the benefit of patients. The amendment prejudges that review and its conclusions about where the dividing line between clinical and non-clinical services should lie.
  On amendment No. 8, arrangements already exist to ensure that these issues are considered—as they certainly should be—well before an agreement is submitted to the Secretary of State for certification. A trust must justify a PFI scheme to the Department of Health when requesting approval of the full business case. It must also justify it to the Treasury. In so doing, it must show what options

  155
  it has considered to meet its service needs, and why it has chosen its preferred option. I would expect it to demonstrate, among other things, the clinical advantages of its preferred option. That is a fundamental aspect of a PFI scheme.
  I am happy to assure the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon that I shall see to it that these issues continue to be given proper weight when a PFI scheme is taken forward. That need not be specified in the Bill, which, for the benefit of Liberal Democrat Members, is about removing doubt, providing certainty and, above all, getting new hospitals built.
  I shall deal with the other end of the spectrum. Amendment No. 4 is a neat reinstatement of the previous Government's position on this issue. It tells its own story. It shows the Tory party's failure to understand why it lost the general election. It lost on 1 May because the British people no longer trusted it. Above all, it lost because it was not trusted on the national health service. It was not trusted because the public believed, quite rightly, that it intended to privatise the national health service, and, if amendment No. 4 is anything to go by, it clearly has exactly that intention now.
  This is, of course, all dressed up in the clothes of "clinical choice". The Opposition's line is that, if desperate doctors working in an antiquated hospital say that the price that they are willing to pay to get a modern hospital is private employment through a PFI deal, that deal should be given the green light. Let me tell the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) that, while I am all for clinical choice, I am adamantly opposed to the privatisation of clinical services in any part of the NHS. I remind the hon. Gentleman—who seems to have forgotten—that it is a national health service of which Members of Parliament are guardians, not a rag-bag collection of competing local health services. This Government are determined to run the service as a national health service; we are also committed to run it in accordance with our manifesto commitments. The manifesto committed us to opposing the inclusion of clinical services in PFI deals, and, despite the hon. Gentleman's prompting, I am not about to reverse that principle by accepting amendment No 4.
  As I have explained, as part of our review of the PFI the Government will, for the first time in the history of the NHS, define where the boundaries between clinical and non-clinical services lie. That will form part of the PFI process. If the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon wants to make representations, I invite him to do so, but the last thing that we need is yet more uncertainty in the Bill. As the hon. Gentleman knows, what we need tonight is clarity, so that we can make progress.
  Mr. Maples: For the first time during the debate, I heard ideology creeping into the Minister's speech. Although I understand some of his reasons, I feel that there should be practical reasons for acting or not acting.
  As I said earlier, the NHS buys in a certain amount of health care from the private sector. I do not know the amount now, but it was £800 million-worth two years ago. I do not hear the Minister saying that he proposes to abolish that arrangement, and I do not think that the Conservative Government were heavily criticised for presiding over it. Health authorities probably acted with good reason, making decisions for themselves.
  156
  There are so many examples of the health service buying in services from the private sector that the ideological no-go area proposed by the Minister is likely to restrict the number of options open to him. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) mentioned the haemodialysis service at Darlington Memorial hospital, which was set up and is being operated under the PFI. Presumably the Minister would not have allowed that, although he is probably more familiar with what clinicians and others at the hospital think about it than any of the rest of us are. Will the Minister reflect on whether the PFI has really caused the problems for doctors and patients that he suggests the amendment would cause? I hope that he will keep an open mind in his review—or, at least, a more open mind than he appears to have now. I do not think that he should start ruling things out.
  Interestingly, the Government seem to have changed their position. On the first day of debate in the House of Lords, the Minister who was dealing with the Bill did not rule out radiology and pathology services, but did rule them out a few days later—in Committee or on Report; I forget which. I should have thought that, with several years of office ahead of them and with a review on the subject, the Government would be wise not to rule out such services. They may well find that schemes that they want to introduce rely on the value-for-money and risk-transfer elements involved in some degree of service provision.
  Drawing the line between clinical and non-clinical support is extremely difficult, and I hope that the Minister will take that into account in the review. He has as good as said that he will.
  Dr. Harris: I thank the Minister for his reply in respect of amendment No. 8. We continue to hear reassuring noises from the Government about scrutiny to ensure that patients' interests are preserved, but we shall continue to carry out the scrutiny of the Government in a way in which the Conservative party cannot.
  12.15 am
  Amendment No. 9 relates to the definition of clinical services. In the first Health Question Time in this Parliament, the Secretary of State said:
  "When the Bill comes to this House from the House of Lords, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to move an amendment to make that clear I shall consider it carefully."—[Official Report, 20 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 504.]
  Despite attempts in another place, we do not think that the Government have considered this matter carefully, because in the other place we requested a list of clinical services as the Government saw them. It is unsatisfactory to have an assurance from the Minister now that only after the Bill is passed will there be such a list. There was plenty of time to define it, and simply throwing in the expression "pathology and radiology services" betrays a lack of understanding of the extent and integrity of the clinical team.
  We do not wish to stop the building of any hospital. The Government claim that the amendment risks threatening the private finance initiative. That is the Government's view, but it is not ours. The Bill as drafted

  157
  puts at risk the national health service as we know it, and we would rather tie our colours to the mast of protection for the NHS than any perceived risk to the PFI.
  Mr. Milburn: It is not our perception: it is the view of the bankers, and they will stump up the cash. If the hon. Gentleman intends to press this matter to a vote, he should also be intent upon explaining to the 14 communities that their hospitals will not be built. There should be some honesty among Liberal Democrat Members.
  Dr. Harris: We do not accept that the amendment puts any hospital at risk, and it is not our intention to stop the building of any hospital. We have consistently, and this year, promised extra funding for the national health service. The Minister's reference to bankers more eloquently betrays a lack of understanding of the nature of NHS functions as a public service than anything that has been said earlier.
  We shall press our amendment on this issue to a vote. Following Ministers' remarks in another place, doctors, the Royal College of Nursing and ourselves are not satisfied. We shall put down a marker that it is creating a hostage to fortune to allow the private finance initiative to proceed into the field of clinical services. We shall press amendment No. 9.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. We must first dispose of amendment No. 8.
  Dr. Harris: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed: No. 9, in page 1, line 24, leave out from 'property' to end of line 25.—[Dr. Harris.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 26, Noes 174.

  Division No. 55]

  [12.17 am

  AYES

  Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)

  Keetch, Paul

  Baker, Norman

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Livsey, Richard

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Oaten, Mark

  Burstow, Paul

  Öpik, Lembit

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Rendel, David

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Sanders, Adrian

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Gorrie, Donald

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Harvey, Nick

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Mr. Paul Tyler and

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Mr. Phil Willis.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)

  Benton, Joe

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Betts, Clive

  Banks, Tony

  Blizzard, Bob

  Barnes, Harry

  Borrow, David

  Barron, Kevin

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Battle, John

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Bayley, Hugh

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Beard, Nigel

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  158

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Browne, Desmond (Kilmamock)

  Laxton, Bob

  Burden, Richard

  Lepper, David

  Burgon, Colin

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Byers, Stephen

  Linton, Martin

  Caborn, Richard

  Livingstone, Ken

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Lock, David

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  McAllion, John

  Cann, Jamie

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Cawsey, Ian

  Macdonald, Calum

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  McDonnell, John

  Clapham, Michael

  McFall, John

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  McNamara, Kevin

  McNulty, Tony

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  McWalter, Tony

  Clelland, David

  McWilliam, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Coleman, Iain (Hammersmith)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Colman, Tony (Putney)

  Michael, Alun

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Cousins, Jim

  Milburn, Alan

  Cranston, Ross

  Morley, Elliot

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Mudie, George

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

  Darvill, Keith

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Davidson, Ian

  Norris, Dan

  Dawson, Hilton

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Denham, John

  O'Hara, Edward

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  O'Neill, Martin

  Doran, Frank

  Pickthall, Colin

  Dowd, Jim

  Pike, Peter L

  Drew, David

  Plaskitt, James

  Efford, Clive

  Pond, Chris

  Ennis, Jeff

  Pound, Stephen

  Fatchett, Derek

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Purchase, Ken

  Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Foulkes, George

  Quinn, Lawrie (Scarborough)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Rapson, Syd

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Rooker, Jeff

  Graham, Thomas

  Rooney, Terry

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Roy, Frank

  Grogan, John

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Gunnell, John

  Sawford, Phil

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Hanson, David

  Singh, Marsha

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Heppell, John

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Hill, Keith

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Home Robertson, John

  Spellar, John

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Stevenson, George

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Stringer, Graham

  Hurst, Alan

  Stuart, Ms Gisela (Edgbaston)

  Hutton, John

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Ingram, Adam

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Jamieson, David

  Tipping, Paddy

  Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

  Todd, Mark

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Touhig, Don

  Trickett, Jon

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Truswell, Paul

  Kidney, David

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  159

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Wright, Tony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Watts, David

  Woolas, Phil

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Worthington, Tony

  Janet Anderson and

  Wray, James

  Jane Kennedy.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New clause 1

  COMMENCEMENT
  'This Act shall come into force on a day to be appointed by order of the Secretary of State, being a day not earlier than 1st September 1997.'.—[Mr. Jack]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Jack: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Date on which Act shall cease to have effect—
  'This Act shall cease to have effect three years after enactment.'.
  Mr. Jack: The Minister, who is an assiduous man, will no doubt be familiar with paragraph 29(vi) of the Bates report and paragraph 12(6) of a document that I am sure he has studied in great detail, "Guidelines for Smoothing the Procurement Process". Both deal with a matter of considerable importance to the Minister, who told us at the beginning of the debate that he wanted to do all he could to accelerate the PFI process and to leave a nice taste in the mouth of those who are involved in it. The reason we have tabled our new clause, providing a specific date for introduction of the Bill's powers, is to give him time to reflect and to consider the matters dealt with in the two numbered paragraphs.
  The Minister is perhaps a little unsighted, and I should perhaps explain the matter in a little greater detail. Paragraph 29(vi) of the Bates report—which I remind him has been accepted in full by the Paymaster General—states:
  "When a decision is made not to proceed with a project and that decision is not related to the viability of tenders received, contractors' bidding costs should be refunded. Such a procedure exists already in the Highways Agency and should apply generally across Departments."
  That advice, which the Paymaster General claims is new, reflects the advice in one of the numbered paragraphs in "Guidelines for Smoothing the Procurement Process".
  I raise the issue now to give the Minister a chance to consider what will happen to those who ultimately become the losers in the exercise. I appreciate that he might guide me in saying that projects that are refused are not yet losers, because they are subject to his consultation exercise and may return in another guise. At some point, however, someone will lose, whether it is a bidding consortium that incurs considerable costs or a trust itself.
  I do not accept the Minister's answer to a parliamentary question from me, because his answer indicated a difference of view. As I had understood it, in normal circumstances expenses incurred by trusts in such matters
  160
  would have been capitalised. He disagreed, and said that expenses would have to be taken into account under revenue. Either way, a trust will lose after having spent a considerable sum. Ultimately, and more importantly, however, those whom the Minister wants to attract to his cause—contractors and others in a consortium—will lose out.
  As the Bates report states, the Government's policy is to reimburse people for their bidding costs if, through no fault of their own, a project comes to a conclusion unfavourable to them. We have suggested delaying by one month the Bill's commencement, so that the Minister may reflect carefully on his obligations if he is to stay in line with the stated position of the Paymaster General.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I should like to say a few words on new clause 2, which is grouped with new clause 1. I accept that the arguments in this debate have been run in the other place. Our proposal and our view are very clear, and have not been changed or shaken by the debate in either the other place or this House; rather, they have been confirmed by the Minister's comments.
  We are clear in our belief that current PFI arrangements are neither satisfactory nor the best that can be provided for a public-private partnership in the health service. Therefore, we do not want permanently to establish the current system, which has been inherited from the previous Conservative Government and which has been continued unchanged, at least initially, by the new Government. We do not want the system to be perceived as something that will continue indefinitely.
  We want to force the pace of change, and there are only two ways in which to do so. Either we should say, "We will change it one day," or—as the House often does with legislation—we should time-limit it and say, "Unless the House decides that it wants to continue legislation, that legislation will no longer continue to exist."
  New clause 2 would therefore place a time limit on the Bill. If the Government won the argument and held to their view that PFI was the best form of public-private partnership, they would return to the House in three years, or as soon as they wished to do so, and say that it had to be continued, and that they intended to legislate for an indefinite period. If, however, as we hope, they come back after their review and say that it is not the best system, the legislation will either need to be replaced or repealed, or will be left on the statute book and not used, which is nonsense if we want a statute book with no redundant legislation on it.
  The only argument against the notion of a time limit is that used by the Minister in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) in the previous debate—that it would cause uncertainty. That argument was also used by the Minister in another place. Intellectually, I understand that argument, but the Government have to decide what signals they want to send. We are dealing with all stages of the Bill in one day, unlike what happened with the last short NHS Bill introduced by the previous Government, which at least went through all its stages in the correct time, and unlike what happened to this Bill in another place, when there were proper gaps between all the stages.
  The Bill was introduced because the Government want to ensure that projects already in the pipeline can be progressed. My colleagues and I happen to think that that

  161
  pragmatic view is not sufficiently principled to be justifiable on the basis of dealing with projects in the pipeline.
  Even if that were the Government's view for the time being—even if they said they believed that the PFI was the only show in town, or, to use the Minister's words, it was PFI or bust, as in the case of Gravesham and of Norfolk and Norwich—it still would not mean that something else could not happen within three years. To deal with the uncertainty, the Minister has only to say that there will be partnership arrangements which will protect the interests of the private partners, that the Government will ensure that they are consulted on, that they will ensure they get the legislation right first time, and that everything will be done in good time. In that way, the assurance is given.
  If the private sector, or the bankers—to use the example cited in the previous debate—are so troubled about whether they have any future in the health service that the prospect of a Government assurance that there will be legislative arrangements within three years is not enough, I do not think that they are very secure partners for the NHS. We want people who are committed to the health service, not just to short-term financial profit. We want people who see themselves as having a long-term obligation to be partners in British health care.
  The Bill is to deal with projects in the pipeline. The Minister has helped himself since the debate in another place by giving 14 of them the green light. He knows as well as I do, because it is in the letter that he kindly wrote to us at the beginning of the month, that they are meant to be up and running within 18 months; if they are not, he will ask why.
  I am not trying to tie the Minister to the exact day, but, in this final debate on amendments to the Bill, I should like the Minister to tell us when he expects the PFI review to be completed—this calendar year, financial year or legislative year. I am not bothered which it is, because I want it to be done properly, but whichever it is, there will be plenty of time for Parliament to debate what should come after the scrappy PFI scheme introduced by the Tories.
  It does not sound convincing when the scheme which the Labour party criticised so roundly and so often is now being endorsed so warmly as the only show in town. Either it was right before, which the Conservatives are entitled to argue, and is right now, or it was suspect then, as we argued, and it is suspect now. There is nothing to suggest that it was right then and suspect now, or the other way around.
  We think that the Bill should be time-limited. Three years is sufficient to get the new show on the road. People who make a commitment to the health service and whose present project has been approved under the Bill will be reassured by a subsequent Government assurance that they intend to put a replacement and better system in place—a system that I shall collaborate with them in achieving—well before the three years are up.
  Mr. Milburn: Both the new clauses would, in different ways, undermine the PFI in the national health service. They would therefore also wreck the urgently needed hospital building programme.
  New clause 1 would prevent the Bill from coming into force before 1 September. That is a slightly odd proposal from the Conservatives, who have previously declared
  162
  their firm intent to help speed the Bill through. We are committed to sorting out the mess that we have inherited. As part of that process, we want to reach financial close and to see work starting on site as soon as possible. Commercial contracts have been signed for the schemes at Dartford and Norwich. They are just waiting for the Bill to be passed before they proceed to financial close and the diggers start on site.
  I remind the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), if he has not realised this already, that, if the Bill cannot come into force before 1 September, bankers—I know that that word is anathema to some Liberal Democrats—will not commit their money until that date. It is that simple. The consequence, right down the line, will be that communities that are waiting for schemes to go ahead will face further delay. We are all sick and tired of delay. We want certainty and clarity, and we want work to begin. For that reason, I invite the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the motion.
  Mr. Jack: The Minister talks about the need to speed up progress on the Norfolk and Norwich project. How will the project achieve what he wants without the one-fiftieth scale architectural drawings required to know what to build where?
  Mr. Milburn: The scheme is at commercial close, and is waiting to see how the Bill progresses. There are issues to be sorted out, but I am confident that rapid progress will be made. The last thing the project needs is a further timetabling obstacle. The people of Norfolk and Norwich need a new hospital in the city, and they should get it.
  If the right hon. Gentleman wants more information about abortive costs than I can briefly give him now, I shall gladly write to him. He will know that NHS policy has always been that bidding costs are at risk until a scheme is given full business case approval by the NHS executive and the Treasury.
  That is reasonable, because otherwise the Government could end up refunding costs incurred by the private sector in developing a mediocre scheme. Why should the taxpayer subsidise poor schemes? The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) urged me to take robust action. I am doing that. Robust action does not involve bailing out poor schemes. The Bates report recommends certain actions on abortive costs, but the proposals will not be applied retrospectively. They will apply to any scheme approved after 23 June, when the conclusions of the report were issued.
  The aim of new clause 2 is that the Bill should cease to have effect after three years. That is another pretty unusual proposal, which does not improve the legislation.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked a simple question: how long will our review of the PFI take? I give him a simple answer: it will be finished by the end of this calendar year. The last thing I want is yet a further obstacle placed in the way of establishing confidence in the existing PFI process. For that reason—to avoid doubt and to guarantee what he referred to as the long-term involvement of a number of stakeholders in the PFI—I ask the hon. Member not to press his new clause.
  Mr. Jack: We have heard the Minister come almost full circle. I do not want to delay unnecessarily the implementation of the PFI in the health service.

  163
  If the Minister and his officials cared to examine the record of the Treasury during my time there, they would discover that we did a great deal to try to make progress in what would, inevitably, always be an immensely complicated area. We took a lot of steps which I will not go into now to try to make that progress.
  Had we not made some progress by establishing good foundations, the Minister would not have 14 projects on which he can now negotiate. If it had not been for us sticking to our guns on the PFI, there would be no such thing for him to benefit from. Bearing in mind the flak to which we were subjected from the then Opposition, who used to tell us that the PFI meant privatisation by the back door, criticism of our inadequacies comes rich from the Minister now.
  I have looked at the Bates report, and after the conclusion of our proceedings I should be grateful if the Minister told me where it mentions the starting date to which he referred. We proposed a delay to allow the Minister to consider what appears to stated Government policy. He is now at odds with his colleague the Paymaster General, who said in his press release that the Government accepted all the Bates report.
  I do not see anything in the press release from the Treasury to say that the terms of that acceptance apply only to projects agreed after the introduction of the report. I accept that the terms governing the procurement process state that the reimbursement of the bidding costs remains a matter for individual Departments. Bates has moved on from that, however, and has stated clearly that, when a decision not to proceed with a project is made and that decision is not related to viability, the bidding costs should be refunded.
  The Minister's announcement was made after Bates had reported. Some people in the world of construction, project finance and so on will be extremely upset and disappointed by the Minister's narrow interpretation of that report.
  At least this brief debate has teased out the fact that the Minister will disappoint people. His remarks are on the record, and I have no doubt that the contractors will want to take them up with him. As we do not wish to delay the PFI as it makes its undoubted progress, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill reported, without amendment.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Milburn.]
  12.47 am
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The House has spent six hours dealing with all stages of the Bill. It is a hugely important one for the health service, and in the past six hours we have exposed the differences on it which exist across the House.
  The Liberal Democrats believe that, if the Government had started the day with significantly more funds for public provision for the health service to build, the Bill would not be so crucial. A better funded health service is a better and more central remedy than the Bill.
  164
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) said cogently, it is nonsense for the health service to plan for itself spontaneously from the bottom up only when a local idea comes to bloom, or to make every proposal subject to the approval of the Secretary of State or the Minister.
  The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) asked that the Minister should approve the number of beds in the new Norfolk and Norwich hospital, as well as the approach roads to it. It is nonsense for the health service to make such decisions. Of course Ministers should be accountable, but proposals should be planned and scrutinised at a regional level. It is at that regional democratic level that the public should be involved, to ensure that we have an adequately resourced and adequately planned health service.
  Thirdly, I think that we have clearly made the point that we believe that a better way for private finance to be involved in the health service is not through the one-off, ad hoc, area-by-area local deals, but through establishing a secure, national system whereby those on the private sector who want to invest in the health service can do so. That should save all the duplication, which I agree we want to avoid—there would be one process for distributing the resources and sharing out the capital. There would be one source, with one kitty and, ideally, one pool of money. We clearly take a different view from the Government on that.
  Despite those reservations, and for obvious reasons, we will not vote against Third Reading, just as we did not vote against Second Reading. We tabled our reasoned amendment, but it was not selected; we accept that that is the way that the House organises its business. The Minister knows that there are things in the pipeline that have been frustrated enough. Whatever our view might be about the individual schemes in Norwich, Gravesham or Dartford, it is not our job to frustrate people—including some of my colleagues in Newbury, Hereford and elsewhere—who have already been waiting long enough for schemes that are approved under the system.
  We have not blocked the Bill, but we have severe doubts about the system of financing. We believe that we will be proved right, but, in the meantime, we will collaborate with the Minister and the Government to try to ensure that we get a better system than the one that they took off the shelf in Richmond house when they inherited the system from the Tories. They can do better than that, and Britain can do better than that.
  12.51 am
  Dr. Harris: There are a couple of points on which I should like to seek reassurance from the Minister. I am sorry that I was unable to catch his attention and intervene during the debate on Second Reading.
  The first point involves the report from the Institute of Health Services Management, which stresses the need for purchasers to be actively involved in the genesis, not just the checking, of PFI schemes. It states:
  "the purchasing side of the NHS must get a grip on the process. Leaving the initiative with provider trusts, and with their consortium partners, risks locking the service into models of health care that may quickly be out-dated. 'The starting point has to be a clear view about the kinds of health care facilities needed in the future.'"

  165
  I seek the Minister's reassurance about how the purchasers within the health service are to be locked into that process from the beginning, not just forced to accept whatever provider trusts and their consortiums bring forward.
  I also seek the Minister's reassurance, either now or at a later date, about the preservation of some of the important aspects within the health service, such as education, which may be peripheral to the concerns of bidders in the PFI process. What means will there be to ensure that those running hospital services are able to respond to new Government initiatives relating to the appropriate treatment of hospital staff after hours? I have referred to catering facilities after hours for those unfortunate members of the health professions who have to work out of hours in difficult circumstances.
  I stress that, for many hospitals in my region, particularly those that are not able to use the PFI, the delay has arisen from initially having to engage in the PH process. If it was clear what made a scheme fit for the PFI, and if public funding were available for necessary schemes that were not appropriate to the PFI, we could ensure that urgently needed schemes that were not suitable for the PFI were not subject to the delays that we have seen in the past few years.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  LEGAL AID AND ADVICE
  That the draft Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 19th June, be approved.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
  That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Framework Co-operation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States and the Republic of Chile) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 23rd June, be approved.
  That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Euro-Mediterranean Agreement Establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States and the Kingdom of Morocco) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 23rd June, be approved.
  That the draft 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, which was laid before this House on 23rd June, be approved.

  INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION AND DEVELOPMENT
  That the draft Scottish Seed Potato Development Council (Dissolution) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 24th June, be approved.—[Mr. Betts.]
  Question agreed to.

AGRICULTURE
Ordered,
That Mr. Tim Collins, Mr. Andrew George, Mr. John Hayes, Mr. Alan Hurst, Ms Fiona Jones, Ms Sally Keeble, Mr. Peter Luff, Mr. Paul Marsden, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mrs. Diana Organ and Mr. Mark Todd be members of the Agriculture Committee.—[Mr. John Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

DEFENCE
Ordered,
That Mr. Crispin Blunt, Mr. Julian Brazier, Mr. Menzies Campbell, Mr. Jamie Cann, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Michael Colvin, Mr. Bruce George, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Mr. John McWilliam, Laura Moffatt and Ms Dari Taylor be members of the Defence Committee.—[Mr. John Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT
Ordered,
That Ms Candy Atherton, Charlotte Atkins, Mr. Joe Benton, Mr. Graham Brady, Yvette Cooper, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Valerie Davey, Caroline Flint, Mr. Derek Foster, Mr. Don Foster. Mr. John Healey, Ms Margaret Hodge, Mrs. Eleanor Laing, Judy Mallaber, Mrs. Theresa May, Mr. Nick St. Aubyn and Mr. Gerry Steinberg be members of the Education and Employment Committee.—[Mr. John Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS
Ordered,
That Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Tom Brake, Christine Butler, Mr. John Cummings, Mr. Stephen Day, Mr. Brian H. Donohoe, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mrs. Louise Ellman, Mr. Howard Flight, Mr. Clifford Forsythe, Mr. James Gray. Mr. Bill O'Brien, Mr. Bill Olner, Mr. Eric Pickles, Mr. George Stevenson, Mr. Graham Stringer and Dr. Alan Whitehead be members of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee.—[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

HEALTH
Ordered,
That Mr. John Austin, Dr. Peter Brand, Mr. Peter Brooke, Julia Drown, Mr. John Gunnell, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Ann Keen, Mr. Andrew Lansley, Dr. Howard Stoate, Mr. Robert Syms and Audrey Wise be members of the Health Committee.—[Mr. John Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Ordered,
That Mr. Dennis Canavan, Ann Clwyd, Ms Barbara Follett, Mr. Bernie Grant, Mr. Piara S. Khabra, Ms Oona King, Mrs. Tess Kingham, Mr. Andrew Robathan, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Dr. Jenny Tonge and Mr. Bowen Wells be members of the International Development Committee.—[Mr. John Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

NATIONAL HERITAGE
Ordered,
That Mr. Michael Fabricant, Mr. Ronnie Fearn, Mr. Christopher Fraser, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. Damian Green, Mr. Gerald Kaufman, Mr. Alan Keen, Mr. John Maxton, Mr. Roger Stott, Ms Claire Ward and Derek Wyatt be members of the National Heritage Committee.—[Mr. John Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Ordered,
That Mr. David Atkinson, Mr. Nigel Beard, Dr. Michael Clark, Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas, Dr. Ian Gibson, Lynne Jones, Mr. Nigel Jones, Dr. Ashok Kumar, Mrs. Caroline Spelman, Mr. Desmond Turner and Mr. Alan W. Williams be members of the Science and Technology Committee.—[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

SCOTTISH AFFAIRS
Ordered,
That Mrs. Irene Adams, Mr. Peter Atkinson, Miss Anne Begg, Mr. Eric Clarke, Mr. John McAllion, Rosemary McKenna, Mr. David Marshall, Mr. Michael Moore, Mr. David Stewart, Mr. Desmond Swayne and Mr. Andrew Welsh be members of the Scottish Affairs Committee.—[Mr. John Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

SOCIAL SECURITY
Ordered,
That Ms Karen Buck, Mr. Nick Gibb, Ms Patricia Hewitt, Miss Julie Kirkbride, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. Edward Leigh, Siobhain McDonagh, Mr. Chris Pond, Mr. Frank Roy, Ms Gisela Stuart and Mr. Malcolm Wicks be members of the Social Security Committee.—[Mr. John Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

TRADE AND INDUSTRY
Ordered,
That Mr. Tony Baldry, Mr. Roger Berry, Mr. John Butterfill, Mr. Jim Cunningham, Mr. Alan Johnson, Mr. Bob Laxton, Gillian Merron, Mr. Alasdair Morgan, Mr. Martin O'Neill, Mr. David Prior and Joan Walley be members of the Trade and Industry Committee.—[Mr. John Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

WELSH AFFAIRS
Ordered,
That Mr. John Bercow, Mr. Martin Caton, Paul Flynn, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mr. Martyn Jones, Ms Jackie Lawrence, Mr. Richard Livsey, Ms Julie Morgan, Mr. Owen Paterson, Mr. Gareth Thomas and Mrs. Betty Williams be members of the Welsh Affairs Committee.—[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Housing Benefit
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
12.54 am
Mrs. Jackie Ballard: I am grateful for the chance, even at this late hour—or perhaps early hour—to draw the attention of the House and the Minister to some of the issues relating to housing benefit that concern me and other hon. Members. The subject of the debate is technical and may not sound exciting enough to keep many hon. Members in the Chamber this morning, but behind the academic arguments, statistics and fiscal calculations are the human problems of homelessness and poverty, which I know are of concern to most, if not all, hon. Members—although I notice that no Conservative Members share that concern.
As many hon. Members will know, housing benefit is paid to people who pay rent and are on low incomes, whether they are in work, unemployed or retired. It is paid by local authorities, but the rules and regulations are determined nationally. There are two main issues that I should like to raise: first, the single room rent rule for tenants in the private sector; and, secondly, the level of housing subsidy repaid to local authorities.
The single room rent rule was introduced by the previous Government in October 1996. It means that young people aged under 25 no longer receive a level of housing benefit that enables them to afford suitable accommodation. Instead, housing benefit is limited for them to the average cost of shared accommodation in the area. That usually means living in houses of multiple occupation, or HMOs, and having to share facilities such as kitchens or bathrooms with other tenants. That change has had a terrible effect on the young: homelessness has increased, while those who are not homeless face increasing poverty as they try to eke out their benefit or low wages to pay the extra rent.
The emphasis on HMOs as the preferred option for young people is, quite frankly, daft and possibly dangerous. In a 1991 Joseph Rowntree Foundation survey, 40 per cent. of HMOs were found to be unfit for human habitation. The survey also revealed that residents in HMOs were 28 times more likely to die in a fire than those in self-contained accommodation. In addition, HMOs do not yet have to be registered. Yet that is the form of accommodation promoted by the housing benefit rules for young people. It is also true that many parts of the country do not have an adequate supply of that type of dwelling. How are young people supposed to live in HMOs if there is none? The previous Government would have said, "The market will respond," but the private housing market is a slow beast and responding to such changes in demand would take many years.
The effects of the single room rent regulation in my own constituency have reflected national trends. Two recent reports by the south-western citizens advice bureaux and the Somerset Social Policy Group have highlighted the effects. The average cost of shared housing in Somerset is estimated to be £5 to £15 higher per week than the local single room rent assessment; and the cost of self-contained one-bed accommodation is £35 to £45 a week higher. One survey found that, in my constituency, three out of four landlords imposed further charges in addition to rent—as much as £100 in some cases, for administration.

169
Young tenants therefore have four choices if they cannot find a well-paid job. They can find new lodgings; pay for their rent out of their income or benefit; build up arrears and face expulsion; or try to negotiate a lower rent. Let me deal with each of those options in turn. The chances of finding new lodgings while on benefit are very slim. Landlords are distinctly reluctant to take on new tenants who are on housing benefit and those who do take on such tenants often provide the worst sort of accommodation. The option of paying the extra rent out of income can lead to tenants living at below subsistence level. After paying the rent, one client of the south-west citizens advice bureaux had only £8.86 left a week to pay for food and other items. Obviously, building up arrears is not a long-term option. Finally, bargaining with one's landlord to lower the rent proves unsuccessful in the vast majority of cases.
The effect has been to push young people out of reasonable accommodation into homelessness or unsuitable and substandard dwellings. Some might argue—indeed, many members of the previous Conservative Government did argue—that they should live with their parents, but in an age of increasing family breakdown, that is wishful thinking. It does not take into account the location of any parental home or serious family disputes or even abuse. It also does not take into account the natural desire of many people over 18 to leave home and live independently—sometimes the only way to ensure a continuing happy relationship with parents.
The consequences have been economic as well as personal. As the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) predicted in a debate in the House in February 1996, the change acted as a disincentive to taking up work, for fear that any job might not last, so housing benefit would be lower once the person reclaimed. At the time, that change in the regulations was opposed by the Liberal Democrats and Labour.
I welcome the fact that the Government have acted swiftly to halt the extension of the rule to those aged 25 to 60. I also welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State of a review of housing policy and housing benefit. However, the new Government have taken no action to help young people on housing benefit—and remember, this is not only people who are out of work and might benefit from the welfare-to-work scheme, but people in low-paid jobs. They will continue to suffer under the proposals introduced by the previous Government.
I shall now discuss subsidy on local authority rent accounts. As hon. Members must know, the housing subsidy paid to local authorities consists of several elements, including rent rebates. During the past few years, the calculation has resulted in a subsidy payment to local councils that is significantly less than the rent rebates or housing benefit that they pay out. As local authorities are providers of social housing, inevitably a high proportion of their tenants will be either in low-paid jobs or out of work and therefore claiming housing benefit.
As the housing benefit bill increased in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Conservative Government searched for ways to keep it down. One way is to make council tenants who are not on benefits effectively subsidise those who are, by withdrawing rent account subsidy. In 1996, the Government introduced a limit to local authority rent
170
increases, with increasingly heavy penalties for any rent increases in excess of the guideline figure. For my local authority of Taunton Deane, the guideline increase in 1996–97 was 67p per week, or 1.82 per cent. If the council had imposed a rent increase greater than the guideline, tenants not on rebate would have had to pay a progressively greater amount to offset the loss of subsidy. As hon. Members will be well aware, 1.82 per cent. is well below the rate of inflation now, and indeed that projected for the autumn.
The cost of housing benefit for local authority tenants in Taunton Deane this year is £7.3 million, of which the Government will repay only £3.1 million—less than 50 per cent. rebate, whereas housing associations are repaid 95 per cent.
It is estimated that, between 1990 and 1997, £6 billion will have been siphoned off from rent payments in local authorities to meet benefit bills. Figures from the Local Government Association's housing finance survey in England for this year show that local authorities will contribute more than £1.2 billion to the cost of rent rebates. Even allowing for the positive subsidy paid to 27 authorities, the Government are making a profit of £640 million from council house tenants this year alone.
To try to keep the national housing benefit bill down, local council tenants have for years been subsidising other tenants, both in taxation, as we all are, and in their rent. Now councils cannot afford to maintain their housing stock because they are not allowed to levy rent increases above inflation. Tenants rightly believe that their rent payments should be for landlord services, not for welfare payments to other tenants. If that £6 billion had been spent on repairing and maintaining council houses, how much better maintained would local authority stock be now? Fewer councils might then feel the need to sell off their stock to housing associations.
I contrast the treatment of local authorities and housing associations. The latter are repaid 95 per cent. of their housing benefit bill and are allowed to increase their rents above the inflation rate. That punitive regime was in place under a Government who were clearly hostile to local authority housing. The Labour Government profess not to be. In the debate on the Local Government Finance (Supplementary Credit Approvals) Bill, the Minister for London and Construction told me:
"After 18 years when local authorities have been denigrated and run down by the Conservatives, I can assure her that the Government will support them and see them having a strong and positive role in this area."—[Official Report, 17 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 209.]
Finally, I wish briefly to discuss the Budget and associated changes in benefit. The most significant change is to non-dependant deductions, to be introduced next April. Non-dependant deductions create work disincentives, cause friction within families, and can result in rent arrears and even homelessness. Between 1993 and 1996, the top rate of non-dependant deductions increased from £21 to £32—a rise of 52 per cent. There have also been serious problems in the administration of non-dependant deductions. The claimant must find out the income of the non-dependant, who receives no notification of the implementation of the deduction from the claimant's housing benefit.
The most worrying part of the Budget was the announcement of a change to the period of backdating permitted from October 1998. It had been one year;

171
the Tories reduced it to three months; and we now hear that it is to be only one month. Moreover, that is in the context of severe problems in local government finances.
Because of the 18 to 25 single room rent rule, homelessness among young people has increased throughout the country. Because of the withdrawal of subsidy paid to councils and controls on their rents, poor tenants subsidise even poorer tenants and councils cannot afford properly to maintain their housing stock. A Government who say that they are committed to the relief of poverty and to social justice cannot allow that to continue. I await with interest the Minister's response to the issues that I have raised.
1.6 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Keith Bradley): I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Taunton (Mrs. Ballard) said, and I congratulate her on obtaining this wide-ranging debate. In the brief time available, I will try to cover the points that she raised, but she will appreciate that some of them are not the direct responsibility of the Department of Social Security. Those matters which would have been more appropriate for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will be looked into and we shall write to the hon. Lady on those in due course.
I am pleased to be able to make clear to the House two preliminary points. First, single room rents for the under-25s have been in place since October 1996. That was part of our inheritance from the previous Administration. We are now beginning to gather information about the effects of those arrangements on young people. Secondly, the other part of our inheritance on single room rents was the provision which extended them still further, to single people aged 25 to 59, which was due to come into effect from October this year. As the hon. Lady acknowledged, we have already acted decisively to ensure that that will not happen.
Dr. Peter Brand: Will the Minister, as a matter of urgency, take on board the need to look at the effects of the single room rent for people who need supportive lodgings, especially people with learning difficulties who live in the community and people recovering from mental illness? They may not be formally in the care of social services departments and may not receive 24 hours per day care, but they need support, which is extremely difficult to provide at the low rates currently applicable to the under-25s.
Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I was about to deal with that point. Time is extremely short and, with permission, I hope that I can get on and make some points in the time available. I will expand on them if necessary by writing to hon. Members.
I re-emphasise the fact that we shall always listen to what other hon. Members have to say about these crucial matters. We want to work with outside organisations that have an interest in social security matters, and we are keen to utilise their valuable expertise. That is the approach that I took in opposition, and 1 have no intention of changing it in government.
The best thing that we can do for young unemployed people is help them back to work. That is why we are introducing the new deal that will provide work, education
172
and other opportunities to young people aged 18 to 24 who have been unemployed for more than six months. We have set out clearly the choices that will be available to them.
As I stated at the outset, we inherited a package of social security measures from the last Government, with the attendant expenditure implications, and we had to make hard choices—including the changes that we have made to non-dependant deductions.
Last October, the previous Government introduced single room rents for under-25s in order to restrict the amount of housing benefit paid to young people living in the private rented sector, and so control the cost to the taxpayer. The last Government justified that move by saying that housing benefit should not pay for accommodation that is more expensive than that which people would expect to occupy if they had to meet the rent from their own resources.
The report to which the hon. Member for Taunton referred entitled "Housing Benefit—The Unkindest Cut", which was produced by citizens advice bureaux in the western region, is of real interest to us. It will be valuable in building a national picture, which we need in order to understand the real effects. Only then will we be in a position to take prudent and fully considered decisions.
I am well aware of the concerns that were expressed at the time of introduction and, in order to address them, we are collecting information from a sample of local authorities about the number of young people affected and the level of housing benefit restriction. Analysis of that information has begun, but we need to know more. Meanwhile, we have already decided to exempt severely disabled people under age 25, and single young people with non-dependants residing with them, from the application of the single room rent. That change will be effective from October 1997.
I reminded the House earlier that we acted swiftly and decisively shortly after taking office when we decided to revoke regulations laid just before the election by the previous Administration. Those regulations would have extended the application of single room rents beyond the under-25s to most single people aged 25 to 59. In taking that decision, we considered carefully the view of the Social Security Advisory Committee—that the Government should not extend the existing single room rent rules for the under-25s without thoroughly reviewing their effects. We also took careful account of the views of hon. Members and local authority associations—in other words, we listened to them and acted accordingly.
Single room rents for the under-25s reflect the market rent for non-self-contained accommodation, without board, in the locality in which claimants live. Single room rents are determined by the independent rent officer service. Some people aged under 25 are already exempt from single room rents. They include local authority tenants, tenants of registered social landlords, and tenants in accommodation provided by county councils, housing associations, registered charities and voluntary organisations which provide care, support or supervision. Young people coming out of local authority care are also exempt until they reach the age of 22.
We have instituted a series of visits to local authorities, advice agencies and rent officers so that we can obtain direct information both about the impact of these changes

173
on young individuals and about whether there are significant problems obtaining accommodation at rents at or below single room rents.
We have commissioned a survey to obtain information on housing benefit and the private rented sector. The results are expected next summer. We are also looking critically at our monitoring arrangements to see whether other steps can be taken to ensure that the measures introduced for the under-25s are properly monitored and their effects properly translated into any policy changes that may be appropriate.
I can tell the House that we have already received representations from a number of organisations about this measure, and there is some evidence of hard cases, as the hon. Lady identified, particularly where young people leave board and lodging and supported accommodation.
Supported accommodation and how it should be funded is the subject of a separate interdepartmental review, and we hope to introduce proposals on that in the near future.
It has to be said, however, that the evidence of hard cases is mixed and is of differing quality around the country. That is one very good reason why we want to make a better assessment of the overall position before we make any policy changes. As I said earlier, we shall continue to listen to organisations such as the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, which are starting to provide the information, as evidenced by the report in the south-west. Similar reports have come from other parts of the country, and one has recently been produced in my own area, the north-west.
Meanwhile, it is worth reminding the House that there is provision for local authorities to give extra help. Local authorities have a discretionary power to provide additional help to people in the private rented sector whose rents exceed the general level of rents for similar property in their area—the local reference rent, on which the level of housing benefit is based. That discretionary power was extended to cover people affected by the introduction of the single room rent for people under 25.
Briefly, local authorities have discretion to increase housing benefit up to the level of the contractual rent—less, of course, any charges which are not eligible for housing benefit—where they decide that exceptional hardship would otherwise result. The term "exceptional hardship" is not defined in regulations. It is a matter to be determined in each individual case by the local authority, which is well placed to decide on the merits of each case.
The discretionary power replaced the earlier provision of additional help to prescribed groups—pensioners, families and disabled people. Additional help used to be available to anyone in those groups, irrespective of individual circumstances. The discretionary scheme, on the other hand, was designed to be more focused on individual circumstances.
Local authorities do not have unlimited discretion in this area: the extent to which they can exercise discretion is subject to an annual limit. The total for 1997–98 is about £47 million. Central Government's contribution to that is £18.25 million. We are looking at how the scheme is working, as part of our exercise to gather evidence on the impact of the rules for the under-25s. We will give all the results and information that hon. Members wish to give to our considerations full weight as the policy is properly analysed.
174
Single room rents for single people under 25 are only one of a whole range of social security provisions that we inherited on coming to office.
On the matter raised by the hon. Lady about rent rebates, local authority tenants come under the housing revenue account, which is set by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, as it is now called. Guideline rents were set to ensure that rents were kept in check. As I said, this matter is determined by that Department and her comments on it are best referred for further consideration, through the debate, to that Department.
Housing association rents have the 95 per cent. subsidy, but the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is about to consult on rent increases for housing authority tenants. Matters which need further consideration have been raised tonight and we shall look at them.
We have already made some important changes, which the hon. Lady has acknowledged, but the task that lies ahead in terms of an overall review of housing benefit in the context of housing policy is a huge one after 18 years of the previous Administration. We shall work with other Government Departments to develop our housing policies. We want to ensure that with those developments we do not continue to trap people in benefit. We want to generate, as much as possible, a hand up and not a hand out, which will generate personal responsibility.
We recognise that the consequences of many of the changes that we have inherited have forced people into difficult situations. The single room rent, which has been the focus of the debate, is clearly one of them. We recognise that the hard choices that we have to make on non-dependant deductions are not without pain themselves. Given the commitment that we gave in our manifesto to remain within spending limits within Departments, hard choices had to be made. At the same time, we want to monitor the impact of the changes that we shall be making to ascertain what the effect on families will be and to ensure that there are not continuing disincentives between those on benefit who are trying to get into work and those on low incomes who want to stay in work.
As the hon. Lady is well aware, single room rent applies only on new tenancies or renewals. A person on low income in a property will not be affected unless he or she has to make a fresh claim for housing benefit.
The hon. Lady made some excellent points, which we have noted. Our overall objective, however, is to modernise the social security system, and in the process to tackle poverty and welfare dependency while promoting work incentives. We want to develop a system which supports work, savings and honesty. Within that approach, we want to be vigilant in tackling fraud and ensuring value for taxpayers' money. As the House knows, we are committed to a complete review of the social security system, and housing benefit will clearly form a crucial part of that.
The hon. Lady will be well aware that the housing budget has escalated to about £3 billion-worth of expenditure as a result of policies that we inherited from the previous Administration. Tackling that bill and introducing a phased release of capital receipts so that we can start to rebuild and repair housing, while introducing

175
new rented accommodation at a price that people can afford, are Government priorities. We shall set about the task in the fundamental reviews to which I have referred.
That is not to say that the issues that the hon. Lady has raised are not of fundamental importance. We must recognise the damage that has been done to communities by the previous Government's policies. We intend to
176
tackle the issues as vigorously as we can to ensure that we have a decent society for everyone along with an affordable house.
I thank the hon. Lady for initiating the debate. I will ensure that she receives a reply in due course on those matters to which I have not been able to respond tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past One o'clock.

TREASURY

  1998 Budget
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his Budget in March 1998 will be unified to include public expenditure plans. [7709]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 10 July 1997]: In the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced revised spending allocations for 1998–99. The timing of announcements for the years 1999–00 and beyond will depend on the progress of the Comprehensive Spending Review which is due to conclude in the middle of next year.

  Employer Pension Funds
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost to(a) local authorities and (b) the national health service of making good the shortfall in employer pension funds arising from his Budget measures. [7772]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 10 July 1997]: There are around a hundred local authority pension funds. The position will vary depending on factors such as financial circumstances and the make up of investment portfolios. For example, many funds have surpluses which can be used to help cushion the effect. Pension schemes should also benefit from improved company performance as a result of quality long term investment being encouraged. Although the loss of tax credits will have some impact on the income of local authority pension funds, the extent to which these changes feed through to authorities' budgets will depend on the overall judgements made by the funds' actuaries as they undertake revaluations due from next year. Their conclusions will not be reflected in contribution rates before 1999–00 at the earliest. The Budget changes will not adversely affect the NHS scheme on present assumptions, since it is based on a notional fund assumed to be invested entirely in Gilts.

  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if(a) funding for house building by local authorities from borrowing against their own housing revenue accounts, (b) funding of developments by public authorities for water and sewerage services if such authorities are constituted as mutually owned businesses and (c) funding of support for agriculture which is fully refunded by the European Union, are regarded as part of the public sector borrowing requirement in (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) other individual members of the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [7694]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 10 July 1997]: The public sector borrowing requirement (PSBR) measures total borrowing by the public sector—by central
  2
  government, local authorities and public corporations—from the private sector and overseas. Any spending by a public sector body that is not covered by receipts will add to the PSBR. The PSBR is a UK measure and is not used by other EC member states, although they may measure their borrowing requirements in a similar fashion to the United Kingdom.

  Strategic Defence Review
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of his officials, and at what grades, are assisting(a) the Ministry of Defence and (b) the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with the Strategic Defence Review. [6756]

  Mr. Darling
  The number and grade of the officials involved in the Strategic Defence Review will depend on the issues that arise and the nature of their responsibilities.

  Windfall Tax
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the representations he has received from the privatised water companies about the windfall tax; and if he will make a statement. [8535]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  Treasury Ministers are treating representations from companies and other bodies as confidential. If companies wish to make their views public, that is for them.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his definition of excess profit for the purposes of the windfall tax. [7252]

  Mr. Robinson
  Details of the windfall tax are set out in the Finance Bill. Clause 1 and Schedule 1 of the Bill set out how the amount of a company's windfall is to be calculated.

  Departmental Spending Controls
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the new control totals of spending, by Department, for 1988–89 on the format produced in the Red Book for 1997–98. [7154]

  Mr. Darling
  Figures for planned spending in 1998–99 for each department were published in table 1.2 of the Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 1997–98, Cm 3601. Apart from some minor technical changes discussed in the Financial Statement and Budget Report, paragraph 4B.14, these have been updated only to take account of the allocation of the existing Reserve to the Government's priorities of health and schools. The spending announced in the Budget on the Welfare to Work package and investment in housing under the Capital Receipts Initiative is additional to the Control Total.

  Control Total by Department

  1£ million

  Defence

  22,276

  Foreign Office

  1,074

  International Development

  2,321

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  3,416

  DTI—Programme

  3,051

  DTI—Nationalised Industries

  -176

  ECGD

  1

  DETR—Transport

  4,589

  DETR—Local Government

  32,581

  3

  Control Total by Department

  1£ million

  DETR—Other

  7,557

  Home Office

  6,801

  Legal Departments

  2,747

  Education and Employment

  13,945

  National Heritage

  959

  Health

  36,362

  Social Security

  83,101

  Scotland

  14,620

  Wales

  6,987

  Northern Ireland

  8,315

  Chancellor's Departments

  3,199

  Cabinet Office

  1,034

  European Communities

  2,392

  Local Authority self-financed expenditure

  13,700

  Reserve

  2,800

  Control Total

  273,600

  1 Figures are rounded to the nearest £1 million, except LASFE, the Reserve and the Control Total, which are rounded to the nearest £100 million.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for the review of the Private Finance Initiative(a) the expected completion date and (b) the cost of conducting the review. [8258]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  The review of the Private Finance Initiative was completed on 13 June, and the summary and recommendations were released on 23 June. It was undertaken by an independent expert at no cost.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for the spending review(a) the expected completion date and (b) the cost of conducting the review. [8263]

  Mr. Darling
  I expect the Comprehensive Spending Review to last approximately 12 months. The costs of the Review will be absorbed in the relevant departments running costs as would any similar review to look at improving efficiency and effectiveness.

  Customs (Staff)
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the reductions in Customs anti-smuggling staff planned under the Department's 1994 fundamental expenditure review are to be proceeded with. [8760]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have reviewed with Customs the previously planned intention to reduce the number of frontier anti-smuggling officers by some 300 posts during the current year. We face a growing world-wide threat of drug smuggling which is increasingly diverse and cunning. In the light of this I have decided that in the present circumstances it would not be prudent to go ahead with these cuts and the posts are to be retained. Customs' target for the value of drugs prevented from entering Kingdom in the current year will be increased by £50 million.

  This Government takes the threat of drugs very seriously, and we recognise that Customs anti-smuggling staff play a vital role at our frontiers in combating not only drug trafficking but also in detecting the smuggling
  4
  of other prohibited goods, such as firearms, paedophile material, and commercial pornography, which post an unrelenting threat to society.

  The Government is determined to maintain and strengthen the co-ordinated enforcement action against these evils in which Customs play a key role. Customs have a consistently strong record in the detection and investigation of drug trafficking, not only in the UK but in their contribution to the European and international effort

  Funding for these posts will be contained within Customs' existing provision in accordance with the Government's commitment to work within the Departmental spending limits we have inherited for this year and next.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the tax gained or forgone on expenditure on the National Lottery relative to alternative forms of consumer expenditure. [3425]

  Mr. Darling
  The rate of duty on the lottery was originally set on the basis that it was expected to be broadly revenue-neutral—that is the revenue raised would broadly offset the indirect tax loss from expenditure diverted from other goods and services. We know of no evidence as yet to suggest that the Exchequer is gaining or losing substantial revenues as a result of the Lottery.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Water and Drainage Utilities (Information)
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what obligations are placed upon the privatised public utilities with particular reference to water and drainage companies, to maintain accurate records of services in the ground; [7245]

  (2) under what arrangements public access to the complete records of adopted sewers installed by private contractors, previously available from the local council highways departments, is maintained. [7246]

  Angela Eagle
  Sections 198 and 199 of the Water Industry Act 1991 require water and sewerage companies to keep records, in the form of maps, of the location of every water main and adopted sewer vested in them and to make this information freely available for inspection at their offices at all reasonable times. The companies are also required to provide local authorities with copies of sewer maps and any modifications to them. There is no obligation for the companies to keep records of connections to water mains or of private sewers or drains.

  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he will take to ensure that decisions on access to water authority and drainage authority information are clearly determined in accordance with the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994. [7244]
  5
  Angela Eagle
  The provision and availability of information relevant to health and safety is a fundamental requirement of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994. It is therefore an important consideration of Health and Safety Executive (HSE) inspectors when determining compliance with the Regulations. Inspectors already give advice or take formal enforcement action in support of this requirement, when appropriate.

  VAT (Fuel)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the recent reduction in VAT on domestic fuel on the Government's environmental obligations; and if he will make a statement. [7660]

  Angela Eagle
  We estimate the reduction in VAT on domestic fuel to 5 per cent. will result in an annual increase in carbon dioxide emissions of about 0.24 million tonnes of carbon by 2010, (about 0.15 per cent. of current carbon dioxide emissions). We shall take account of this effect in developing the programme to meet our target to reduce total carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010.

  Protection from the effects of global warming and the development of sustainable environmental policies cannot proceed in isolation from considerations of social equity. We are developing policy options which will contribute towards our 2010 target and which will include improvements in domestic and industrial energy efficiency, an integrated transport policy to tackle the projected growth in emissions from road transport, and an increase in the amount of electricity generated from renewable sources and combined heat and power schemes.

  Household Waste Recycling
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what targets he will be setting for recycling of household waste. [7439]

  Angela Eagle
  We will be considering the need for any changes to existing targets for the recovery and recycling of household waste in the light of progress made so far. It is important to improve recycling and increase the proportion of waste managed by the options towards the top of the waste hierarchy. We will be looking carefully at the options for doing this as part of our wider assessment of waste management and recycling policy.

  Hedgerows
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what plans he has to extend the time scale for determining applications for hedgerow removals; [7441]

  (2) if he will revise the criteria determining whether or not a hedgerow is sufficiently important to be protected; [7442]

  (3) if he will allow local authorities to charge for applications to remove hedgerows. [7443]
  6
  Angela Eagle
  On 29 May the Government announced that a group would be set up, including representatives of statutory agencies, local authorities and the main farming and conservation bodies, to review how the Hedgerows Regulations 1997 might be strengthened. The group have been asked to make recommendations on the time allowed for local authorities to respond to hedgerow removal notices and on the criteria defining important hedgerows.

  I have no plans to allow local authorities to charge for applications to remove hedgerows, though the Government would consider any recommendations of the review group in this regard.

  Local Authority Pension Funds
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when the last actuarial valuations of local authority occupational pension funds were carried out; [7886]

  (2) at what intervals actuarial valuations of local authority occupational pension funds are carried out; [7887]

  (3) how many local authority occupational pension funds were calculated to be in surplus at the time of the last actuarial valuation. [7889]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 1995, which control this statutory scheme in England and Wales, requires actuaries, as part of each triennial valuation of the 87 separate local authority funds, to set an employer contribution rate to ensure solvency having regard to existing and prospective liabilities and the desirability of maintaining as constant a rate as possible. At the last valuation in 1995, all local authority pension funds complied with this requirement, and at that time the actuaries were able to report that 20 funds were actuarially assessed as having assets in excess of their liabilities.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the total dividend income received by local authority occupational pension funds during the most recent available financial year. [7888]

  Ms Armstrong
  Information is only available to my Department on total investment income for the Local Government Pension Scheme, inclusive of UK and overseas dividend income, gilts and property. In 1995–96 the figure for England and Wales amounted to £2.1 billion.

  Cleaner Fuels
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to the letter from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State of 23 June PT/EE/PS0/5476/97 if he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations to create cleaner fuels in Europe. [7935]

  Angela Eagle
  At the European Environment Council of 19–20 June this year, Ministers reached a common position on a directive setting standards for fuel quality. The United Kingdom argued that the standards proposed by the Commission were, in some cases, insufficiently
  7
  tight, and supported in particular a lowering of the Commission's proposals for the sulphur content of petrol (200 parts per million—ppm) and benzene (2 per cent.).

  Mandatory standards for petrol and diesel were agreed for the year 2000 as follows: petrol—a sulphur content of 150 ppm, a benzene content of 1 per cent. and an aromatics content of 42 per cent.; diesel—a sulphur content, set at 350 parts per million. Other parameters for 2000 were agreed as proposed by the European Commission. The UK also supported, and Ministers agreed, the Dutch Presidency's proposal of indicative standards for the year 2005 of 50 ppm sulphur in both petrol and diesel (the latter to be phased in from 2005), and 35 per cent. aromatics content in petrol. These figures will be subject to review and the Commission will bring forward proposals by mid-1999 either to confirm or adjust them.

  As the adoption of these directives is by the co-decision procedure, agreement with the European Parliament will have to be reached before the directive can be adopted.

  UN Environment Programme
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement regarding the United Kingdom's funding of the United Nations Environment Programme. [8758]

  Mr. Meacher
  I attended the inaugural meeting of the United Nations Environment Programme's High-Level Committee of Ministers and Officials in New York on 28 June. I am glad to be able to report that this was a successful meeting. The Committee gave advice to UNEP's Executive Director on the main priorities for UNEP's Programme of Work. Given the positive outcome, especially on the way forward for UNEP, I announced at the close that the United Kingdom would, forthwith, lift the suspension of its annual voluntary contribution to the Environment Fund. I have, therefore, arranged for a payment of £4.35 million to be made as soon as possible to UNEP's Environment Fund.

  Fossil Fuels
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will present to the Kyoto Climate Change Conference proposals to commit convention signatories to the phasing out of the use of fossil fuels. [7129]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 30 June 1997,Official Report, column 49. The EU has proposed that all developed countries should agree to (a) reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and other main greenhouse gases to at least 7.5 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2005 and to 15 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010 and; (b) adopt a number of binding and other policies and measures to achieve these targets.

  Out-of-town Shopping Centres
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the Government's policy towards out-of-town shopping centres; and if he will make a statement. [7659]
  8
  Mr. Raynsford
  Planning policy guidance is contained in PPG6: Town Centres and Retail Developments. We have no current plans to change it.

  Bed and Breakfast Facilities
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to curb the development of unlicensed and unregistered private households offering bed and breakfast facilities to visitors outside the six-bed rule. [7713]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The "six-bedspace" exemption from rates was designed to ensure that those who provide extra accommodation in peak periods during the summer, or in out of the way places, are not put off doing so by the threat of a rates bill. However, we see no reason to exempt from rates anyone who offers accommodation when the use of property for this purpose is clearly non-domestic so, to qualify, the use of such property for bed and breakfast must be subsidiary to its use as a residence.

  The Valuation Office Agency have issued guidance to their local offices on interpretation of the subsidiary use test to ensure that it is being applied correctly.

  Local Authority Rents
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to return control over local authority housing rent levels to local authorities. [7464]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Local housing authorities set their own rent levels, reviewing them from time to time as circumstances require. In setting their rents they have regard to their statutory duty to balance the housing revenue account, taking account, among other things, of any housing revenue account subsidy payable to them for the year. We are currently examining the financing of local authority housing as part of our comprehensive review of spending.

  Social Services Expenditure
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each of the last five years the standard spending assessment for social services for each local authority, the percentage change from one year to the next and the amount that was actually spent on social services in each of those years. [7438]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 10 July 1997]: I have arranged for the information requested to be placed in the Library.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will give for the review of compulsory competitive tendering(a) the expected completion date and (b) the cost of conducting the review. [8241]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The review of existing CCT legislation and guidance in England and Wales will be completed shortly. Following consultation, new
  9
  regulations and guidance will be issued in the autumn. The cost of conducting the review to the point of consultation on proposals is estimated at £36,500.

  Local Government Finance (Bolton)
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the money Bolton will receive from the release of local authority capital receipts. [7930]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government provided figures illustrating alternative methods of distributing additional Supplementary Credit Approvals to individual local authorities in a table accompanying the consultation paper on proposals for implementing the capital receipts initiative in England. That paper was issued on 19 July and copies have been deposited in the Library of the House. Final allocations to individual authorities, however, will not be available until the consultation period has ended and we have given careful consideration to the comments received.

  Planning Guidelines (MOD Land)
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what studies his Department is undertaking to redefine the planning guidelines and other framework provisions which apply when Ministry of Defence land is declared redundant with consequent disposal of the land by that Department. [7913]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department is currently preparing to commission research which will examine the relationship between the planning system; the advice currently provided to Government Departments by the Treasury on the disposal of redundant property; and the need to maximise the disposal value of such property, whilst taking full account of the wider economic and social regeneration considerations. The Government Offices in the Regions and the MOD are together drawing up, and intend to publish, guidelines on the disposal of redundant defence establishments. Our objective is to maximise their potential in order to mitigate the impact of closures on local communities, and to reduce the demand for development on greenfield sites, while at the same time protecting our historic heritage and general environment.

  Youth Workers
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many full-time youth workers are employed by each local authority in England and Wales. [8429]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This information is not available centrally.

  Pollution
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for the implementation of EU directive 96/61, on integrated pollution prevention and control. [8759]
  10
  Mr. Meacher
  The Government will tomorrow be issuing a consultation paper on the implementation of this important directive. I shall arrange for copies to placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many stop notices have been served in each year from 1985 to date to prevent damage to sites of special scientific interest; and in how many of those cases the stop notice was subsequently lifted and damage caused. [7611]

  Angela Eagle
  Nature Conservation Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions are listed below:

  Year

  Number of Orders (stop notices)

  1985–86

  5

  1986–87

  1

  1987–88

  2

  1988–89

  0

  1989–90

  6

  1990–91

  3

  1991–92

  0

  1992–93

  1

  1993–94

  2

  1994–95

  2

  1995–96

  2

  1996–97

  2

  1997–

  1

  Eleven Orders have subsequently been revoked. There have been no instances of damage following revocation.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many sites of special scientific interest were damaged in each year from 1985 to date; and what were the causes. [7610]

  Angela Eagle
  Details of the number of incidents, area damaged, outcomes of the damaging activity and the type of activity are published in the annual reports produced by the respective country agencies, English Nature, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Countryside Council for Wales and, prior to 1991, by the Nature Conservancy Council, all of which are held in the Library of the House.

  Wildlife and Countryside Act
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. [7609]

  Angela Eagle
  Ministers in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are currently considering the need to review specific sections of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  Departmental Budgets
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what new plans he has to introduce cuts and savings in his Department as a result of the effect on his Department's
  11
  budgets for 1997–98 and 1998–99 of the upward revisions to the GDP deflators in the Budget on 2 July; and if he will make a statement. [8319]

  Angela Eagle
  All Departments are reallocating spending within their Departmental ceilings as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review. The planned total for local authority grants (net Aggregate External Finance) for 1998–99 was announced in the Budget.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if, following the recent Budget, he will give his estimate of the total real level of his Department's budget, in 1995–96 prices, in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99; if he will estimate what such figures were for (1) 1997–98 and (2) 1998–99 following the November 1996 Budget on the basis of the estimates of the GDP deflator contained in that Budget; and if he will make a statement. [8318]

  Angela Eagle
  The figures requested for my Department's spending plans within the Control Total are as follows: £41,776 million; £41,227 million; £42,244 million; and £41,249 million. In addition, local authorities will benefit from spending under the Capital Receipts Initiative, which is outside the Control Total, as announced in the Budget. The figures for 1997–98 have not been adjusted to take account of the Summer Supplementary Estimates presented to Parliament on 8 July but not yet approved.

  CITES Conference
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the voting position registered by the United Kingdom delegation to the CITES Conference of the Parties in Harare on each of the species listing proposals and draft resolutions presented to the conference for which a vote was called. [8165]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis) on 8 July,Official Report, column 449, which reports the main decisions taken by the Conference. The United Kingdom's position in the final votes taken on substantive matters is set out below. The UK delegation voted in accordance with the European Union's Common Position on all the species proposals and on those draft resolutions or decisions for which there was EU competence.

  Of the 34 substantive votes listed, 12 were taken by secret ballot. Under the current rules of procedure in CITES, any vote can be determined by secret ballot if at least 10 Parties request this. The UK is opposed to the use of secret ballots for votes on policy issues in CITES, especially on such a large scale, and we will be seeking to persuade other Parties to limit their use in future.

  Issue

  Support

  Oppose

  Abstain

  Downlisting of Eschrichtius robustus (Gray whale) to Appendix II

  —

  X

  —

  Downlisting of the Okhotsk Sea West Pacific stock of Balaenoptera acutorostrata (Minke whale) to Appendix II

  —

  X

  —

  12

  Issue

  Support

  Oppose

  Abstain

  Downlisting of the Southern Ocean population of Balaenoptera acutorostrata (Minke whale) to Appendix II

  —

  X

  —

  Downlisting of two Atlantic populations of Balaenoptera acutorostrata (Minke whale) to Appendix II

  —

  X

  —

  Uplisting of all remaining European, Eurasian, Caucasian and Asian populations of Ursos arctos (Brown bear) to Appendix I

  —

  —

  X

  Separate consideration of the uplisting of various individual populations of Ursos arctos (Brown bear) to Appendix I

  —

  X

  —

  Amendment to annotation on the South African population of Ceratotherium simum simum (southern White Rhinoceros) to allow trade in rhino products

  —

  X

  —

  Uplisting of Vini kuhlii (Kuhl's lorikeet) to Appendix I

  X

  —

  —

  Uplisting of Vini peruviana (Blue lorikeet) to Appendix I

  X

  —

  —

  Uplisting of Vini ultramarina (Ultramarine lorikeet) to Appendix I

  X

  —

  —

  Inclusion in Appendix II of Liocichla omeiensis (Omei Shan liocichla)

  X

  —

  —

  Inclusion in Appendix I of Padda oryzivora (Java sparrow)

  X

  —

  —

  Inclusion in Appendix II of Graptemys spp (Map turtles)

  —

  X

  —

  Downlisting of the Cuban population of Eretmochelys imbricata (Hawksbill turtle) to Appendix II

  —

  X

  —

  Downlisting of the Bangladesh population of Varanus bengalensis (Bengal monitor) to Appendix II

  —

  X

  —

  Downlisting of the Bangladesh population of Varanus flavescens (Yellow monitor) to Appendix II

  —

  X

  —

  Inclusion of Pristiformes (Sawfish) in Appendix I

  —

  X

  —

  Amendment to an annotation to indicate that seeds and pollen with the exception of seeds from Mexican cacti originating in Mexico, were included in Appendix II

  X

  —

  —

  Inclusion of all neotropical populations of Swietenia macrophylla (American mahogany) on Appendix II

  X

  —

  —

  Inclusion of Hydrastis canadensis (Goldenseal) on Appendix II

  X

  —

  —

  Inclusion of Picrorhiza kurrooa (Kutki) in Appendix II

  X

  —

  —

  Inclusion of Nardostachys grandiflora (Spikenard) on Appendix II

  X

  —

  —

  Proposals to downlist the Botswanan, Namibian and Zimbabwean populations of Loxodonta africana (African elephant) to Appendix II

  —

  —

  X

  Conditions for the resumption of trade in African elephant ivory from populations transferred to Appendix II

  —

  —

  X

  Conditions for the disposal of ivory stocks and generating resources for conservation in elephant range states

  X

  —

  —

  Principle of drawing down on the Convention Trust Fund to fund the Budget for 1998–2000

  X

  —

  —

  Budget for 1998–2000—0 per cent. increase in contributions

  —

  X

  —

  Budget for 1998–2000—5 per cent, increase in contributions

  X

  —

  —

  Establishment of Working Group on Illegal Trade in CITES specimens

  X

  —

  —

  Resolution on Relationship with the International Whaling Commission

  —

  X

  —

  Amendment to Annex 6 of Document 10.52 (implementation of Convention for timber species)

  —

  X

  —

  Revision of Document 10.7 (Regional representation)

  —

  —

  X

  Proposal to register the Falcon Centre Halvesiek as a commercial captive breeding operation

  —

  X

  —

  Establishment of a Working Group on Marine Fish Species

  X

  —

  —

  Travellers
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will review the guidance issued to local authorities regarding the removal of travellers from unauthorized sites; [8161]

  (2) if he will list the cases where local authorities have been challenged in the courts regarding their policy towards the removal of travellers from unauthorised sites, including the outcome in each instance. [8162]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department has no knowledge of any case involving a challenge to a local authority's policy towards the removal of unauthorised campers. There have, however, been three cases of which we are aware where an authority's decision to evict, using powers in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, has been challenged in the courts. In the case of Rv Wealden District Council ex parte Wales and others, the direction issued by the local authority under section 77 of the 1994 Act, and the magistrates' court order, were both quashed by the judge. In the parallel case of R v Lincolnshire County Council ex parte Atkinson the judge exercised his discretion not to quash the direction and the eviction order, and those travellers were evicted. R v Wolverhampton MBC ex parte Dunne followed, and approved, the Wealden judgment. There may also be other cases in which a local authority's use of either planning enforcement powers, or of possession proceedings to remove trespassers, has been challenged, or where an application by travellers for leave for judicial review has been refused by the courts. My Department would not necessarily be notified of these.

  We have no plans to review the advice in my Department's Circular No. 18/94, "Gypsy Sites Policy and Unauthorised Camping", that local authorities should take into account existing statutory responsibilities under health and welfare legislation when deciding whether to evict unauthorised campers. Those responsibilities exist independently of the Circular, and would apply even if it had not been issued.

  Local Authorities' Pension Schemes
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his estimate of the cost to local authorities in(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000 of the Budget proposals to abolish the payable tax credits for pension schemes; how local authorities are to be compensated; and if he will make a statement. [8320]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The extent to which local authorities will be affected by the Budget proposals will depend upon the outcome of the next triennial actuarial valuation, due on 31 March 1998 in England and Wales, and to subsequent discussions between actuaries and their local authority clients. I will consider carefully any representations made in the light of those considerations.

  Credit Approvals
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what additional credit approvals will be allocated to(a) Colchester Borough Council and (b) Tendring district council as a result of the capital receipts initiative announced in the Budget. [8464]
  14
  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government provided figures illustrating alternative methods of distributing additional Supplementary Credit Approvals to individual local authorities in a table accompanying the consultation paper on proposals for implementing the capital receipts initiative in England. That paper was issued on 19 June and copies have been deposited in the Library of the House. Final allocations to individual authorities, however, will not be available until the consultation period has ended and we have given careful consideration to the comments received.

  Ministerial Speech
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library a copy of the speech given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) on 5 July at Birkbeck College to the Conference on the Future of London. [8483]

  Mr. Raynsford
  A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans his Department has for consultation concerning changes to the uniform business rate. [8470]

  Mr. Raynsford
  No changes will be made until we have fully consulted with all interested parties including business and local authorities. We are considering how to take this forward.

  Rate Capping
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his decision on the final caps for the three local authorities which challenged their cap; and if he will make a statement. [8895]

  Mr. Prescott
  I have today laid before the House the draft Council Tax Limitation (England) (Maximum Amounts) Order 1997, under section 57 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, setting out our decisions on the final caps for Oxfordshire, Somerset and Warwickshire County Councils.

  We have considered very carefully all the available relevant information, including the case made by the authorities in support of a higher cap, before taking our decisions. We have decided to confirm the caps proposed for Oxfordshire and Somerset, but Warwickshire will be permitted to budget at the level it has proposed to reflect the pressures it is facing following capital investment in its schools programme.

  The caps are, in our view, reasonable and achievable in all the circumstances of the authorities concerned. These decisions will reduce public expenditure and the burden on council taxpayers in the areas concerned by £9.4 million in 1997–98. This will result in a council tax reduction (at Band D) of almost £28 in Oxfordshire, and £20 in Somerset.

  Radioactive Materials (Transportation)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many aeroplane flights occurred in 1995 in UK airspace in which(a) high-level, (b) intermediate-level and (c) low-level radioactive material was carried; and what was the total number of aeroplane flights in 1995 in UK airspace in which radioactive material was carried. [7599]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department does not hold information of the kind requested. However, it is estimated that of the order of 10,000 flights carrying packages of radioactive material currently occur each year, the vast majority of which contain limited quantities for medical or industrial use in excepted or Type A packages.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which(a) airports and (b) ports (i) are permitted to handle radioactive material and (ii) were used in 1995 for the shipment of radioactive material. [7600]

  Ms Jackson
  The information is as follows:

  (i) Radioactive material may be moved through any port or airport.

  (ii) The Department does not hold information of the kind requested.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if it is the Government's policy to allow an unlimited number of movements of radioactive material by air provided International Atomic Energy Agency standards are met. [7601]

  Ms Jackson
  The movement by radioactive material by air, in common with all dangerous goods, is regulated by The Air Navigation (No 2) Order 1995 and The Air Navigation (Dangerous Goods) Regulations 1994 as amended 1996. These place no limit on the number of such movements.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Government plans to introduce the revised regulations set out in the 1996 edition of the International Atomic Energy Agency's Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Materials. [7602]

  Ms Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones),Official Report, 16 June 1997, column 42.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many crashes have occurred in each year since 1967 in which aircraft carrying consignments of radioactive material within UK airspace have been involved; and what(a) volume and (b) level of radioactivity was involved in each case. [7604]
  16
  Ms Jackson
  We are aware of two such accidents, one in 1968 and the other in 1987. In each case 1.1 Giga-Becquerels of radioactivity were being carried in a single Type A package. In neither case was any radioactivity released from the packages.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Government permits the transportation of radioactive materials(a) via the channel tunnel and (b) on passenger ferries. [7605]

  Ms Jackson
  Such transport is permitted subject to(a) the rules and restrictions of Eurotunnel, as approved by the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority of the UK/France Intergovernmental Commission and (b) compliance with The Merchant Shipping (Dangerous Goods and Marine Pollutants) Regulations 1990 and Merchant Shipping Notice No. M. 1432, "The Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Marine Pollutants in ships, the 'Blue Book' and the IMDG Code".

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many flights have taken place since 1990 in which spent nuclear fuel was carried within United Kingdom airspace; what were the places of origin and destination in each case; and what was the volume carried in each case. [7607]

  Ms Jackson
  None.

  Shadow Tolls
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy in respect of shadow tolls. [8468]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government has conducted a review of PFI and we are taking measures to reinvigorate it. Our policy on shadow tolling is that bids for projects which we decide to pursue with remuneration on this basis will be considered on their merits. A key issue will be the value for money offered by bids compared with conventional procurement.

  London Buses Ltd.
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and Regions if he will review the compliance by London Buses Ltd. with citizens' charter principles. [8340]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  New quality of service targets have recently been set for London Transport Buses, and performance against the London Bus Passenger's Charter is kept constantly under review.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the tendering procedures of London Buses Ltd. meet every requirement of EU procurement directives. [8341]

  Ms Jackson
  Yes.

  London Regional Transport
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will meet the chairman of London Regional Transport to discuss improvements in customer services standards and the handling of complaints by members of the public. [8342]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I plan to have regular meetings with the Chairman of London Transport at which we expect to discuss a range of issues including customer service standards and complaints handling.

  Colchester High Street
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what(a) financial and (b) other assistance was given by the Government and Government agencies in the past five years to road safety and environmental improvement works to Colchester High Street; and what plans he has to support further road safety and environmental improvement works. [7654]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Over the last five years £16.01 million (an average of £3.2 million per year) has been awarded to Essex County Council through the local transport settlement for local safety schemes and minor works. It is for the County Council to determine the most appropriate use for their allocations, but we expect them to target their most pressing accident sites. Over the last two years we have also awarded an additional £1.2 million to the County Council towards their package of transport proposals for Colchester. Allocations for 1998–99 have not yet been determined. In addition to this financial support, officials from the Department have provided technical advice on environmental measures for the High Street, including a 20 miles per hour zone, special traffic signals and a restricted parking zone.

  Mr. Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many representations he has received in the past five years from hon. Members, organisations or individuals, concerning road safety and environmental improvement works to Colchester High Street; and how many were objections to the works. [7653]

  Ms Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has had no representations about Colchester High Street from hon. Members. There have been several representations from other sources in support of the package of transport measures for Colchester which Essex County Council have promoted through their Transport Policies and Programme bids for 1996–97 and 1997–98.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will instigate an immediate inquiry into the running of NERC and NATS. [7854]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No. I see no reason to instigate an Inquiry of this kind.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what checks are made of the contents of freight lorries before they are allowed into the Channel Tunnel. [7921]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Eurotunnel staff carry out regular checks on the contents of freight lorries using the Channel Tunnel.

  Hauliers carrying goods classified as "Dangerous" are required to notify Eurotunnel on arrival at the tolls. The goods are checked against the permitted carriage list and cleared for travel. Staff are informed so that special arrangements can be made for loading the lorry in a specified location on the shuttle so that, in the event of an incident, the emergency services can be informed.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps have been taken to preserve the integrity and functioning of the overhead power lines in the channel tunnel in the event of a fire. [7920]

  Ms Jackson
  Changes to operating procedures relating to action to be taken in the event of a fire alarm on board an HGV shuttle, arising from the implementation of recommendations contained in the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority's Inquiry Report, have meant that the risk to the overhead power line, the catenary, has been reduced. However, in response to Recommendation 4 of the Safety Authority Report, Eurotunnel are employing consultants to examine the feasibility of reducing the chances of the catenary tripping.

  Under the changed procedures the operators—Eurotunnel—no longer operate a drive-through policy or one in which the locomotive and amenity coach is de-coupled and driven through. Consequently the preservation of the integrity of the overhead power line is of less importance to the safety of people in an emergency. In the event of a fire on board an HGV shuttle the running tunnel systems will be configured for an emergency and the train will be brought to a controlled stop alongside a cross passage door for evacuation into the service tunnel.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the risks involved in allowing freight to be transported through the channel tunnel in lattice-sided wagons. [7919]

  Ms Jackson
  This is a matter for the Channel Tunnel Intergovernmental Commission, advised by the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority. In its Inquiry Report into the incident on 18 November 1996 the Safety Authority concluded that the semi-open design of HGV shuttles could be used in a way that secured the safety of people. Before approval was given for the resumption of HGV shuttle services, the Commission and the Safety Authority examined a detailed submission by the operators of the Channel Tunnel, Eurotunnel, and satisfied themselves that the operating procedures proposed were such that semi-open HGV shuttle wagons were able to be operated safely.

  Ports
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the consequences of increased container vessel size for the provision of United Kingdom container port facilities; and what assessment he has made of the impact of such considerations upon a United Kingdom ports strategy; [8436]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the feasibility of encouraging short sea routes as part of a United Kingdom port strategy; and if he will make a statement. [8435]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Measures needed to accommodate larger vessels are for the port authorities concerned in the first place. The Government is committed to encouraging the use of short sea shipping as an alternative to road transport where this is a practical and economic option. The Government is undertaking a transport policy review which will cover, amongst other things, the potential for a shift to short sea shipping, particularly for freight, as part of a policy to promote a progressive shift to less environmentally damaging modes; the environmental impact of ports, including surface access arrangements; and the role of ports in promoting regional development. The Government intends to publish a White Paper on an integrated transport strategy next Spring.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list by company the genetically modified organisms currently approved for(a) field testing and (b) marketing in the United Kingdom. [8041]

  Angela Eagle
  To date 124 consents for the experimental release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Great Britain have been granted since the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1992 came into force on 1 February 1993. By company, these GMOs are:

  GMO

  Consents

  Advanced Technologies

  Potatoes

  6

  Tobacco

  1

  AgrEvo UK Crop Protection Ltd.

  Oilseed rape

  5

  Wheat

  1

  Sugar beet

  4

  Maize

  3

  Potatoes

  1

  Axis Genetics

  Potatoes

  2

  Bejo Zaden

  Chicory

  2

  CPB Twyford

  Oilseed rape

  1

  Derby University

  Apple trees

  1

  Hilleshog NK

  Sugar beet

  4

  Hoechst UK Ltd

  Oliseed rape

  1

  John Innes Centre

  Wheat

  1

  John K King and Sons Ltd.

  Oilseed rape

  1

  Lancaster University

  M13 Bacteriophage virus

  1

  Leicester university

  Tobacco

  3

  Maribo UK Ltd.

  Sugar beet

  1

  Monsanto Plc.

  Oilseed rape

  3

  Sugar beet

  6

  NERC/IVEM

  Baculovirus

  4

  New Farm Crops

  Wheat

  3

  NIAB

  Oilseed rape

  1

  20

  GMO

  Consents

  Nickerson BIOCEM Ltd.

  Oilseed rape

  5

  Wheat

  1

  Potatoes

  3

  Tobacco

  1

  Perryfields Holdings

  Oilseed rape

  1

  Pioneer Genetique SARL

  Oilseed rape

  1

  Plant Breeding International

  Potatoes

  7

  Plant Genetic Systems NV

  Oilseed rape

  20

  Rhone Poulene Agriculture

  Oilseed rape

  2

  Rothamsted Experimental Station

  Rhizobium

  2

  The Scottish Agricultural College

  Oilseed rape

  6

  Scottish Crop Research Institute

  Potatoes

  3

  Strawberries

  1

  Sharpes International Seeds Ltd.

  Swedes

  1

  Oilseed rape

  1

  Sugar beet

  4

  Maize

  1

  Shell Research Ltd.

  Eucalyptus

  2

  Zeneca Ltd.

  Oilseed rape

  1

  Poplars

  2

  Maize

  1

  sugar beet

  1

  Tomatoes

  1

  In the same period eight consents for the marketing of GMOs in the European Community, including the United Kingdom, have been granted in accordance with Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms to the environment. By company, these are:

  GMO

  Rhone Merieux Belgium (1 consent granted)

  Rabies Vaccine

  Societe Nationale d'Exploitation des Tabacs et Allumettes (1 consent granted)

  Tobacco with herbicide tolerance

  Vemie Veterinar Chemie GmbH (2 consents granted)

  Vaccine against Aujeszky's disease in pigs

  Plant Genetics Systems N.V. (1 consent)

  Oilseed rape hybrid system with herbicide tolerance for seed production only

  Monsanto Europe (1 consent)

  Soya beans with herbicide tolerance for import and storage for processing only

  Ciba Geigy (1 consent)

  Maize with insect resistance and herbicide tolerance for unrestricted use

  Bejo Zaden B.V. (1 consent)

  Chicory hybrid system with herbicide tolerance for seed production only

  These GMOs are not necessarily being marketed in the UK. The consents for Plant Genetics Systems and Monsanto were granted by the United Kingdom, whereas the other consents were granted by other member states.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Serious Fraud Office (Annual Report)
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to lay before Parliament and publish the annual report of the Serious Fraud Office for the year 1996–97. [7088]
  21
  The Attorney-General
  The report was laid before Parliament this morning then published. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Crown Prosecution Service (Annual Report)
  Mr. Desmond Browne
  To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to(a) lay before Parliament and (b) publish the annual report of the Crown Prosecution Service for 1996–97. [8768]

  The Attorney-General
  The annual report of the Crown Prosecution Service will be laid before Parliament tomorrow and then published.

  Copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Strategic Defence Review
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the names of those attending the two Foreign Office seminars on the Strategic Defence Review, indicating the organisations each represented. [7823]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The following participants from outside Government participated in the seminars hosted by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the Secretary of State for Defence in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 3 July and in Coventry on 11 July:3 July. Sir Brian Fall (Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford, Chairman), Josh Arnold Foster (UN Association), Menzies Campbell MP (Liberal Democrats), Professor Michael Clarke (King's College, London), Rear Admiral Richard Cobbold (RUSI), Jack Dromey (TGWU), Paul Eavis (Saferworld), Dr. Jonathan Eyal (RUSI), Sir Timothy Garden (RIIA), Dr. James Gow (King's College, London), Charles Grant (The Economist), Dr. Owen Greene (Bradford University), Dr. Rosemary Hollis (RIIA), Martin Kettle (The Guardian), Dave Knight (CND), Mark Laity (BBC), Alan Lee Williams (Atlantic Council), John Lloyd (New Stateman), Anne McElvoy (The Spectator), John MacKinlay (King's College, London), Edward Mortimer (Financial Times), Sebastian Pease (Pugwash), Dan Plesch (BASIC), Dr. Alex Pravda (St Antony's College, Oxford), Dr. Stephen Pullinger (ISIS), Professor Ron Smith (Birbeck College), Jon Snow (Channel Four), Dr. Claire Spencer (Centre for Defence Studies), Lord Wallace (LSE), Rt Hon Sir George Young MP (Conservative Party).
  11 July. Sir Michael Alexander (RUSI, Chairman), Malcolm Chalmers (Bradford University), Professor Julian Cooper (Birmingham University), Dr. Anne Deighton (St Antony's College, Oxford), Professor Lawrence Freedman (King's College, London), Dr. Phil Gordon (IISS), Dr. David Greenwood (Aberdeen University), Professor Eric Grove (Hull University), Dr. Tim Huxley (Hull University), Rebecca Johnson (Disarmament Intelligence Review), Robert Key MP (Conservative Party), Dr. Patricia Lewis (VERTIC), John Lloyd (AEEU), Paul Rogers (Bradford University), John Roper (RIIA), Jane Sharpe (Centre for Defence Studies), Prof Edward Spiers (Leeds University), David Travers (Lancaster University), Paul Wilkinson (St Andrews University).

  Nigeria
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultation took place with the Central Council of Physical 22
  Recreation or national governing bodies of sport regarding the Government's sporting boycott of Nigeria; and if he will make a statement. [7998]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The EU Common Position on Nigeria adopted on 4 December 1995 agreed a series of measures including a sports ban implemented through the denial of visas to official delegations and national teams. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport wrote to the UK Sports Council on 12 December 1995 to inform them of this decision and they in turn advised the relevant national sporting bodies.

  NATO Enlargement (Slovenia)
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the admission of Slovenia to NATO; what steps his Department has taken to facilitate its admission; and what estimate he has made of the timetable for admission. [7807]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the House on 9 July,Official Report, column 937. We see Slovenia as a strong candidate for any future enlargement of NATO.

  EU Presidency
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library his draft programme for the British presidency of the EU. [7699]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I have placed the provisional Calendar of Council meetings during the UK presidency in the Libraries of the House. A revised version will be produced in the autumn. Key events during the UK Presidency will include (dates remain to be decided):

  Draft Programme

  Early January:

  Visit to London by the College of Commissioners

  February/March

  Event in London to mark the formal start of the EU enlargement process

  Spring

  Council of Heads of State or Government to decide the participants in Stage III of Economic and Monetary Union

  15–16 June

  European Council in Cardiff

  There will in addition be a number of informal Ministerial Councils held in the UK.

  Interception of Communications
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many United Kingdom personnel are based inside the National Security Agency headquarters in Washington; and what is their function; [7617]

  (2) how many National Security Agency employees are based inside GCHQ at Cheltenham; what is their function; and what controls exist to ensure that the British national interest is protected. [7618]
  23
  Mr. Robin Cook
  It is a long-standing practice not to disclose details of specific staff deployments by the intelligence and security agencies. However, there are a number of UK personnel at National Security Agency (NSA) headquarters and a number of NSA personnel at GCHQ in a variety of posts.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what bilateral agreements exist between GCHQ and the National Security Agency allowing American personnel to tap the communications of United Kingdom nationals. [7622]

  Mr. Cook
  United Kingdom law applies to US operations in the UK and prohibits the unauthorised interception of communications carried on UK public telecommunications systems. National Security Agency personnel comply with that law.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many complaints have been received since 1990 from EU Governments concerning the interception of diplomatic and commercial communications by US personnel based in the UK. [7630]

  Mr. Cook
  We are not aware of any such complaints.

  Schengen Agreement
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the documents comprising the Schengen acquis are to be incorporated into European Union law as part of the Amsterdam treaty. [6394]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 3 July 1997]: From the entry into force of the Schengen Protocol to be annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the European Community Treaty, the Schengen acquis, as defined in the Annex to the Protocol, will apply as a matter of EU law to all Member States except the United Kingdom and Ireland.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Wrongful Convictions
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 22 May,Official Report, column 111, what considerations are involved in the processing of a final claim for compensation prior to its presentation to the independent assessors; and how long on average such an assessment takes. [7397]

  Mr. Michael
  The independent assessment of a final claim for compensation is made on the basis of written submissions from the claimant or his or her solicitor, setting out the information which he or she would like the assessor to take into account. Based on this material, a memorandum is prepared by the Home Office which sets out the background to the wrongful conviction and summarises the claim. The claimant receives a draft of the completed memorandum and, subject to any comments which he or she may wish to make on its content, or to clarification of any points arising from his or her representations, it is then submitted, with the representations, to the assessor—currently Sir David Calcutt QC.
  24
  On average, the final assessment is received within six to eight weeks of submission of the substantive claim to the assessor.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 22 May,Official Report, column 111, what considerations must be taken into account when assessing whether an individual found by the Court of Appeal to have been wrongfully convicted may qualify for compensation; and how long on average such an assessment takes. [7396]

  Mr. Michael
  All applications for compensation are considered first under the provisions of section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and then, if the statutory requirements are not met, under the ex-gratia arrangements announced by the then Home Secretary in his statement to the House on 29 November 1985. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 17 June that he will continue to be bound by those arrangements.

  On average, a decision on whether an applicant qualifies for compensation is taken within six to nine months of receipt of the application.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 22 May,Official Report, column 111, how many requests for interim compensation payments were received in each of the past five years from individuals found by the Court of Appeal to have been wrongfully convicted; what considerations are taken into account when deciding whether to grant such a request; how many such requests were granted; and how long individuals wait on average before receiving a payment. [7398]

  Mr. Michael
  Twenty-two requests for interim payments were received during the last financial year, all of which were granted. No central record is held of requests for interim payments in preceding years.

  The question of whether and in what sum interim payments may be made is entirely at the discretion of the independent assessor.

  On average, an interim assessment is received within two weeks of submission of the request to the assessor and, subject to written confirmation that the claimant accepts the interim award in part payment of the amount to be finally offered, a payable order is sent within seven to 10 days.

  State of Emergency (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the grounds for maintaining the state of emergency related to the affairs of Northern Ireland; and what plans he has to withdraw the United Kingdom derogation from its international obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. [7372]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government are currently considering what change might be made to the arrangements for extending detention under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. Substituting judicial for executive authority for extensions would require primary legislation. In the interim, the Government
  25
  consider that the derogation in respect of article 5(3) of the European Convention on Human Rights continues to be necessary.

  Torture
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the next United Kingdom periodic report is due under the UN Convention Against Torture; and if he will consult with non-governmental organisations on its content. [7374]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The United Kingdom's third periodic report under article 19 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture is due to be submitted to the United Nations in January 1998. Non-governmental organisations will be consulted during preparation of the report.

  This is in keeping with the Government's wish for greater engagement with and openness toward non-governmental organisations.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) meetings and (b) discussions have taken place since May between the staff of the Prison Service and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture. [7373]

  Mr. Straw
  There have been no official meetings or discussions between Prison Service staff and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) since May 1994 when the CPT last visited places of detention in the United Kingdom.

  Exclusion Orders
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many exclusion orders have been issued or renewed since May; how many orders are presently in force; and if he will make a statement. [7375]

  Mr. Straw
  Two orders have been renewed and two have been allowed to lapse. There are currently 20 orders in force. I am currently considering when and under what conditions it might be safe to remove the power of exclusion from the statute book in the context of wider consideration of prevention of terrorism legislation.

  Deportation Orders
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deportation orders have been made against Irish nationals in each of the past 10 years. [7388]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information, which runs only from 1993, is given in the table.

  Deportation orders made against Irish Nationals, 1993–96

  Number

  1993

  9

  1994

  3

  1995

  2

  19961

  5

  1 Provisional data.

  Prisoners (Transfers)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 19 May.Official Report, column 8, how many prisoners transferred to Northern Ireland on a temporary basis subsequently applied for a permanent transfer in each year since 1992; and how many of these requests were granted. [7389]

  Ms Joyce Quin
  The number of prisoners granted a temporary transfer who subsequently requested a permanent transfer, and the number of such requests granted, in each year since 1992 are as detailed in the table.

  Applications for permanent transfer to Northern Ireland

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Number of applications

  5

  2

  13

  6

  11

  13

  Number granted

  3

  0

  1

  3

  0

  0

  1 One request is still under consideration.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 19 May,Official Report, column 8, if he will list for each year since 1992 the number of prisoners transferred from England to Northern Ireland on a temporary basis and those granted a permanent transfer, in each case identifying the seriousness of the crime for which they were convicted. [7390]

  Ms Quin
  The seriousness of a person's crimes is determined by the courts and reflected in the length of sentence imposed for the offence committed.

  The table shows the number of transfers to Northern Ireland, on either a permanent or temporary basis in each year since 1992, of prisoners sentenced to up to four years, and those sentenced to four years or more.

  Prisoners serving less than four years

  Prisoners serving over four years

  Temporary

  Permanent

  Temporary

  Permanent

  1992

  2

  0

  11

  5

  1993

  0

  0

  4

  0

  1994

  0

  1

  15

  5

  1995

  0

  2

  26

  11

  1996

  0

  3

  39

  3

  1997

  0

  2

  29

  0

  The table includes renewals of temporary transfer for prisoners previously transferred to Northern Ireland on a temporary basis.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 22 May,Official Report, column 8, how many applications for temporary or permanent prison transfers to Northern Ireland have been successful in each month since September 1994. [7391]

  Ms Quin
  Further to the answer given to my hon. Friend on 22 May 1997, a review of the data supplied has revealed that the information given was incomplete. This was due to errors in transferring data to the central
  27
  records, resulting in some omissions. In addition, the reply did not include all the renewals of periods of temporary transfer for prisoners previously transferred to Northern Ireland on a temporary basis.

  Permanent and temporary transfers to Northern Ireland since September 19941

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  TT2

  PT3

  TT

  PT

  TT

  PT

  TT

  PT

  January

  —

  —

  4

  0

  5

  0

  5

  2

  February

  —

  —

  5

  3

  5

  2

  6

  0

  March

  —

  —

  1

  0

  4

  1

  2

  0

  April

  —

  —

  1

  1

  0

  1

  5

  0

  May

  —

  —

  2

  0

  3

  0

  6

  0

  June

  —

  —

  1

  3

  3

  0

  5

  0

  July

  —

  —

  5

  4

  5

  1

  —

  —

  August

  —

  —

  4

  0

  7

  0

  —

  —

  September

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  —

  —

  October

  1

  0

  1

  1

  2

  1

  —

  —

  November

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  —

  —

  December

  0

  0

  1

  0

  5

  1

  —

  —

  1 The table includes three applications which were approved, but the applicants later withdrew their request or were released before transfer could be effected.

  2 Temporary transfer.

  3 Permanent transfer.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will implement the recommendations of the 1992 inter-departmental review of the provisions governing transfer of prisoners between United Kingdom jurisdictions, with particular reference to the amendment of legislation; [7392]

  (2) if he will introduce arrangements to transfer responsibility for granting compassionate parole and other matters of regime for prisoners on temporary extended transfer to Northern Ireland to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. [7393]

  Ms Quin
  The Government remain committed to the statement made in the House on 23 November 1992 by the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State accepting the recommendations of the inter-departmental working group on prisoner transfers. New legislative provisions governing the transfer of prisoners between United Kingdom jurisdictions are contained in schedule 1 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997.

  Arrangements relating to the handling of transfer requests and of transferred prisoners including decisions on temporary release, are currently being reviewed. We will make an announcement as soon as possible about implementation of these provisions.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instructions have been issued to prison governors to assist Irish prisoners who may wish to transfer to Northern Ireland or the Irish Republic; and what information is available for(a) prisoners and (b) their legal representatives to enable them to make an application. [7394]

  Ms Quin
  Applications submitted by Irish prisoners for transfer to another jurisdiction or for repatriation to the Republic of Ireland are treated in exactly the same way as any other application for transfer or repatriation submitted by a prisoner. Information to governors on the
  28
  The total number of permanent and temporary transfers granted in each month since September 1994 is given in the table:

  procedures to be followed in dealing with transfer and repatriation requests are contained in the following documents:

  Repatriation

  Instruction to Governors 101/95

  Foreign Prisoners' Resource Pack (Staff section)

  Transfer and Repatriation

  Prisoners' Requests/Complaints Procedures Manual (section H).

  These documents are available to prisoners. In addition, information on both transfer and repatriation is contained in the Prisoners' Information Book, which is issued to all prisoners.

  Transfer applications are determined in accordance with criteria announced to Parliament on 23 November 1992 by the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State.

  Additional information, in response to specific enquiries from prisoners or their representatives, is provided by the transfer and repatriation section of the Prison Service.

  Copies of, or relevant extracts from the documents detailed above have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many approved applications for transfer to the Irish Republic received from the Minister of Justice are still awaiting his decision. [8480]

  Ms Quin
  Eleven applications for repatriation to the Republic of Ireland, approved by the Irish authorities, remain to be determined.

  Special Secure Units
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 21 May,Official Report, column 77, what progress has been made in reviewing special secure unit operating standards following the report of Sir Donald Acheson concerning open visits by members of prisoners' immediate family. [7895]
  29
  Ms Joyce Quin
  The special secure unit (SSU) operating standards were reviewed following the receipt of Sir Donald Acheson's report in June 1996. The standards were amended to implement recommendations covering health reviews of prisoners, transfer of prisoners requiring emergency treatment in national health service hospitals and sentence management.

  Careful consideration was given to Sir Donald's recommendation that prisoners in SSUs should have access to open visits with members of their immediate family. The Prison Service has made numerous improvements to the security of SSUs but closed visits represent the only guaranteed means of preventing the passage of unauthorised items between prisoner and visitor. The policy of mandatory closed visits for exceptional risk prisoners will be kept under review, however, to ensure that it remains the appropriate response to the threat posed by such prisoners.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the Government's policy for tackling domestic violence; what measures his Department proposes to implement its policy; which of his Department's responsibilities in this area will be transferred to the Department of Social Security; and if he will make a statement. [7568]

  Mr. Michael
  We are currently examining the policies operating in this area, with a view to ensuring that we have an effective strategy against domestic and sexual violence. This strategy will take full account of our commitments to tackling crime in general, and to promoting equality and opportunity for women.

  Domestic violence is a serious and widespread crime which threatens many people in society, mainly women. Domestic violence is unacceptable in itself. It also impacts on many areas of the lives of victims—housing, health, education—and on the freedom to live their life without fear. The Government are committed to tackling domestic violence on every front.

  We have no plans to transfer to the Department of Social Security any of our responsibilities pertaining to domestic violence. My right hon. Friend, the Minister for Women, will be closely involved in the development and implementation of policies on domestic violence, as will colleagues from other Government Departments with an interest in this area.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance his Department gives as to the maximum acceptable journey time for the transportation of non-human primates involved in or destined for animal experimentation. [8217]

  Mr. George Howarth
  No such guidance is given but, in considering whether to give approval for the acquisition of non-human primates from overseas sources for use under the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, the Home Office takes into account journey times, the mode of transport and the route by which the animals are imported.
  30
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of his Department's inspectors have been employed as at 1 June in each year since 1987 to monitor animal experiments currently carried out in United Kingdom research laboratories. [8164]

  Mr. Howarth
  Figures for 1 June each year are not readily available, but the number of inspectors as at 31 December is published annually in "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain". The figures are as follows:

  1987: 19

  1988: 19

  1989: 18

  1990: 19

  1991: 19

  1992: 21

  1993: 20

  1994: 19

  1995: 18

  1996: 17.

  There are currently 17 inspectors in post and one vacancy which is expected to be filled in September.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken in respect of the contents of the Channel 4 programme of 26 March, "It's a Dog's Life," as they relate to Huntingdon Life Sciences. [8469]

  Mr. Howarth
  The Home Office took prompt and firm action. The personal licences of two individuals seen hitting and shaking dogs in the programme were immediately suspended and then formally revoked at the earliest opportunity allowed by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The local police were also asked by the Home Office to investigate possible offences under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and I understand that individuals have now been charged.

  The Chief Inspector, who heads the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate, has carried out a detailed and thorough investigation into all the allegations made in the Channel 4 programme and the wider issue of the management and control of animal work within the establishment concerned. We expect to receive a comprehensive report before the end of July.

  The Animal Procedures Committee has endorsed the action taken by the Home Office and the nature and form of the investigation. The Committee has been kept fully informed of the progress and findings of this investigation and has been given the opportunity to advise about further action to be taken.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the impact of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 on the number of tests which are conducted on alternatives to animals. [7924]

  Mr. Howarth
  Tests which do not use animals are not regulated by the Home Office and information on the number of such tests is not, therefore, available.
  31
  The Home Office makes funds available through the Animal Procedures Committee to sponsor research into alternatives. A summary of the grants made and the outcome of the sponsored research is presented in the Committee's annual report.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on issuing identity cards for the purpose of proving the ages of young people when purchasing alcohol. [8527]

  Mr. George Howarth
  As chairman of the Ministerial Group on Alcopops. I have had urgent talks with the drinks industry and other interests about tackling underage drinking. Among the issues which the group is considering is the use of proof of age cards. I shall make an announcement later this month.

  Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the London office and activities of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. [7166]

  Mr. Straw
  I have received one letter from a member of the public concerning the activities of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.

  Pigeon Feeding
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will make a decision on a byelaw to ban pigeon feeding in public places. [7465]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We are not persuaded that a byelaw to prohibit the feeding of pigeons in public places is justified. To create a criminal offence would be a disproportionate response and would criminalise otherwise law-abiding people.

  Local authorities already have powers under part IV of the Public Health Act 1961 to take steps to abate or mitigate any nuisance, annoyance or damage caused by the congregation of pigeons in any built-up area.

  Policing (Party Conferences)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to alleviate the cost burden from individual police authorities of extra policing during party conferences of(a) the Government party and (b) other parties. [8170]

  Mr. Michael
  Sussex police authority has been offered an additional £750,000 to help meet the costs of safeguarding national security at the Labour party conference in Brighton in October. Lancashire police authority has been offered a similar amount towards the costs of policing the Conservative party conference in Blackpool. No applications for additional funds have been received from police authorities in England and Wales in whose areas the conferences of other parties are to be held.

  Strip Searching
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of people strip searched in the custody of police(a) were not charged with any offence and (b) were not subsequently convicted of any offence. [8541]

  Mr. Michael
  The information requested is not collected centrally. Statistics collected centrally record the number of intimate searches carried out in police custody. An intimate search consists of the physical examination of a person's body orifices other than the mouth. Provisional figures for 1996 show that 132 intimate searches were recorded by police forces in England and Wales. The confirmed figure will be published later this year. Statistics held centrally do not show how many of those subject to intimate searches were charged with an offence. Strip searches, which involve the removal of more than outer clothing, are not separately reported centrally.

  Probation Officers
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to(a) revoke and (b) amend S.I., 1995 No. 2622, relating to the qualification required to be a probation officer. [8427]

  Ms Joyce Quin
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave to a question from the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on 7 July,Official Report, column 369.

  Prison Officers
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to ensure that prison officers are subject to the same search policy before coming on duty as applies to visitors to prisoners. [8568]

  Mr. George Howarth
  No. Where rub-down searches are deployed, my right hon. Friend has just announced that professional visitors, including prison officers, will be subject to a modified search, while general visitors will continue to be subject to the full rub-search procedure. This is following a Prison Service assessment that while there are exceptions, professional visitors and staff generally pose a lower level of risk.

  Prisoners (Alcohol and Drugs)
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many serving prisoners were convicted of criminal offences committed during the currency of their sentence in the most recent year for which figures are available; and how many of these offences were drink or drugs-related. [8572]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Information on prisoners convicted of criminal offences committed whilst in custody is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  According to court proceedings data for 1995 collected centrally, 166 persons were returned to custody under sections 38 and 65 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991—failure to comply with early release licence conditions. Of these, six persons were sentenced at the same court

  33
  appearance for driving etc. after consuming alcohol or drugs. There were no persons sentenced for drug offences or for drunkenness.

  In 1995, 299 persons were returned to custody under section 40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991—commission of a new offence before the previous sentence is served in full. Of these, five persons were sentenced at the same court appearance for drug offences and seven persons were sentenced for driving etc. after consuming alcohol or drugs. There were no persons sentenced for drunkenness.

  In 1995, a further 185 prisoners were recalled by the Parole Board under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, of which 84 had committed further offences. Information on their offences is not readily available.

  1996 data will not be available until the autumn.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what measures he proposes to reduce illegal drug taking and alcohol consumption in prisons; [8567]

  (2) how many instances of illegal drug taking and alcohol consumption in prisons were discovered in the most recent year for which figures are available; and how many resulted in disciplinary action. [8569]

  Mr. Howarth
  In 1996–97 some 21,700 mandatory drug test samples were positive for drugs. This figure includes results from both random and targeted tests which led to 16,757 adjudications for misuse of controlled drugs. Information on the number of instances of alcohol consumption is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Knowingly consuming alcohol became a disciplinary offence in February this year. The first use of this charge in disciplinary proceedings occurred in May.

  The Government are fully committed to reducing the level of substance misuse in prisons. We intend to build on existing measures to reduce the supply of drugs in prisons by a combination of mandatory drug testing and drug treatment programmes. The Prisons (Alcohol Testing) Act was enacted in March this year. The Prison Service is currently considering the implementation of a pilot programme of mandatory alcohol testing.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what Government schemes currently exist to enable serving prisoners to cure alcoholism or drug abuse. [8571]

  Mr. Howarth
  All prisons provide detoxification, education and counselling facilities to prisoners with substance misuse problems via the prison health care centre, probation department or community drug agencies. Many provide additional drug treatment programmes, for example, rehabilitation units or drug free areas supported by voluntary testing. The Prison Service is also spending £6.09 million this year on pilot drug treatment projects at 59 establishments. These include therapeutic communities, three-month treatment programmes, enhanced detoxification units, intensive counselling and education services and community-linked throughcare programmes.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what improvements he proposes to 34
  make in his procedures to search prison visitors to ensure that no illegal drugs or alcohol are brought into prisons. [8566]

  Mr. Howarth
  The Prison Service is implementing a range of measures to improve searching procedures which will minimise the smuggling of contraband into prisons. The most important one is the issuing of the new security manual at the turn of the year. This will publicise new standardised procedures for searching prisoners, visitors and vehicles, and will reinforce messages on good local supervision and audit of procedures. Recent increases in local training time should also contribute towards the improvement in searching procedures.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has held with(a) the Prison Officers Union and (b) prison governors concerning illegal drug taking and alcohol consumption in prisons; and if he will make a statement. [8570]

  Mr. Howarth
  We have not as yet had the opportunity for substantive talks on these particular topics. We are fully committed to reducing the level of drug and alcohol misuse in prisons and we will discuss developments with the trade unions as they arise.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for the further consideration of private sector involvement in the Prison Service(a) the expected completion date and (b) the cost of conducting the review. [8252]

  Ms Joyce Quin
  It is planned that the review should be completed by December and will be undertaken within existing resources with no significant additional cost.

  Raphael Rowe
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what papers were removed from the file on Raphael Rowe before it was passed to the Criminal Cases Review Commission; what has become of these papers; and if he will make a statement. [7859]

  Mr. Michael
  The files on all cases outstanding in the Home Office at the time the Criminal Cases Review Commission took on its caseworking responsibilities were transferred to the Commission in accordance with the terms of section 18(3) and (4) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. Material containing(a) advice from officials to Ministers, and Ministers' responses, and (b) legal advice to the Department, was removed from the files before transfer in accordance with convention. All such material has been retained on Home Office files.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Ashford High School
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 22 May,Official Report, column 126, if he will approve the application for grant-maintained status from Ashford high school, Middlesex. [7806]
  35
  Ms Estelle Morris
  The proposals from Ashford high school are under consideration and I cannot prejudge the final decision.

  Primary School Pupils (Stoke-on-Trent)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children in the constituency of Stoke on Trent, North reached the level expected for 11-year-olds in(a) literacy and (b) numeracy in each of the last five years. [7327]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The percentage of pupils reaching level 4 and above—the level expected for 11-year-olds—in the 1995 and 1996 English and mathematics National Curriculum tests in the schools in Stoke on Trent, North for which data are available is shown in the table. The national curriculum tests for 11-year-olds were introduced only in 1995.

  Per cent.

  English

  Mathematics

  1995

  34

  29

  1996

  48

  44

  Primary Class Sizes
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list those LEAs which(a) contain primary schools with class sizes above 30 and (b) have surplus primary school places. [7367]

  Number of 15-year-old pupils

  Percentage achieving five or more GCSE grades A*-C

  Number of pupils on roll

  Number with statements

  Percentage with statements

  North-east Lincolnshire

  Havelock School

  125

  6

  530

  12

  2

  Healing Comprehensive School

  149

  60

  760

  11

  1

  Hereford School

  195

  16

  1,036

  19

  2

  Humberston Comprehensive School

  141

  64

  693

  11

  2

  Lindsey School

  289

  33

  1,558

  21

  1

  Matthew Humberstone School

  215

  22

  1,158

  43

  4

  St. Mary's RC High School

  47

  28

  254

  1

  0

  The Immingham School

  205

  32

  997

  17

  2

  Waltham Toll Bar School

  294

  51

  1,750

  23

  1

  Western School

  156

  26

  696

  31

  4

  Whitgift School

  203

  21

  908

  11

  1

  Wintringham School

  206

  23

  855

  5

  1

  Lincolnshire

  Ancaster High School

  103

  29

  550

  21

  4

  Banovallum School

  72

  39

  370

  26

  7

  Boston Grammar School

  100

  91

  619

  —

  0

  Boston High School for Girls

  136

  92

  865

  —

  0

  Bourne Grammar School

  140

  96

  745

  1

  0

  Branston Community College

  188

  48

  1,035

  59

  6

  Caistor Grammar School

  86

  98

  550

  —

  0

  Caistor Yarborough School

  103

  28

  530

  12

  2

  Carre's Grammar School

  73

  96

  555

  2

  0

  Cherry Willingham Comprehensive School

  103

  41

  492

  42

  9

  Cordeaux High School

  98

  12

  577

  40

  7

  Coteland's School, Ruskington

  35

  6

  235

  8

  3

  De Aston School

  180

  49

  1,180

  52

  4

  Gleed Girls' GM School

  107

  37

  537

  7

  1

  John Spendluffe School

  60

  8

  380

  37

  10

  Kesteven and Grantham Girls' School

  168

  95

  988

  —

  0

  Kesteven and Sleaford High School

  75

  95

  564

  —

  0

  King Edward VI School

  120

  93

  527

  7

  1

  Lafford High School

  62

  16

  286

  21

  7

  Lincoln Christ's Hospital School

  180

  46

  1,234

  30

  2

  Lincoln School of Science and Technology

  1

  —

  693

  2

  0

  Monks Dyke School

  123

  22

  785

  26

  3

  North Kesteven (GM) School

  215

  51

  1,271

  17

  1

  Queen Eleanor School

  112

  17

  505

  35

  7

  36
  Mr. Byers
  All local education authority areas had surplus places in primary schools and all except City of London and Isles of Scilly had class sizes above 30 in primary schools. This information relates to January 1996, the latest date for which information on both surplus places and class sizes is available.

  Statemented Children
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will calculate the correlation between the number of statemented children in each secondary school and examination success by the schools in North East Lincolnshire, Lincolnshire, North Yorkshire, Richmond (Surrey), the East Riding, Calderdale, Barnsley and Sheffield. [7666]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Available data for maintained secondary schools in these local education authority (LEA) areas, as published in performance tables in November 1996, are shown in the following table. Figures for numbers of 15-year-old pupils and for the percentages of such pupils achieving five or more GCSE grades A*-C relate to examinations in academic year 1995–96. Figures for numbers of pupils on roll and numbers with statements are taken from the Annual Schools Census in January 1996, with schools listed by the LEA in whose area they were located as at November 1996. Information on numbers of statements by age of pupil is not collected centrally, so it is not possible to correlate between numbers of 15-year-olds with statements and percentages of this age group achieving examination successes.
  37

  Number of 15-year-old pupils

  Percentage achieving five or more GCSE grades A*-C

  Number of pupils on roll

  Number with statements

  Percentage with statements

  Queen Elizabeth's CM Grammar School

  65

  88

  451

  1

  0

  Queen Elizabeth's Grammar School—Horncastle

  98

  96

  669

  1

  0

  Queen Elizabeth's High School

  177

  92

  981

  —

  0

  Robert Pattinson GM School

  225

  51

  1,169

  11

  1

  Sir John Gleed Technology School

  112

  13

  537

  27

  5

  Sir William Robertson High School

  90

  33

  419

  11

  3

  Skegness Grammar School

  104

  92

  636

  —

  0

  Spalding Grammar School

  98

  89

  762

  1

  0

  Spalding High School

  135

  92

  913

  2

  0

  Spilsby High School

  88

  30

  506

  17

  3

  St. Bede's Catholic School

  36

  31

  202

  14

  7

  St. George's College of Technology

  186

  33

  1,050

  78

  7

  St. Hugh's School

  76

  7

  368

  35

  10

  St. Peter and St. Paul RC High School

  100

  34

  452

  19

  4

  St. Wulfram's CofE High School (GM)

  75

  24

  409

  15

  4

  Tennyson High School

  68

  12

  296

  23

  8

  The Aveland School

  47

  26

  220

  7

  3

  The Birkbeck School

  45

  33

  287

  7

  2

  The Castle Hills GM Community School

  109

  13

  592

  44

  7

  The Central School

  116

  20

  635

  27

  4

  The Charles Read School

  50

  16

  225

  13

  6

  The City School

  178

  29

  749

  8

  1

  The Deepings School

  192

  45

  1,269

  26

  2

  The Earl of Scarborough High School

  198

  6

  893

  32

  4

  The Gartree (GM) School

  84

  37

  434

  16

  4

  The George Farmer School

  95

  23

  483

  30

  6

  The Giles School

  111

  29

  556

  30

  5

  The Haven High School

  146

  6

  558

  29

  5

  The King's School

  147

  94

  842

  —

  0

  The Middlecott School

  101

  18

  565

  18

  3

  The Middlefield School

  82

  6

  416

  15

  4

  The Peele County Secondary School

  65

  12

  309

  16

  5

  The Robert Manning School

  153

  29

  857

  27

  3

  The St. Guthlac School

  44

  9

  255

  17

  7

  The Thomas Cowley High School

  53

  19

  279

  25

  9

  The Walton Girls' High School

  108

  29

  493

  5

  1

  William Farr CofE Comprehensive School

  193

  52

  1,022

  13

  1

  William Lovell CofE School

  73

  15

  364

  14

  4

  Yarborough School

  205

  33

  1,025

  22

  2

  North Yorkshire

  Aireville School

  120

  18

  539

  23

  4

  Barlby High School

  115

  46

  580

  13

  2

  Bedale High School

  136

  49

  587

  10

  2

  Boroughbridge High School

  129

  55

  631

  11

  2

  Brayton High School

  216

  58

  1,134

  53

  5

  Easingwold School

  212

  57

  1,205

  23

  2

  Ermysted's Grammar School

  86

  100

  572

  —

  0

  Filey School

  106

  41

  525

  10

  2

  Graham School

  220

  47

  1,153

  19

  2

  Harrogate Grammar School

  239

  75

  1,643

  8

  0

  Harrogate Granby High School

  155

  37

  814

  26

  3

  Holy Family RC High School

  72

  51

  414

  3

  1

  King James's School

  248

  61

  1,492

  26

  2

  Lady Lumley's School

  134

  65

  829

  9

  1

  Malton School

  93

  59

  508

  12

  2

  Northallerton College

  297

  57

  907

  4

  0

  Norton College

  128

  41

  642

  24

  4

  Pindar School

  147

  31

  794

  20

  3

  Raincliffe School

  115

  39

  563

  18

  3

  Richmond School

  205

  55

  1,396

  15

  1

  Ripon City School

  93

  13

  398

  8

  2

  Ripon Grammar School

  98

  95

  690

  —

  0

  Risedale Community College

  94

  21

  508

  9

  2

  Rossett High School

  194

  48

  1,178

  20

  2

  Ryedale School

  67

  64

  351

  10

  3

  Scalby School

  210

  55

  1,046

  22

  2

  Selby High School

  162

  56

  852

  10

  1

  Settle High School and Community College

  143

  50

  538

  4

  1

  Sherburn High School

  146

  48

  800

  10

  1

  Skipton Girls' High School

  94

  100

  599

  —

  0

  South Craven School

  294

  42

  1,741

  28

  2

  St. Aidan's CofE High School

  225

  74

  1,531

  18

  1

  St. Augustine's RC School

  66

  32

  338

  9

  3

  St. Francis Xavier School

  58

  62

  341

  7

  2

  St. John Fisher RC High School

  132

  62

  899

  9

  1

  Stokesley School

  233

  70

  1,201

  14

  1

  Tadcaster Grammar School

  201

  59

  1,199

  19

  2

  The Wensleydale School

  82

  34

  463

  7

  2

  Thirsk School

  173

  50

  998

  9

  1

  Upper Nidderdale High School

  71

  42

  349

  17

  5

  38

  39

  Number of 15-year-old pupils

  Percentage achieving five or more GCSE grades A*-C

  Number of pupils on roll

  Number with statements

  Percentage with statements

  Upper Wharfedale School

  57

  47

  282

  4

  1

  Whitby Community College

  308

  47

  986

  20

  2

  Richmond (Surrey)

  Christ's School

  115

  32

  587

  12

  2

  Grey Court School

  211

  55

  1,043

  21

  2

  Orleans Park School

  180

  56

  957

  35

  4

  Rectory School

  183

  53

  873

  31

  4

  Shene School

  204

  45

  1,098

  28

  3

  Teddington School

  236

  65

  1,174

  20

  2

  Waldegrave School for Girls

  171

  65

  971

  10

  1

  Whitton School

  195

  40

  997

  36

  4

  East Riding

  Beverley Girls' High School

  138

  64

  760

  5

  1

  Beverley Grammar School

  93

  49

  680

  11

  2

  Bridlington School

  222

  23

  1,085

  33

  3

  Cottingham High School

  199

  55

  1,322

  12

  1

  Driffield School

  255

  43

  1,565

  21

  1

  Headlands School

  206

  31

  1,199

  52

  4

  Hessle High School

  147

  35

  919

  14

  2

  Hornsea School

  194

  49

  1,140

  10

  1

  Howden School

  149

  37

  726

  15

  2

  Longcroft School

  238

  43

  1,313

  38

  3

  Market Weighton School

  116

  48

  621

  4

  1

  South Holderness School

  305

  44

  1,730

  43

  2

  South Hunsley School

  186

  56

  1,322

  17

  1

  The Snaith School

  149

  60

  751

  11

  1

  Vermuyden School

  178

  28

  1,032

  14

  1

  Withernsea High School

  226

  34

  1,119

  16

  1

  Woldgate School

  208

  45

  1,152

  27

  2

  Wolfreton School

  357

  57

  2,051

  15

  1

  Calderdale

  Brighouse High School

  180

  47

  1,041

  12

  1

  Calder High School

  211

  40

  1,258

  28

  2

  Crossley Heath School

  96

  95

  724

  3

  0

  Halifax Catholic High School (GM)

  136

  44

  826

  12

  1

  Hipperholme and Lightcliffe High School

  165

  41

  905

  16

  2

  Holy Trinity CofE Senior School (GM)

  144

  45

  944

  18

  2

  Rastrick High School (GM)

  189

  50

  1,192

  18

  2

  Ryburn Valley High School

  209

  34

  1,202

  9

  1

  South Halifax High School

  76

  4

  421

  27

  6

  Sowerby Bridge High School

  159

  19

  878

  13

  1

  The Brooksbank School

  237

  35

  1,345

  11

  1

  The Halifax High School

  174

  12

  639

  24

  4

  The North Halifax Grammar School

  142

  97

  862

  1

  0

  The Ridings School

  123

  8

  663

  27

  4

  Todmorden High School

  175

  35

  910

  15

  2

  Barnsley

  Darton High School

  176

  34

  939

  26

  3

  Edward Sheerien School

  142

  21

  719

  39

  5

  Holgate School

  180

  34

  923

  28

  3

  Kirk Balk School

  208

  28

  964

  47

  5

  Penistone Grammar School

  246

  50

  1,540

  15

  1

  Priory School

  161

  24

  891

  31

  3

  Royston Comprehensive School

  116

  27

  643

  26

  4

  St. Michael's RC School

  129

  43

  632

  21

  3

  The Dearne High School

  257

  23

  1,267

  43

  3

  The Foulstone School

  177

  25

  887

  26

  3

  The Kingstone School

  248

  28

  1,343

  29

  2

  Willowgarth High School

  207

  15

  943

  46

  5

  Wombwell High School

  160

  30

  752

  23

  3

  Worsbrough High School

  132

  9

  545

  18

  3

  Sheffield

  Abbeydale Grane School

  109

  21

  511

  44

  9

  All Saints' RC School

  169

  47

  990

  16

  2

  Birley Comprehensive School

  208

  31

  975

  8

  1

  Bradfield School

  173

  42

  906

  18

  2

  Chaucer School

  194

  19

  965

  22

  2

  Earl Marshal School

  127

  8

  529

  17

  3

  Ecclesfield School

  314

  42

  1,598

  22

  1

  Firth Park School

  237

  19

  1,164

  16

  1

  Handsworth Grange School

  157

  27

  862

  13

  2

  Herries School

  109

  12

  573

  5

  1

  High Storrs School

  276

  67

  1,685

  24

  1

  Hinde House School

  183

  17

  944

  21

  2

  King Ecgbert School

  147

  47

  940

  14

  1

  King Edward VII School

  224

  62

  1,516

  9

  1

  40

  41

  Number of 15-year-old pupils

  Percentage achieving five or more GCSE grades A*-C

  Number of pupils on roll

  Number with statements

  Percentage with statements

  Meadowhead School

  323

  53

  1,615

  15

  1

  Myers Grove School

  163

  43

  742

  8

  1

  Myrtle Springs School

  235

  13

  1,079

  24

  2

  Newfield School

  178

  25

  949

  22

  2

  Notre Dame RC Comprehensive School

  181

  51

  1,038

  18

  2

  Silverdale School

  190

  75

  1,133

  20

  2

  Stocksbridge School

  167

  48

  692

  6

  1

  Tapton School

  196

  61

  1,471

  23

  2

  The City School

  228

  37

  1,154

  48

  4

  Waltheof School

  184

  14

  905

  19

  2

  Westfield School

  236

  35

  1,145

  11

  1

  Wisewood School

  155

  35

  659

  10

  2

  Yewlands School

  159

  17

  763

  25

  3

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the number per thousand pupils of statemented children in North East Lincolnshire, Lincolnshire, North Yorkshire, Richmond (Surrey), the East Riding, Calderdale, Barnsley and Sheffield. [7701]

  Ms Morris
  Schools' returns for January 1996, the latest available, were aggregated for local education authorities existing at that time. North East Lincolnshire and the East Riding of Yorkshire became unitary authorities in April 1996 so, other than for schools appearing in performance tables, information on numbers of statements aggregated for these authorities is not readily available. Returns from schools in the other local education authorities are summarised in the following table.

  Local education authority

  Total pupils1

  Pupils with statements1

  Number of pupils with statements per statements per thousand pupils

  Lincolnshire

  97,785

  3,180

  32.5

  North Yorkshire2

  117,701

  2,787

  23.7

  Richmond upon Thames

  26,778

  482

  18.0

  Calderdale

  35,726

  821

  23.0

  Barnsley

  35,313

  1,054

  29.8

  Sheffield

  77,529

  1,848

  23.8

  1 Includes pupils in nursery, primary, middle, secondary, independent and special schools and pupil referral units within the local education authority area.

  2 Includes schools which transferred to the area of City of York local education authority from April 1996.

  New Deal
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the Environment Taskforce in the New Deal will be involved in any areas which are currently managed or maintained by local authorities. [8207]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Detailed discussions will begin shortly about the arrangements for delivering the New Deal, and the scope and nature of the work of the environment task force. Local authorities will have an important role to play in local discussions and planning.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what remuneration is to be paid to Sir Peter Davis for his work with the Advisory Task Force in the New Deal. [8205]

  Mr. Smith
  None.
  42
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment who will be responsible for the control of the Environment Taskforce in the New Deal. [8208]

  Mr. Smith
  The Employment Service will be responsible for implementing the New Deal for those aged 18 to 24 who have been unemployed for six months or longer. Whilst the Department will retain overall responsibility for the New Deal, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will play a major role in setting up and delivery of the environmental task force. The main responsibility for monitoring the activities of the task force will lie with the Department, but the DETR will also have a role, given its wider responsibility for environmental matters.

  Youth Service
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what meetings he has held with local government representatives to discuss the audit of youth service provision; and if he will make a statement. [7658]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department will shortly be consulting the Local Government Association about the form and content of the audit of youth service provision. I have also agreed to meet representatives of local authorities to discuss a number of matters including the youth service audit. Their views will be taken into account together with those of other organisations consulted before the audit request is sent to local authorities.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many of his Department's publications have been available in(a) Braille, (b) audio tape and (c) large print in each year since 1992; and what percentage of the total number of publications this represents in each case. [7642]

  Dr. Howells
  To identify and list publications that have been produced in these three formats within separate years would be very time consuming and possible only at disproportionate cost.

  At the present time, the Department has approximately 3,290 separate publications available. Of these 72 are available in Braille, 56 in audio tape; and 19 in large print. Therefore 2 per cent. of the total are available in Braille, 1.7 per cent. in audio tape and 0.6 per cent. in large print.
  43
  In recent years the Department's policy has been to make publications that will be of very wide public interest available in formats that are suitable for people with visual impairments. This will continue.

  "Excellence in Schools"
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment by what date copies of "Excellence in Schools: A Summary" will be available in Hindi and Punjabi. [8513]

  Mr. Byers
  Copies of the summary will be available to the public within the next two weeks.

  Disability Rights Commission
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the total annual cost of running the proposed Disability Rights Commission. [7739]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Our manifesto commits us to supporting comprehensive, enforceable civil rights for disabled people. We are consulting interested parties on the best way to achieve this and we shall develop proposals in the light of our discussions. Estimated costs related to the proposals emanating from our manifesto commitment will be made available at the appropriate time.

PRIME MINISTER

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the Adjournment Debate of 11 June,Official Report, columns 1253–60, if he will discuss with Chancellor Kohl (a) the recent statements made by the Public Prosecutor's office in Frankfurt on the role of Abgdol Hassam Mesbahi in respect of the destruction of PanAm 103 and (b) its consequences for UN sanctions against Libya. [8550]

  The Prime Minister
  No. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) on 11 July,Official Report, column 626.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent discussion with President Mandela relating to Libyan sanctions and Lockerbie. [7937]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 11 July 1997]: President Mandela and I agreed on the need to bring this tragic issue to a conclusion. I explained our position that to secure the lifting of sanctions, Libya must comply with the requirements of the Security Council Resolutions.

  National Heritage Department
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans the Government have for the Department of National Heritage; and if he will make a statement. [8896]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have decided to refocus the Department of National Heritage to play a major part in the regeneration of our country for the future, working with the cultural industries, local 44
  government and the private sector to support creativity and also to create wealth and employment. As an expression of this change, the Department will be renamed the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and its responsibilities widened to include the music industries, which contribute some £2.5 billion to gross domestic product each year.

  My right hon. Friend, who will be known as the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, will develop a new and dynamic approach to the "creative industries". He will carry through the Government's commitment to a strategic vision for the British arts, media and cultural industries that matches their real power and energy.

  The formal steps necessary to change my right hon. Friend's title are in hand are expected to be completed shortly.

  Pension Schemes (Corporate Dividends)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister when he first discussed with his colleagues reducing the value of corporate dividends to group and individual pension schemes; whom they consulted about the consequences; and when they first advised the general public of their intentions. [8565]

  The Prime Minister
  We began our review of corporate tax two years ago while we were still in opposition, the review was mentioned on page 13 of our manifesto and on page 9 of our business manifesto. On taking office, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor started to put together his Budget taking advice as required. The details of the measures were announced in his Budget statement of 2 July.

  Open Government
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will consider opening to public inspection the pages relating to "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" in classmark CAB 171 of the Public Record Office which are currently being reviewed by the Cabinet Office.[8010]

  The Prime Minister
  All editions of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" have been published. In addition any papers in classmark CAB 171 relating to each published version have been released and are available in the Public Record Office.

  Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Prime Minister what proportion of the time of the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe is spent on duties in(a) the Treasury and (b) the Department of Trade and Industry. [7432]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 9 July 1997]: The Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe expects to spend up to 20 per cent. of his time dealing with Treasury duties.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the oral answers of 3 July,Official Report, column 409; that to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), Official Report, column 427, and that of

  45
  4 July Official Report, column 585, what factors led to the differences underlying each answer relating to the business interests of the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe. [7420]

  The Prime Minister
  There are no such differences.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Prime Minister what are the duties of the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe. [7429]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the right hon. Member to the List of Ministerial Responsibilities, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Disabled People (Harassment)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the Government's policy on the harassment of disabled people; and which Department is responsible for the collection of statistics on such harassment. [6434]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 8 July 1997]: The Government deplore discrimination against disabled people and are committed to developing comprehensive and enforceable civil rights for disabled people against discrimination in society or at work.

  All members of society including disabled people are protected from harassment under the new criminal and civil measures in the Protection of Harassment Act 1997. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 gives disabled people a personal right to protection from detrimental action taken against them on account of their disability in a wide range of areas of life. The DDA also protects disabled people from being victimised for asserting their right. Statistics have not been collated centrally on acts of harassment or victimisation in relation to these Acts.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will review the exclusion of the Minister without Portfolio from the rota for oral parliamentary questions. [7217]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 7 July,Official Report, column 324.

  Departmental Advisers
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list each person advising or assisting his Office who has(a) membership of and (b) involvement in (i) the European Round Table of industrialists, (ii) the European Centre for Infrastructure Studies, (iii) the Competitiveness Advisory Group, (iv) Transatlantic Business Dialogue, (v) the Association for the Monetary Union of Europe, (vi) Union of Industrial and Employers Confederations of Europe, (vii) Europa Bio and (viii) the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. [5306]

  The Prime Minister
  Membership of the European Round Table of industrialists, the Competitiveness Group and the Transatlantic Business Dialogue is on a personal basis. It is therefore not known whether any of the many people advising or assisting my office is either a member of, or has an involvement in, any of these bodies.
  46
  Membership of the European Centre for Infrastructure Studies, the Association for the Monetary Union of Europe, the Union of Industrial and Employers Confederations of Europe, Europa Bio and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development is on a corporate basis. Representatives from companies and organisations involved with these groups may advise Government Departments from time to time.

  Ministers (Transport Costs)
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost to public funds of his air travel(a) to the G7 Economic summit and (b) between Denver and New York; and if he will make a statement. [6287]

  The Prime Minister
  The cost of chartering a British Airways Concorde aircraft to transport me and the accompanying official delegation to Denver and New York amounted to £230,000. British Airways offered Concorde for a lower cost than a Boeing 767 which was the alternative aircraft we would otherwise have chartered. Part of the cost was met by the accompanying press.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Gazumping
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action his Department is taking to prevent gazumping. [8474]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have been asked to reply as responsibility for this topic lies with my Department.

  Work will shortly be under way across a number of Government Departments co-operating together which will, amongst other things, look closely at the problem of gazumping and will lead to detailed proposals which will be in the interests of everybody involved in the sale and purchase of homes.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Bishops' Residences
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what proposals the Church Commissioners have to change the amount of resources committed to bishops' residences. [6505]

  Mr. Bell
  The Commissioners have a duty to maintain the 44 See houses in their ownership. Houses occupied by suffragan bishops are the responsibility of their respective dioceses.

  A budget for each house is prepared on a year by year basis, following detailed consultation with the bishop and the surveyor/architect. They are drawn up in the light of professional advice on the existing condition of the properties, the potential maintenance liability, and the scope for creating more economic and manageable accommodation, where appropriate. The budgets are the minimum the Commissioners feel is consistent with the proper maintenance of those properties and the costs are monitored closely.

  Hagg Wood (Public Access)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement about the Church Commissioners' policy on public access to Hagg Wood, near York. [6506]

  Mr. Bell
  The Commissioners are committed to protecting public rights of way over their land. Where appropriate, they are also prepared to enter into Access Agreements for specified permissive paths. In the case of Hagg Wood, discussions are in progress with York City Council and the leaseholder, the Forestry Commission, aimed at achieving a suitable Access Agreement.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

  National Audit Office (Staffing)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what are the staffing implications for the National Audit Office of its role in validating the Chancellor's economic assumptions. [6504]

  Mr. Sheldon
  About twelve staff of the National Audit Office made a significant contribution to the Comptroller and Auditor General's recent report on the assumptions for the Budget projections, which had to be prepared in less than three weeks. The staffing implications of the National Audit Office's continuing role in auditing the public finances in future Budgets will be determined as the scale of the studies is defined.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Members' Interests
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development on what occasions(a) Ministers and (b) officials have refused to (i) arrange and (ii) attend meetings with hon. Members to discuss matters relating to interests registered by those hon. Members under categories 1, 2, 3, 4(b), 8 and 9 in the Register of Members' Interests. [8085]

  Clare Short
  The First Report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Cm 2850) made it clear that, when Members are meeting Ministers or others on topics in which they have an interest, the onus is on the Member to declare that interest not the Minister to know (paragraph 63 of Cm 2850). It is not practicable for Ministers and officials to vet requests for meetings against the Register of Members' Interests. Should evidence of non-declaration emerge, or contravention of the Resolution of the House relating to delegations to Ministers, the matter would be brought to the attention of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will ensure that(a) Ministers and (b) officials of her Department refuse requests from hon. Members to (i) arrange and (ii) attend meetings relating to interests held by those hon. Members under categories 1, 2, 3, 4(b), 8 and 9 in the Register of Members' Interests. [8082]
  48
  Clare Short
  The First Report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Cm 2850) recognised the value of enabling Members to retain interests outside the House, provided these were properly declared, both in the Register of Members' Interests and on other occasions. Subject to these requirements, and to the rules of the House relating to delegations to Ministers, Members are free to seek meetings with Ministers and officials, who will consider such requests alongside the many other approaches from individuals and organisations concerned to press their own interests or those of others.

  UNESCO
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what will be the cost of UNESCO membership in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99. [7869]

  Clare Short
  I refer the right hon. Member to the replies I gave to the hon. Member for Richmond Park, (Dr. Tonge),Official Report, 2 June 1997, column 26, and to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, (Mr. Hogg), Official Report, 20 May 1997, column 37.

  World Trade Organisation
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations her Department has made about establishing a human rights clause in the World Trade Organisation. [8014]

  Clare Short
  The Government is firmly committed to ending abusive labour practices, including exploitative child and forced labour, world-wide. We are pursuing this objective in the ILO and through other international fora. We are also exploring how the WTO might be used to reinforce this work.

  UNIDO
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what will be the cost to UK public funds of UNIDO membership in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99. [7867]

  Clare Short
  The UK contribution for 1997 was £3.8 million. The amount required for the 1998–99 biennium will be determined by the budget approved by member states at the December 1997 General Conference.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has received from British banks concerning her Department's projects in Nigeria. [8011]

  Clare Short
  My Department has not received any representations from British banks concerning our projects in Nigeria.

  Jordan
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has received from British banks concerning her Department's projects in Jordan. [8012]
  49
  Clare Short
  None, but British banks have given a series of seminars for Jordanian bankers funded by Department For International Development and organised by the Chartered Institute of Bankers.

  Development Educational Council
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has for setting up a development educational council. [7870]

  Clare Short
  I am currently reviewing my Department's communications strategy, including development education, and will make an announcement in due course.

  Transnational Companies (Code of Conduct)
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she expects her Department to introduce a code of conduct for transnational companies operating in developing countries. [7832]

  Clare Short
  There is increasing support in the business community for the adoption of voluntary codes of conduct which set minimum labour and environmental standards. My Department is facilitating discussions on these issues and those of ethical trading with business and NGOs. We expect to be able to present further proposals in the Development White Paper in the autumn.

  Aid
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Development is taking to increase the level of UK aid spending. [8315]

  Clare Short
  As I have repeatedly made clear and as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has confirmed the Government are committed to raising the levels of overseas aid. We have also made it clear that we will work within existing financial ceilings this year and next while redirecting our spending towards the objective of eliminating poverty. As we demonstrate progress, I hope additional resources will be made available in line with our manifesto commitment.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will set a target date for the United Kingdom to reach the target of 0.7 per cent. of GDP for overseas aid spending. [7837]

  Clare Short
  As I have repeatedly made clear, we are firmly committed to the 0.7 UN aid/GNP target and to reversing the decline in UK aid spending but have not set a target date.

  Poverty
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the extension to a decade of the UN International Year for the Eradication of Poverty. [7926]

  Clare Short
  We welcome the International Decade for the Eradication of Poverty (IDEP) as a means to focus efforts on addressing the root causes of poverty. I hope the IDEP will foster an increased understanding that poverty 50
  eradication is fundamental to reinforcing peace and achieving sustainable development for the world as a whole.

  Trade and Overseas Aid
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate she has made of the number of United Kingdom jobs dependent on the link between trade and overseas aid. [7569]

  Clare Short
  Information is not available in the form requested. Development assistance helps to support jobs in the United Kingdom in several ways. Its key contribution is promoting economic growth in poorer countries. One in five UK exports goes to such countries. Some of the development assistance provided by donors offers procurement opportunities to competitive UK companies.

DEFENCE

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Eurofighter. [6518]

  Mr. Alan Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his proposals for production of Eurofighter. [6533]

  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the implications for the purchase of the Eurofighter for the Royal Air Force of the outcomes of(a) the defence review and (b) the Government's fundamental expenditure review. [6534]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Government remain strongly committed to Eurofighter. The development programme is proceeding very satisfactorily. We are ready to sign the Memoranda of Understanding for the production and support phases and I hope that as a result of the positive outcome from German Cabinet discussion last Friday, final German approval can be secured in the Bundestag in Autumn.

  NATO Applicants
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures are being taken to facilitate joint training, interoperability and other harmonisation measures between United Kingdom forces and countries that are applicants for NATO membership. [6519]

  Dr. Reid
  My Department's Outreach programme of bilateral co-operation with central and eastern European countries comprises a wide range of training and advisory measures. Outreach supports NATO's Partnership for Peace initiative, which seeks to prepare applicants for NATO membership and to enhance interoperability between NATO and all of the countries of the region.

  British Forces (Bosnia)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the length of stay of British Forces in Bosnia. [6521]
  51
  Mr. George Robertson
  British Forces will remain in Bosnia until the end of the stabilisation force's mandate in June 1998.

  Anti-personnel Land Mines
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the action taken by his Department in respect of anti-personnel land mines. [6522]

  Mr. George Robertson
  On 21 May we announced that we would ban all trade in anti-personnel land mines involving the United Kingdom—that is, their import, export, transfer and manufacture. We also introduced a complete moratorium on their operational use. We will phase out our stocks of such land mines by 2005 at the latest.

  Peacekeeping Troops
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of how satisfactorily troops established, trained and equipped for peacekeeping operations can be adapted for high-intensity conflict. [6523]

  Dr. Reid
  Experience in the Gulf and Bosnia suggests that high quality, well trained and well equipped forces are needed for both peacekeeping and high intensity warfare. We will evaluate this during the Strategic Defence Review, when we will be looking at how we should deliver the capabilities needed to meet all of our essential security interests and defence needs.

  Strategic Defence Review
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated cost of the Strategic Defence Review; and if he will make a statement. [6524]

  Mr. George Robertson
  We will make maximum use of existing structures to conduct the Strategic Defence Review. Additional costs will be incurred, including in the process of consultation with outside experts and interest groups. It is too early to predict the total additional cost.

  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether decisions announced at the end of his defence review in respect of(a) Eurofighter aircraft, (b) the Trident submarine programme and (c) Nimrod 2000 will also be subject to the outcome of the Government's fundamental expenditure review. [6529]

  Mr. Spellar
  There will be one coherent review of defence. The Strategic Defence Review will be the Ministry of Defence's contribution to the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress with the Strategic Defence Review, with particular reference to his proposals to set up a panel of experts. [6689]

  Dr. Reid
  Work on the Strategic Defence Review is continuing, taking account of the many outside inputs received. The advisory panel of experts has not yet been formed. We expect to announce the names of members later in the summer.
  52
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has met trades unions for consultation on the Strategic Defence Review. [6757]

  Dr. Reid
  Discussions with trades unions on the Strategic Defence Review are being conducted through the usual consultation mechanisms. In addition, representatives of the trades unions attended the two Strategic Defence Review Seminars on 3 and 11 July.

  Joint Services Command and Staff College
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about progress on the Joint Services Command and Staff College. [6525]

  Dr. Reid
  Since the Joint Services' Command and Staff College came into being on 1 January this year in interim accommodation, some 16 Junior Division Courses and one Higher Command and Staff Course have been run under its auspices. Good progress has been made on the augmentation of the temporary Bracknell site, where the new joint Advanced Command and Staff Course (ACSC) and the next Navy Junior Division Course will start in the autumn. The beginning of the ACSC, for some 327 students including 90 from overseas, will be marked by an inauguration ceremony at Bracknell in early September. Bracknell will remain the primary interim site until a permanent facility is available, when it will be offered for disposal. Since their selection as preferred bidder in February, negotiations have continued with Defence management regarding their proposals for a permanent JSCSC at Shrivenham. A contract will be placed when negotiations have been satisfactorily completed.

  Deceased Pilots (Fatal Accidents)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Royal Air Force has correctly been applying its rule in respect of a deceased pilot not being found guilty of negligence unless there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever of his responsibility for a fatal accident.
  [6526]

  Mr. Spellar
  I am content that the RAF has correctly adhered to the procedures governing the allocation of blame as set out in AP 3207, which contains the relevant instructions governing the conduct of RAF boards of inquiry.

  Armed Forces (Retention)
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action his Department is taking to improve the rate of retention in the armed forces. [6527]

  Dr. Reid
  The Government are fully aware of the need to recruit and then retain sufficient numbers of the personnel of the right quality to meet the armed forces' requirements. My Department has taken several initiatives to improve the retention of trained personnel in all three services. In particular it has implemented the recommendation made by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, in its 1997 Report to the Prime Minister, that the Commitment Bonus for Other Ranks, which is payable at the 4½ or 5 year service points, should be raised from £2,000 to £3,000. It has also targeted bonuses at specific groups of service personnel where retention problems have been identified; for example Sea Harrier pilots and
  53
  Marine Engineering mechanics in the Royal Navy, Army Private soldiers where skill shortages exist and junior ranks in the Royal Marines. The Government are also actively considering what other measures might be appropriate to improve retention in all three services.

  Service Women
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of proposals to allow women to serve in a front-line role in the infantry. [6528]

  Dr. Reid
  My Department is currently considering proposals for extending employment opportunities for women in the Army. No decision has yet been reached.

  MOD Land
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent he expects his Department's landholding in the United Kingdom to change in the next 12 months. [6530]

  Mr. Spellar
  The size and shape of the Defence Estate is kept under continual review to ensure that it is no larger than is required for operational purposes. There is an on-going disposal process from which, for example, the MOD budget benefited last year by some £100 million. The Strategic Defence Review now in progress will address the extent of the Defence Estate and I will report on the outcome in due course.

  Statement on the Defence Estimates
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where and when he will publish factual material on the activities of his Department and the armed services which is usually contained in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates". [6531]

  Dr. Reid
  Factual material on the activities of the Department and the armed forces in 1996–97, which would usually be contained in the Statement on the Defence Estimates, will appear in an expanded Ministry of Defence Performance Report which the Department plans to publish in the autumn.

  Territorial Army (Funding)
  Mr. Tony Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on funding for the Territorial Army and Voluntary Reserve. [6532]

  Dr. Reid
  We are confident that the funding of the Territorial Army is commensurate with its current role and the tasks placed upon it. The future role of the Territorial Army is being considered as part of the strategic defence review.

  Aircraft Procurement (RAF)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received concerning procurement of aircraft for the Royal Air Force. [6535]

  Mr. Spellar
  A number of representations has been received on this subject.

  Submarines (Fishing Grounds)
  Mr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met representatives of commercial fishermen's organisations to discuss matters relating to the passage of NATO submarines through traditional fishing grounds. [6536]

  Dr. Reid
  My Department maintains regular contact with fishermen's organisations to discuss Royal Navy and other NATO submarine activity in areas frequented by fishing vessels. These discussions cover, amongst other things, the Code of Practice governing dived submarine operations in such areas, which has been agreed with fishermen's organisations and is applicable to Royal Navy and NATO submarines operating around UK waters. The Flag Officer Submarines has a Fisheries Liaison Officer who keeps in close touch with the fishing community, and my officials meet formally with fishermen's representatives once a year to discuss matters of mutual interest. We value all these contacts with the fishing community.

  Trident
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the final in-service date for the Trident fleet to be announced. [6537]

  Mr. Spellar
  There has been no change to the previously announced plan that the fourth and final Trident submarine will enter service early in the next century.

  NATO Enlargement
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress towards NATO enlargement. [6538]

  Dr. Reid
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Ms Blackman).

  Defence Medical Services
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he has taken to improve the efficiency of the defence medical services. [6539]

  Dr. Reid
  The Defence Medical Services (DMS) is an efficient organisation staffed ny dedicated personnel who provide a high standard of medical care. I am well aware that there are, however, serious shortages in manpower and we are looking urgently at measures to improve recruitment and retention. In this context, I hope very soon to be in a position to respond to the recent report by the House of Commons Defence Select Committee.

  The Government have recently accepted the recommendations of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body (AFPRB) which bring medical and dental officers' pay more closely into line with that of their NHS colleagues. In addition, pensions will, from April 1997, be based on the new medical and dental pay scales rather than combatant pay. We hope that these changes will improve the attractiveness of a career in the DMS. The future structure and organisation of the DMS, will of course, need to reflect the outcome of the Strategic Defence Review.

  Armed Forces (Training)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current training capacity of the British armed forces. [6540]

  Mr. Reid
  The three services compile their training data in different ways and comprehensive and comparable figures are, therefore, not available. However, the following is a guide to the current training capacity for Financial Year 1997–98:Royal Navy and Royal Marines
  3,428,000 student training days;
  Army
  4,040,298 student training days;
  Royal Air Force

  (a) Flying Training—aircrew (all types) 2,129 student places on a variety of different courses.

  (b) Ground Training—Around 35,000 student places on some 700 different types of course.

  The figures given are for individual training to ensure that our people are fully equipped to meet the tasks placed upon them. They do not include collective continuation training, which is an ongoing requirement to maintain operational effectiveness. The training requirement is carefully planned to allow for flexibility without wastage and is being met through the single service training agencies and by some tri-service defence schools.

  Defence Exports (Indonesia)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet members of the Indonesian armed forces to discuss defence exports; and if he will make a statement. [6541]

  Mr. Spellar
  Currently there are no plans for the Secretary of State, or any other Defence Minister, to meet members of the Indonesian armed forces to discuss defence exports.

  Foresight Action Programme
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the funding by(a) his Department, (b) other Government Departments and (c) British aerospace companies this year and in each of the following two years for the foresight action programme. [6520]

  Mr. Spellar
  I very much welcome the imaginative proposals of the Society of British Aircraft Companies in its foresight action programme. My Department has already identified programmes that can be aligned with Foresight Action and is considering the potential of others. I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that as part of our planning process we are also evaluating promising future programmes.

  34 Field Hospital
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the number of personnel on the recent exercise by 34 Field Hospital at Elvington airfield, (b) the numbers planned for theatre operational deployment by 34 Field Hospital and (c) numbers available currently for operational deployment by 34 Field Hospital, by each
  56
  specialty described in the current Defence Medical Services Army manning spreadsheet; and if he will make a statement. [8547]

  Dr. Reid
  (a) 229 personnel from 34 Field Hospital participated in Exercise BOB CAT at Elvington airfield, near York, between 27 May and 16 June of this year.

  (b) the number of hospital personnel who would deploy on operations, in 34 Field Hospital's current role in support of the Joint Rapid Deployment Force (JRDF), would depend on the composition of the force that is to deploy and the size of the hospital that is required to support that force. The following table illustrates the number of medical personnel that deploy with a hospital according to the number of beds and surgical teams the force will require, which in turn is dependant on the nature of the operation. The different requirements for beds and surgical teams are grouped into four categories.

  Theatre operational deployment by 34 field hospital

  Serial

  Reinforcement category

  Total troops (cumulative)

  Beds

  Surgical teams

  1

  1Cadre

  106

  25

  1

  2

  2Category 1

  121

  25

  2

  3

  Category 2

  172

  50

  2

  4

  Category 3

  270

  100

  4

  5

  Category 4

  506

  200

  8

  1 The Reinforcement Category "Cadre" is a permanent staff that are based in barracks and provide the manpower for peacetime activities including command, equipment husbandry and administration.

  2 Categories 1 to 4 are reinforcement staff, who are mostly provided by Defence Secondary Care Agency (DSCA). Personnel to make up Categories 1 and 2 are nominated in advance, but the balance of personnel to make up Categories 3 and 4 are found as required from the balance of DSCA personnel.

  (c) 34 Field Hospital is available for deployment with a full complement of the required specialists. The table below lists the personnel currently available for operational deployment, by speciality, and according to the various reinforcement categories.

  Work is in hand to consider the future of the Operational Medical Capability requirements of the Armed Forces.

  Defence Industry
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals the Government have to improve co-operation with the United Kingdom defence industry. [7344]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Frind the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton),Official Report, 16 June 1997, column 78.

  Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, (1) pursuant to his answer of 4 July,Official Report, column 303, what other organisations were represented at the meeting with Mr. Knight of CND; [8171]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 4 July, Official Report, column 303, what written materials were made available to Mr. Knight of CND during his meeting with Ministers; [8173]
  57
  (3) pursuant to his answer of 4 July, Official Report, column 303, what other organisations were represented at the meeting with Mr. Knight of CND. [8172]

  Dr. Reid
  A list of those from outside Government who participated in the Strategic Defence Review seminar held on the 3 July is as follows:

  Sir Brian Fall—Chairman

  Josh Arnold-Forster, United Nations Association

  Menzies Campbell (Liberal Democrat)

  Professor Michael Clarke, Kings College London, peacekeeping

  Rear Admiral Richard Cobbold, Royal United Services Institute

  Jack Dromey, Transport and General and Vice Chairman of the Whitley Council

  Paul Eavis, Saferworld

  Jonathan Eyal, Royal United Services Institute, European security

  Sir Timothy Garden, Royal Institute for International Affairs

  Charles Grant, The Economist

  Owen Green, Bradford University

  James Gow, Kings College of London, Balkans

  Rosemary Hollis, Royal Institute for International Affairs, Middle East

  Martin Kettle, Guardian

  Dave Knight, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament

  Mark Laity, BBC

  Alan Lee Williams (Atlantic Council of the UK)

  John Lloyd, New Statesman

  Ann McElvoy (Spectator)

  John MacKinley, Kings College London, peacekeeping

  Edward Mortimer, Financial Times

  Sebastian Pease, British Pugwash Group

  Dan Plesch, British American Security Information Council

  Dr. Alex Pravda, St. Antony's Oxford, Russia

  Stephen Pullinger, International Security Information Service

  Ron Smith, Birbeck, defence economist

  Jon Snow, Channel 4

  Peter Snow, BBC

  Clare Spencer, Centre for Defence Studies, Middle East

  Lord (William) Wallace, LSE, Europe

  Sir George Young (Conservative)

  All participants at the seminar were provided with an agenda for the meeting, a copy of the Ministry of Defence press release of 28 May and a list of the other representatives.

  Royal Naval College
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to conclude negotiations between Greenwich Hospital, the Greenwich Foundation for the Royal Naval College and a new tenant for that site; and if he will make a statement. [8163]

  Dr. Reid
  We hope negotiations will conclude in the autumn, so as to allow the Foundation to take responsibility for the Royal Naval College Greenwich progressively as it is vacated by the Royal Navy through to 1999.

  Humanitarian Projects
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of MOD personnel, military and civilian, who are working(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) overseas on identified humanitarian projects. [6764]

  Dr. Reid
  Information on the numbers of personnel engaged in humanitarian projects is not held centrally. However, in the former Yugoslavia 26 Service personnel work full-time on a range of humanitarian projects funded by the Department for International Development. Other humanitarian tasks are undertaken as the need arises. According to available records, on 1 July 1997 approximately 100 service personnel were assisting in flood relief operations in the Moray area of Scotland. On the same date HMS Liverpool and RFA Black Rover were in the vicinity of the island of Montserrat to provide any necessary assistance in the wake of the volcanic eruption. Parties were put ashore to assist in the construction of additional emergency facilities. It is likely that individual or small groups of service and civilian personnel were also taking part in humanitarian projects as a result of local initiatives.

  Historic Buildings, Greenwich
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of plans to promote the historic heritage at Greenwich by co-ordinating the activities of the National Maritime Museum and the new owners of Greenwich hospital. [7816]

  Dr. Reid
  The Greenwich Foundation for the Royal Naval college is working alongside the National Maritime Museum and other organisations to plan both for the development of the proposed World Heritage site, to which the Royal Naval college is central, and to develop plans for the display of the history of the college itself.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the present position and the planned time scale in respect of the transfer of Greenwich Hospital to new owners. [7817]

  Dr. Reid
  The Ministry of Defence will cease use of the Royal Naval college Greenwich progressively up to mid-1999. Following the departure of the Joint Defence and Royal Navy Staff colleges this summer, the Department of Nuclear Science and Technology will cease training at Greenwich in late 1998. MOD occupation is planned to cease in mid-1999 on completion of the decommissioning of JASON, the small teaching reactor. The Greenwich Foundation for the Royal Naval college is negotiating with the Director of Greenwich hospital on the terms of a lease by which it will hold the site, with potential occupants, and is working closely with staffs in my Department and in the Department of National Heritage, with the aim of taking over the site progressively as MOD use ceases.

  Interception of Communications
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he takes to ensure that the terms of the Geneva International Telecommunications conventions are complied with by(a) UK nationals involved in military activities and (b) US nationals based in the UK involved in military activities. [7625]
  59
  Dr. Reid
  Article 48 of the International Telecommunication Union Convention allows members complete freedom with regard to military radio installations, except that these should as far as possible observe statutory provisions relative to giving assistance in case of distress and to measures to prevent harmful interference, and regulations concerning the types of emission and the frequencies to be used.

  Every military radio user requires authorisation from the Ministry of Defence, which is responsible for ensuring that all military use of the radio spectrum in the United Kingdom complies with the Convention and for allocating frequencies to users.

  Visiting forces' radio systems are authorised for use by the Ministry of Defence on the basis of a technical assessment. If the deployment of radio equipment is approved in principle the procedure for assigning frequencies should prevent operation of the equipment from causing harmful interference to existing equipment.

  If interference is reported in spite of the procedures the complaint will be investigated.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the security of tenure agreement between the UK and US Governments which allows the use of RAF Menwith Hill by US personnel comes to an end. [7629]

  Dr. Reid
  There is no security of tenure agreement in place at RAF Menwith Hill. The assurances that were given to the US authorities in 1955 and again in 1976 that the site would be made available to the US Forces by Her Majesty's Government for a period of 21 years, and which are known as the security of tenure arrangements, were given to facilitate the commitment of US funding to the station. They were an administrative mechanism, and did not constitute any form of renewable lease for the site.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what safeguards are in place to prevent American personnel based in the United Kingdom under the Visiting Forces Act 1952 committing offences under the Interception of Communications Act 1985; and what mechanisms are in place to detect any such offences. [7619]

  Dr. Reid
  Under the terms of the agreements that we have with the US authorities, the US visiting forces are subject to the laws of the UK in the same way as their British counterparts and this includes respecting the provisions of the Interception of Communications Act. We are content that the US authorities adhere scrupulously to these agreements.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provisions exist for(a) the UK Government and (b) UK nationals to secure compensation for damage or losses caused by US personnel based in the UK who are on duty. [7631]

  Dr. Reid
  Provisions contained in the NATO Status of Forces Agreement deal with compensation issues. The agreement establishes a mutual waiver under which contracting parties will not claim from each other if the damaged property was owned and used by its Armed Forces. If the property is owned by a UK National, the Ministry of Defence will investigate a claim and pay any compensation due, in accordance with United Kingdom law. The United States will reimburse the United 60
  Kingdom 75 per cent. of the sum paid. This arrangement is of course reciprocal. Alternatively, a third party can issue proceedings against the US State Department through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions have taken place between the UK and US Governments regarding RAF Menwith Hill since 1 May; and if he will make a statement. [7627]

  Dr. Reid
  Discussions between UK and US officials take place on a regular basis in order to ensure that arrangements at the stations work smoothly.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what statutory provisions govern the powers of United States service men at Royal Air Force Menwith to intercept communications. [7494]

  Dr. Reid
  US visiting forces in the UK are subject to all applicable UK laws.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to ensure that American personnel based at Menwith Hill do not monitor United Kingdom diplomatic and economic communications. [7623]

  Dr. Reid
  Senior UK personnel are integrated into every level at RAF Menwith Hill and we are thus in a position to be entirely confident that British staff are aware of all facets of operations and that no activity considered inimical to British interests is carried out there.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors underlay the decision to redesignate Menwith Hill Station as RAF Menwith Hill. [7621]

  Dr. Reid
  RAF Menwith Hill is a Crown freehold site belonging to the Ministry of Defence. The designation RAF Menwith Hill came into effect on 19 February 1996. This was simply an administrative change to bring the base into line with other RAF sites made available by the Ministry of Defence to the United States Government.

  Visiting Forces
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many claims and what sum in total has been paid(a) to the United Kingdom Government and by whom and (b) by the United Kingdom Government and to whom for damage to property under the Agreement regarding the Status of Forces of Parties to the North Atlantic treaty since 1967. [7616]

  Dr. Reid
  The NATO Status of Forces Agreement establishes a mutual waiver under which Contracting Parties will not claim from each other if the damaged property was owned and used by its Armed Forces. If, however, such damage results from reckless acts or reckless omissions, wilful misconduct or gross negligence of a contracting party, the costs of any liability will be borne by that party alone.

  The cost of claims for damage from third parties are shared between the relevant contracting parties on a ration of 75 per cent. : 25 per cent. The UK Government prepare a statement twice a year requesting reimbursement of 75 per cent. of the sums paid in the course of that period in respect of claims from third parties as a result of damage caused by the relevant contracting party.

  61
  Information on property damage claims is not, however, held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if US personnel based in the UK who are deemed to be on duty are permitted to carry arms anywhere within the UK. [7632]

  Dr. Reid
  Members of the US forces may carry firearms on condition that they are authorised to do so by their orders.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which RAF bases housing US personnel are(a) regarded and (b) not regarded as part of the NATO network. [7626]

  Dr. Reid
  All US visiting Forces based in the United Kingdom are available to undertake tasks in support of NATO.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will review the Visiting Forces Act 1952 in respect of the limits it imposes on the absolute legal jurisdiction of the United Kingdom Government within the United Kingdom; [7624]

  (2) what plans he has to review the Visiting Forces Act 1952; and if he will make a statement. [7628]

  Dr. Reid
  I am satisfied that the provisions of the Visiting Forces Act 1952 remain appropriate in order to comply with our continuing international treaty obligations.

  RAF Menwith Hill
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF personnel are based at RAF Menwith Hill; and what are their functions and powers. [7620]

  Dr. Reid
  There is a small number of RAF personnel at RAF Menwith Hill. I am withholding the further information requested under exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Nuclear Materials (Transportation)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Government(a) is consulted on, (b) is informed of and (c) gives clearance to movements of nuclear materials by US personnel within the UK. [7603]

  Dr. Reid
  All movements of nuclear materials, including weapons, by US personnel within the UK and its airspace take place in full consultation with my Department. This enables appropriate safety cover to be provided by MOD personnel.

  Plastic Baton Rounds
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 19 June,Official Report, column 262–63, why the RUC was not informed immediately when it became apparent that some plastic baton rounds were firing faster than the specified velocity. [8264]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 11 July 1997]: As I explained in answers to my hon. Friend on 19 June, Official Report, column 263 and 1 July, Official Report, column 738, the assessment of initial tests in early 1996
  62
  showed that the tests were not conclusive. Following further tests, my Department decided in February 1997 that plastic baton rounds manufactured in 1994 should be withdrawn. The RUC were notified of this in March.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 19 June,Official Report, columns 262–63, how many of the 45,000 withdrawn plastic baton rounds are to be (a) reworked and (b) incinerated. [8273]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 11 July 1997]: Following further consideration, we have decided that of the 45,000 rounds, 14,000 will be considered for reworking but may be incinerated if they do not meet the required standard. The remaining rounds not being reworked will be expended in training.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what happened to the plastic baton rounds from the faulty batch supplied in 1994 which were neither among those withdrawn in April this year nor among those fired by the RUC and the Army since that time. [8265]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 11 July 1997]: All batches of baton rounds manufactured in 1994 were withdrawn from operational use in April.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 30 June,Official Report, columns 62–63, if the guidelines ruling the use of plastic baton rounds by the armed forces are a classified document. [8275]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 11 July 1997]: The guidelines currently issued to service men are classified restricted. I have, however, decided that, in accordance with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, the information concerned should be made available. As my hon. Friend will know from my letter of 7 July, a copy of the current text of the guidelines has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 19 June,Official Report, columns 262–63, what facts need to be established before he can consider action against the manufacturer of faulty plastic baton rounds. [8272]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 11 July 1997]: The case for possible action against the manufacturer will be considered when a more detailed assessment of the cause of the problems can be completed.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who monitors the use of plastic baton rounds by the Army in Northern Ireland. [8270]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 11 July 1997]: The use of plastic baton rounds by the Army in Northern Ireland is monitored by commanders at all levels.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 10 June,Official Report, column 372, what procedures were in place in 1994 to ensure that stocks of plastic baton rounds continued to conform to specifications; and what new procedures are now being put in place to ensure that existing stocks of plastic baton rounds continue to conform to specifications. [8271]
  63
  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 11 July 1997]: All batches of rounds were tested by the contractor at the time of manufacture to enable the Department to accept them against the proof specification. There was no further regular in-service testing within the shelf life of the baton rounds, other than observation of performance in training. A new regime of testing is being introduced for all future purchases, under which each batch will be tested by the manufacturer followed by an independent assessment directly after manufacture and then regularly during the service life of each batch.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 30 June,Official Report, column 73–74, if alternative supplies of plastic baton rounds meeting the correct specifications were available early in 1995 when it became apparent that the 1994 rounds were faulty. [8268]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 11 July 1997]: No alternative supplies were available in 1995.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 30 June,Official Report, columns 262–63, when the results of tests on baton rounds manufactured in 1996 became available. [8274]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 11 July 1997]: The contractor's test results were available immediately after manufacture of each lot between January and October 1996. Additional firing tests were completed in August 1996 with a report available in October 1996.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 30 June,Official Report, column 73–74, if the plastic baton rounds made in 1996 were specifically manufactured to ensure that their velocities were below the recommended level. [8267]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 11 July 1997]: The 1996 rounds were specifically manufactured to ensure that their velocities were below the upper specification limit of 70 metres per second.

  Defence Sales
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he has had with the Foreign Secretary on the review of defence sales policy. [6645]

  Mr. Spellar
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has consulted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on a number of occasions, in the course of normal business, on the criteria used in considering licence applications for the export of conventional arms.

  Redundant Land
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the advantages of changing the method of disposal of redundant Ministry of Defence land. [7878]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) on 2 June 1997,Official Report, column 12.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Area Museum Councils
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the future of area museum councils. [7847]

  Mr. Fisher
  A review of area museum councils was recently carried out for the Department by Mr. Tony Pender. His report was published in May and copies placed in the Libraries of the House. We are considering the recommendations he made about the future of the councils within the broad context of the Government's approach to regional and cultural strategies and the creative economy.

  Tourist Facilities
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will introduce legislation to improve standards in facilities for tourists. [7712]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  "Breaking New Ground" set out the Government's commitment to high standards in tourism and hospitality. We are considering carefully with the ETB and the industry the action necessary to achieve this.

  Birmingham Botanical Gardens
  Ms Gisela Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will visit the Birmingham Botanical Gardens. [7704]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to visit the Birmingham Botanical Gardens.

  Hotels
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to introduce a standardised rating system for hotels in(a) London and (b) England. [8169]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  We welcome the proposals announced earlier this year by the ETB, AA, and RAC for the rating of hotels. The Government therefore has no immediate plans to introduce a standardised rating scheme of its own.

  Royal Yacht
  Mr. Desmond Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what will be his Department's role in the preservation of the Royal Yacht Britannia when she is retired from service. [7580]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  [holding answer 10 July 1997]: My Department is represented on the Government's interdepartmental group which is considering the future of Her Majesty's Yacht Britannia.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of his Department's publications have
  65
  been available in (a) Braille, (b) audio tape and (c) large print in each year since 1992; and what percentage of the total number of publications this represents in each case. [7640]

  Mr. Dewar
  In the last five years the number of publications made available in Braille and audio tape is set out in the table.

  Year

  Braille

  Audio tape

  1992–93

  6

  2

  Percentage of total publications

  4.9

  1.6

  1993–94

  1

  2

  Percentage of total publications

  0.8

  1.6

  1994–95

  3

  3

  Percentage of total publications

  2.9

  2.9

  1995–96

  3

  4

  Percentage of total publications

  2.5

  3

  1996–97

  2

  3

  Percentage of total publications

  1.3

  2

  No large print publications have been issued.

  A1 (Lorries)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the average and maximum number of weekly lorry movements on the A1 road in East Lothian expected to be generated by the use of the new landfill facility at Oxwell Mains for rubbish from Edinburgh. [7698]

  Mr. Chisholm
  The waste from Edinburgh will be transported to the Oxwell Mains landfill site by rail. Only in emergency situations, to be agreed by East Lothian Council, would the A1 trunk road be used for this purpose.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Deregulation
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the Government's policy towards deregulation; and if he will make a statement. [7574]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  We are committed to ensuring that regulations are fair, properly costed, simple to understand and practical to comply with. We aim to deliver responsible and responsive regulation for business, particularly small firms, and the citizen. I have appointed Chris Haskins to chair a new Better Regulation Task Force and the Deregulation Unit has similarly been renamed the Better Regulation Unit to reflect the fact that our priority is to get regulation right.

WALES

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for the Review of Compulsory Competitive Tendering in Wales(a) the expected completion date and (b) the cost of conducting the review. [8240]
  66
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him today by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford).

  Dyfed Powys Health Authority
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of the Dyfed Powys health authority's total expenditure in 1996–97 was accounted for by(a) managerial and administration costs, (b) wages, (c) salaries and (d) fees. [8411]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Total expenditure in 1996–97 by the Health Authority was £357.328 million, within which the HA's own costs were:

  Cost £000

  Percentage of total expenditure

  1. Non Executive Directors fees

  57

  Less than 0.1

  2. Executive Directors Remuneration

  337

  0.1

  3. Other salaries and wages

  3,108

  0.9

  4. Other administration costs

  823

  0.2

  Source: Unaudited accounts of the Dyfed Povvys Health Authority. Please note all percentages are given to the nearest 0.1 per cent.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of his Department's publications have been available in(a) Braille, (b) audio tape and (c) large print in each year since 1992; and what percentage of the total number of publications this represents in each case. [7639]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  My Department has made available bi-lingual versions of the following publications both in large print and audio tape since 1995. For previous years comparable information is not readily available.
  1995–96 The Mental Handicap Strategy guidance (audio tape).A Brief Guide to the Disability Discrimination Act for people with learning disabilities (large print and audio tape).1996–97 A Patients Charter for Wales (audio tape).
  This represents about 2 per cent. of the total number of publications produced in each year.

  In addition we plan to produce the forthcoming Devolution Summary Document bi-lingually, both in large print (RNIB approved) and audio tape.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Exclusion Orders
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many exclusion orders have been issued or renewed since May; how many orders are presently in force; and if she will make a statement. [7370]

  Mr. Ingram
  No exclusion orders have been renewed or issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State since May, and none for which she is responsible are currently in force.

  Departmental Budgets
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, following the recent Budget, she will give her estimate of the total real level of her Department's budget, in 1995–96 prices, in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99; if she will estimate what such figures were for (1) 1997–98 and (2) 1998–99 following the November 1996 Budget on the basis of the estimates of the GDP deflator contained in that Budget; and if she will make a statement. [8309]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The figures requested for my Department's spending plans within the Control Total are as follows: £7,791 million, £7,664 million, £7,864 million and £7,741 million. In addition Northern Ireland will benefit from part of the expenditure outside the Control Total which was announced in the Budget, for Welfare to Work and spending under the Capital Receipts Initiative.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what new plans she has to introduce cuts and savings in her Department as a result of the effect on her Department's budgets for 1997–98 and 1998–99 of the upward revisions to the GDP deflators in the Budget on 2 July; and if she will make a statement. [8310]

  Mr. Murphy
  All Departments are reallocating spending within their Departmental ceilings as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if her Department will assess the impact of the national minimum wage on small businesses in Hampshire; and if she will make a statement. [7665]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The likely impact of the introduction of the national minimum wage on small businesses is one of the issues to be considered by the independent Low Pay Commission before it issues its recommendation on the level at which the national minimum wage might be set. To help in this deliberation the Commission members will include representation from small business.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what timetable has been established for the Low Pay Commission(a) to reach a conclusion on the recommended level of the minimum wage and (b) to propose measures relating to the implementation of the minimum wage. [7657]

  Mr. McCartney
  Professor George Bain, the Chairman of the Low Pay Commission, will be working up a timetable for the Commission to enable it to produce a recommendation on the level at which the national minimum wage might be introduced.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will publish the terms of reference of the Low Pay Commission; and if she will make a statement. [7650]

  Mr. McCartney
  The terms of reference of the independent Low Pay Commission will be published in due course. We will ask the Commission, in making its 68
  recommendation on the level at which the national minimum wage might be set, to take into account the economic circumstances prevailing at the time.

  Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe established a blind trust for his non-British Petroleum shareholdings. [7552]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Lord Simon's trust holdings have been in a discretionary trust since they were established. He has had no sole right of decision on these investments, and will have no power of decision in future. Lord Simon decided to transfer his non-trust holdings into a blind trust in accordance with guidance in "Questions of Procedures for Ministers" on his appointment as Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe and set in hand the necessary arrangements. The legal structure of this transfer was proposed on 18 June. Legal finalisation is now proceeding. Lord Simon refrained from giving any trading instructions to his bank in respect of any of these investments following his appointment.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when and how her Department was informed that the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe should be kept apart from any information or decisions which could affect British Petroleum. [7550]

  Mrs. Beckett
  From the date of his appointment the Minister's private office has made sure, as agreed between Lord Simon and the Permanent Secretary, that no papers on matters having a bearing on BP are seen by the Minister, and that he is not invited to meetings to discuss BP issues.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when and by whom it was decided that the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe could not be involved in matters affecting British Petroleum. [7548]

  Mrs. Beckett
  As would be expected, the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe decided for himself on the day of his appointment that he should not be involved in matters affecting British Petroleum.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions she has had concerning the compliance of the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe with procedures for Ministers. [7553]

  Mrs. Beckett:
  I sought confirmation about the position reached on arrangements for handling his investments on the afternoon of 3 July, following which I wrote to the right hon. Member on 4 July.

  Travel Trade
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will make a statement on the Government's policy concerning travel agencies owned by tour operators or general travel companies; [7853]

  (2) if the statement made in Athens by the Under-Secretary with responsibility for consumer affairs that Lunn Poly shops should be rebranded as Thomson shops represented Government policy. [7848]
  69
  Mrs. Beckett
  The Monopolies and Mergers Commission are currently investigating foreign package holidays and travel agents services and will report in November. Any concerns which they may raise will be considered when the report is received.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she asked the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs to issue a correction to his statement at the Athens conference concerning the travel trade. [7849]

  Mrs. Beckett
  No. My hon. Friend did not make a statement in Athens—he participated in a panel session at a conference organised by the Institute of Travel and Tourism. Among the issues raised in that discussion was vertical integration in the travel industry, which my hon. Friend correctly pointed out was still under investigation by the MMC.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she asked the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs to step down from consideration of the MMC investigation into the travel trade. [7852]

  Mrs. Beckett
  No. My hon. Friend announced on 1 July that he had decided to rule himself out of consideration of the MMC report into the travel trade. This was at his own initiative.

  Competitiveness
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will give for the consultation on competitiveness(a) the expected completion date and (b) the cost of conducting the consultation. [8249]

  Mrs. Beckett
  (a) The consultation exercise is intended to lead to the publication of a White Paper early next year. Beyond that, I believe that a continuing dialogue with business interests is essential to enhancing the UK's competitiveness.

  (b) It is not possible at this stage to give a precise separate figure for the cost of the consultation exercise, which has not yet been formally launched.

  Timeshare
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Consumer Affairs has made formal complaints to the Portuguese and Greek Governments about timeshare operations. [8475]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  No. The timeshare industry is relatively small in Greece and complaints resulting from timeshare purchases by UK citizens in Portugal are considerably fewer than in Spain. I am however concerned that some Member States have not yet implemented the EU Timeshare Directive and will be seeking information on their plans.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs has made a formal complaint to the Spanish Government about timeshare operations; and if she will publish the complaint and the response. [8473]

  Mr. Griffiths
  I wrote to the Spanish Government on 9 June about the failure to implement the EU Timeshare Directive in Spain to protect timeshare buyers. Spain has 70
  no cooling-off period. I am awaiting a reply. I have placed a copy of my letter in the Library of both Houses. I will also place a copy of the response.

  Business Support
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans her Department has to control business practices which involve companies claiming fees in advance for services which are freely available through Government-supported operations. [8479]

  Mrs. Roche
  My Department is aware of cases of unscrupulous practice by a small number of companies—so called "grant cowboys"—who trade in grant availability advice to businesses. My advice to firms approached by such companies is to talk to their Business Links, who are a local and reliable source of advice on the full range of business support that is available both from the EU and other sources.

  We will continue to keep the matter under review.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what restrictions apply to Business Link support for small firms; and if she will make a statement. [7899]

  Mrs. Roche
  Business Links are able to support all small firms within the limitations of European Community State Aid rules.

  Royal Observatories
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps she took to examine the feasibility of privatising the Royal Greenwich Observatory in(a) Edinburgh and (b) Cambridge. [8351]

  Mr. Battle
  The Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC) was obliged by the previous Government to implement the recommendations of the prior options review of the Royal Observatories, including subjecting the instrumentation programme provided by the Royal Observatories to competitive tendering. The tendering process was suspended in November 1996 following the discovery of significant legal and financial difficulties. In the light of developments since then, PPARC approached me with fresh advice asking to be released from this obligation. I announced my acceptance of this advice in an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) on 4 July.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the representations the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry received from hon. Members on the proposed closure of the Royal Greenwich Observatory in Cambridge prior to the closure announcement; and if she will publish those representations. [8472]

  Mr. Battle
  It is for hon. Members to publicise their approaches to me, should they wish to do so.

  Telecommunications
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport over responsibility for telecommunications; and if she will make a statement. [6877]
  71
  Mrs. Beckett
  None.

  Ministerial Visit (Japan)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on her trade visit to Japan; and how many contracts for British companies resulted. [7682]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 10 July 1997]: I visited Japan from 26–28 May. This was my first overseas visit as President of the Board of Trade and the first by a member of this Government to Japan. My purpose was to underline the importance we attach to close bilateral relationship we have with Japan. I met a wide variety of Japanese industrialists and spoke at a number of high-level events designed to promote further Japanese investment and trade.

  My early visit was warmly welcomed by the Japanese government and business community.

  Free Trade
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is her Department's policy on a target date for global free trade. [6368]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Government is committed to working with our trading partners within the EU and beyond on the progressive reduction of barriers to trade around the world and on the further development of multilateral trade liberalisation through the World Trade Organisation. The success of this process will determine the pace at which we can move towards global free trade.

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will publish her Department's submissions relating to freedom of information legislation. [6034]

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

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will take steps to ensure that the IAEA is supplied with detailed information from Euratom concerning the export and import of nuclear materials through the European Union. [6397]

  Mr. Battle
  Euratom notify the IAEA of information on the export and import of nuclear material from and to the European Union. This is a requirement of the three relevant safeguards Agreements: INFCIRC/193 (Euratom/IAEA/EU non-nuclear weapon States), INFCIRC/263 (Euratom/IAEA/UK) and INFCIRC/290 (Euratom/IAEA/France).

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will take action to ensure that the IAEA is allowed access to German power plants in order to undertake verification inspections. [6414]
  72
  Mr. Battle
  This is a matter for the parties to the relevant safeguards Agreement between Euratom, the IAEA and the European Union non-nuclear weapon states (known as INFCIRC/193). The IAEA's rights with respect to inspections are specified in Articles 70–82 of that Agreement.

  Export Licences (Indonesia)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will seek legal advice as to the consequences of revoking the export licences for Hawk jets, Alvis armoured vehicles and GKN water cannons not yet delivered to Indonesia and make such legal advice available to the House. [6322]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 3 July 1997]: Advice has been sought on the lawfulness of the possible revocation of licences for the export of Alvis armoured vehicles and police vehicles from Procurement Services International (including water cannon), not yet delivered to Indonesia.

  It has not been the usual practice of successive Governments to make available to the House legal advice received in any area.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if she will make a statement on her policy on the use of the NFFO for incineration plants for waste to energy; [7613]

  (2) what discussions have taken place with VEDCO in respect of the possible incineration plant in East Sussex; [7754]

  (3) what moneys have been allocated to VEDCO under the NFFO scheme to develop a waste to energy plant in East Sussex. [7738]

  Mr. Battle
  I have already announced that I will initiate shortly a consultation exercise with the relevant trade bodies of the renewable energy industry, OFFER and the regional electricity companies on a fifth non-fossil fuel obligation (NFFO-5) order for renewable energy in England and Wales, leading to an announcement later in the year. VEDCO Energy Ltd were contracted by the regional electricity companies to generate 18.311 MW of electricity in an energy from waste plant at Newhaven, East Sussex in order to secure the capacity required by the last NFFO order, NFFO-4. Under the contract VEDCO Energy Ltd would be paid within the range of 2.66 to 2.80 p/kWh for the electricity generated. They will need to obtain planning permission for their project unless they have already done so. No discussions with VEDCO Energy Ltd in respect of this project.

  Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the recent speeches made by the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs,(a) Antwerp and (b) in Athens represent Government policy. [7408]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding 9 July 1997]: The Speech made by my hon. Friend to the Institute of Trading Standards

  73
  Administration Conference in Antwerp set out both the actions already set in hand and future intentions concerning measures to improve consumer protection and as such was fully in line with Government policy in this area. My hon. Friend did not make a speech in Athens—he participated in a panel session at a conference organised by the Institute of Travel and Tourism. Among the issues raised in that discussion was vertical integration in the travel industry, which my hon. Friend correctly pointed out was still under investigation by the MMC.

  Towards 2000 Trade Exhibition
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will attend the Towards 2000 Trade Exhibition in October 1997 in New Delhi. [6862]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 8 July 1997]: The Towards 2000 Exhibition is being held at the time of the State Visit of HM the Queen and the HRH The Duke of Edinburgh. I will be visiting India myself later in the year, as one of my first overseas visits as President of the Board of Trade.

  Ferry Line Merger
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects to announce a decision in respect of the Monopolies and Mergers inquiry into the proposed merger of Stena and P and O. [5191]

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she expects to publish the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report into the merger between P and O and Stena Line before the end of July. [5994]

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations she has had with the European competition authorities concerning the P and O and Stena merger; what action she is taking; and if she will make a statement. [5201]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 24 June]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on 2 July, Official Report, column 181. Consultation is taking place with the European Commission.

  Number of non-elective finished consultant episodes by region in each quarter in 1995–96

  Thousands

  Region

  Quarter 1

  Quarter 2

  Quarter 3

  Quarter 4

  Northern and Yorkshire

  139

  136

  143

  144

  Trent

  121

  125

  131

  138

  Anglia and Oxford

  93

  98

  100

  98

  North Thames

  128

  127

  136

  132

  South Thames

  122

  124

  127

  134

  South and West

  130

  128

  139

  134

  West Midlands

  108

  108

  111

  97

  North West

  157

  169

  166

  169

  England

  998

  1,015

  1,053

  1,047

  Post Office
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps she is taking to ensure that the Post Office can operate with greater commercial freedom. [4280]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The options for granting greater commercial freedom to the Post Office are being examined in the context of the review which I announced on 16 May.

HEALTH

  Emergency Admissions
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many emergency admissions to hospital there were by health service region in each month since January 1995; and if he will make a statement. [6751]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information in the form requested is available only between January and March 1995. However quarterly figures for non-elective finished consultant episodes are available from April 1995 to March 1997.

  Emergency admissions to hospital by Region of treatment, NHS hospitals, England, January to March 1995

  Region

  January 1995

  February 1995

  March 1995

  Northern

  21,698

  20,244

  22,324

  Yorkshire

  26,088

  23,556

  25,107

  Trent

  23,908

  20,796

  22,143

  East Anglian

  15,490

  13,582

  14,918

  North-west Thames

  15,881

  14,582

  16,111

  North-east Thames

  26,040

  23,297

  25,541

  South-east Thames

  21,938

  19,823

  21,870

  South-west Thames

  16,035

  14,726

  16,680

  Wessex

  17,340

  16,404

  17,930

  Oxford

  14,248

  12,939

  14,540

  South Western

  20,166

  18,105

  20,512

  West Midlands

  33,945

  30,484

  32,910

  Mersey

  18,958

  16,503

  18,120

  North Western

  30,181

  27,323

  29,200

  England

  301,917

  272,364

  297,906

  Note:

  The data are grossed for coverage. Figures are rounded and may not total.

  Source:

  Department of Health, Hospital Episode Statistics HES.

  75

  Number of non-elective finished consultant episodes by region in each quarter in 1996–97

  Thousands

  Region

  Quarter 1

  Quarter 2

  Quarter 3

  Quarter 4 (estimate)

  Northern and Yorkshire

  152

  147

  157

  164

  Trent

  120

  122

  130

  133

  Anglia and Oxford

  99

  98

  106

  108

  North Thames

  129

  133

  137

  140

  South Thames

  128

  128

  133

  137

  South and West

  135

  133

  139

  144

  West Midlands

  112

  114

  114

  131

  NorthWest

  166

  172

  178

  178

  England

  1,040

  1,048

  1,094

  1,134

  1. All figures are derived from the NHS Executive's Quarterly Monitoring system. Figures for 1995–96 have been adjusted to estimate the effects of definitional and boundary changes to allow direct comparison with 1996–97 information.

  2. The figures relate to activity commissioned using NHS funds by health commissions in 1995–96 and health authorities in 1996–97. This includes activity in private hospitals and NHS hospitals outside England, but excludes private patients and patients from outside England treated in English hospitals.

  3. The figures are on a different basis to the long standing series published annually in "Ordinary and day case admissions for England". This annual series is based on activity reported by NHS hospital and community Trusts and includes private patients and patients from outside England.

  4. Quarter 1 covers the three-month period of April. May and June. The subsequent quarters cover each three-month period thereafter.

  5. Non-elective finished consultant episodes comprise largely of all episodes during a patient spell in hospital which began either with an emergency admission or with a transfer from another hospital.

  Medical Negligence
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors underlie the rise in his Department's expenditure on medical negligence between 1996–97 and 1997–98. [6802]

  Mr. Milburn
  It is too early in the financial year for there to be any figures for 1997–98 with which to make comparisons. Estimated costs to the National Health Service of clinical negligence claims in fact fell in 1995–96 to £149.1 million from £160 million in 1994–95.

  Increases in clinical negligence expenditure in previous years should not be taken as an indication that the National Health Service is failing. Rather, patients are developing a better understanding of the treatment and services available to them, and a greater awareness of their rights to compensation when something does, unfortunately, go wrong.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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; and what is the projected cost of resolving the problem; and whether the project is on schedule. [7133]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department has conducted an audit of all its computer systems and produced a high level plan to address the problem. The Department is committed to having all business critical systems fully compliant by the Central Information Technology Unit recommended deadline.

  The work programme is being co-ordinated by the Department's head of applications development and support who reports to the Departmental Information Systems Steering Committee on the Year 2000 issue.
  76
  All IT staff have a responsibility for ensuring applications under development are Year 2000 compliant. There are currently five staff dedicated to Year 2000 work.

  A fully costed, timed and prioritised programme of remedial work will be prepared by the autumn.

  PFI Hospital Projects
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those construction companies, consortia, banks and any other organisations which have written to him confirming their willingness to proceed with PFI hospital projects once legislation dealing with the vires issues has(a) been passed by Parliament and (b) received Royal Assent. [7419]

  Mr. Milburn
  I refer the right hon. Member to the replies I gave the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) on 22 May 1997 at column 176 and on 9 June 1997 at columns 299–300.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if money released in the budget Statement for the financial year 1998–99 for NHS expenditure can be used directly or indirectly so as to enable(a) health authorities and (b) NHS Trusts to (i) reduce their deficits in 1997–98 and (ii) carry such deficits forward. [7723]

  Mr. Milburn
  Health Authority allocations for 1998–99 will be announced in the autumn. These cannot be spent in 1997–98. However, knowledge of the resources available in 1998–99 will help health authorities and trusts to plan their financial management of 1997–98 with more confidence and influence their decisions.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the actions required to be taken by an NHS trust if its accounts are in deficit at the end of a financial year. [7446]
  77
  Mr. Milburn
  National Health Service trusts have the one statutory duty to break even taking one year with another. If a trust reports a deficit in its accounts it will be expected to recover the deficit over an agreed timescale.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the NHS trusts and health authorities which were in deficit at the end of 1996–97 indicating the size of the deficit for each. [7762]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is available in the Library.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will update Table 2.1 in his Department's annual report taking into account the additional allocation of moneys for 1997–98 announced by the Chancellor on 2 July. [7463]

  Mr. Milburn
  We shall update Table 2.1 in the next Departmental Report.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors underlay the deficits for(a) Bradford, (b) Dudley, (c) Ealing, (d) Hammersmith and Hounslow, (e) Enfield and Haringey, (f) Lambeth, (g) Southwark and Lewisham, (h) Merton, (i) Sutton, (j) Wandsworth, (k) North Essex, (l) Redbridge and Waltham Forest, (m) Wakefield and (n) West Surrey and Wiltshire health authorities for 1996–97. [7757]

  Mr. Milburn
  The factors which underlay the health authority deficits reported in 1996–97 include overspends resulting from extra-contractual referrals, general practitioner fundholder overspends and the need for service changes.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish a list of those health authorities which have recurrent deficits. [7761]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested will be placed in the Library in due course.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the annual real terms increase or decrease in resources available to the national health service(a) in England and (b) in Wales for each financial year since 1978–79. [7454]

  Mr. Milburn
  The annual real terms increases in National Health Service resources in England from 1978–79 are set out in the table. Questions relating to Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  NHS Total Gross Expenditure (England)1

  Year

  Percentage real growth2

  1978–79

  3.2

  1979–80

  1.8

  1980–81

  10.1

  1981–82

  2.2

  1982–83

  1.8

  1983–84

  1.5

  1984–85

  2.4

  1985–86

  0.2

  1986–87

  4.4

  1987–88

  4.5

  1988–89

  4.2

  1989–90

  0.7

  1990–91

  3.6

  1991–92

  6.4

  78

  NHS Total Gross Expenditure (England)1

  Year

  Percentage real growth2

  1992–93

  5.2

  1993–94

  0.6

  1994–95

  3.6

  1995–96

  1.9

  1996–97

  1.2

  1997–98

  0.5

  1 NHS gross expenditure is made up of Government expenditure (raised by taxation), plus income from sources such as charges for services, receipts from land sales and income generation schemes.

  2 The percentage real terms growth is calculated using the GDP deflator of 27 June 1997.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the administrative costs of each health(a) authority and (b) trust in England (i) in total and (ii) as a percentage of their budget for 1996–97. [7452]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is contained in the publication "Health Authority Costs and Management Costs in National Health Service Trusts" published in March 1997, copies of which are available in the Library. This details individual health authority costs and trust management costs for 1995–96, as well as planned costs in 1996–97. Final accounts figures for Health Authority costs and trust management costs in 1996–97 are expected to be available towards the end of the year.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish by speciality for each hospital trust the numbers of people on their waiting lists in May(a) 1992 and (b) 1997. [7453]

  Mr. Milburn
  Waiting list information for all trusts is collected quarterly and is not therefore available for the month of May. The latest information, which shows numbers of patients waiting by trust, specialty and six-month timebands, is contained in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England at 31 March 1997", copies of which are available in the Library, as is the corresponding publication giving the position on 31 March 1992.

  Elderly Care Beds (North Staffordshire)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library copies of the minutes of meetings relating to ward changes involving elderly care beds in North Staffordshire as supplied to the North Staffordshire Community Health Council. [7449]

  Mr. Boateng
  I will arrange for copies to be placed in the Library shortly. The Government are committed to ensure openness within the National Health Service and full consultation on substantial variations in service that affect patient care.

  Private Health Insurance
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the impact on NHS waiting lists of the abolition of tax relief on private health insurance for the elderly; and if he will make a statement. [8533]

  Mr. Milburn
  Any such estimate would be pure speculation. Most of the people who benefited from the tax relief were existing policy holders. It would be wrong
  79
  to assume that they will turn to the National Health Service in large numbers for treatment because the relief which had not been available when they first opted for private health insurance was now being withdrawn.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of his Department's publications have been

  Braille

  Audio tape

  Large print

  1992–93

  —

  While You Are Pregnant

  —

  —

  Keep Warm Keep Well

  —

  —

  Community Care Changes in April 1993

  Community Care Changes in April 1993

  —

  The Health of the Nation and You

  —

  1993–94

  Continence

  Continence

  —

  European Drug Prevention Week: You and Your Child

  European Drug Prevention Week: You and Your Child

  European Drug Prevention Week: You and Your Child

  Keep Warm Keep Well

  —

  1994–95

  Informability

  Informability

  Informability

  Helios Speeches

  Helios Speeches

  —

  Keep Warm Keep Well

  —

  —

  Inform 92

  —

  Maternity Services Charter

  —

  Maternity Services Charter

  The Patients Charter and You

  The Patients Charter and You

  The Patients Charter and You

  1995–96

  Patient's Charter

  Patient's Charter

  Patient's Charter

  Dual Sensory Guidelines

  Dual Sensory Guidelines

  —

  Practical Guide for Disabled People (HB6)

  Practical Guide for Disabled People (HB6)

  —

  —

  Keep Warm Keep Well

  —

  —

  Searching For Service

  —

  —

  Continence

  —

  1996–97

  How To Get The Best From Maternity Services

  —

  —

  —

  Keep Warm Keep Well

  —

  —

  Community Care

  —

  —

  —

  NHS Complaints

  —

  Help With NHS Treatment Costs (HC11)

  Help With NHS Treatment Costs (HC11)

  —

  Moving into a Care Home

  Moving into a Care Home

  NHS Complaints

  NHS Complaints

  NHS Complaints

  Joint Commissioning
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to encourage joint commissioning between NHS trusts and social service departments of local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [7633]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is health authorities rather than National Health Service trusts who are responsible for joint commissioning with social service departments. Social care, health and housing are becoming increasingly inter-related and this needs to be reflected both in the planning and commissioning of services and in the care package delivered to individuals.

  Officials are looking into new ways of working to further support joint commissioning between agencies.
  80
  available in (a) Braille, (b) audio tape and (c) large print in each year since 1992; and what percentage of the total number of publications this represents in each case. [7641]

  Mr. Boateng
  Publications made available in Braille, audio tape and large print by this Department for each year since 1992 are given in the table.

  Information on the percentage of the total number of publications this represents in each case could only be provided at a disproportionate cost. The Department does not have a central record of all publications produced.

  Mental Illness
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to extend the list of medical conditions set out in the National Health Service (Remission of Charges) Regulations 1988 and the National Health Service (Remission of Travelling Expenses and Charges) (Scotland) Regulations 1988 to include acute mental illnesses, with particular reference to(a) manic depression and (b) schizophrenia. [7700]

  Mr. Milburn
  Prescription charges and all other aspects of Government spending, are being reviewed as part of the Government's comprehensive spending review.

  Obstetrical Brachial Palsy
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will investigate delays in the referral of children with obstetrical brachial palsy for primary nerve surgery. [7636]

  Mr. Boateng
  Most children with obstetrical brachial palsy make a spontaneous recovery, but in severe and persistent cases—once identified early referral to consider surgical remedy is desirable. The decision to refer, and when to do so, is a matter for clinical judgment.

  Emergency admissions to hospital by Region of treatment, NHS hospitals, England, October 1994 to February 1995

  Region

  October 1994

  November 1994

  December 1994

  January 1995

  February 1995

  Northern

  21,097

  20,852

  21,634

  21,698

  20,244

  Yorkshire

  25,075

  25,050

  26,151

  26,088

  23,556

  Trent

  26,908

  26,077

  25,722

  23,908

  20,796

  East Anglian

  15,104

  14,694

  15,863

  15,490

  13,582

  North-west Thames

  16,105

  16,021

  16,399

  15,881

  14,582

  North-east Thames

  24,670

  24,940

  25,991

  26,040

  23,297

  South-east Thames

  21,523

  21,624

  22,179

  21,938

  19,823

  South-west Thames

  15,770

  15,644

  16,624

  16,035

  14,726

  Wessex

  16,372

  16,392

  17,748

  17,340

  16,404

  Oxford

  13,166

  13,087

  13,849

  14,248

  12,939

  South Western

  19,055

  18,883

  20,223

  20,166

  18,105

  West Midlands

  31,858

  31,935

  33,915

  33,945

  30,484

  Mersey

  18,201

  17,985

  18,927

  18,958

  16,503

  North Western

  30,382

  30,203

  30,766

  30,181

  27,323

  England

  295,285

  293,387

  305,990

  301,917

  272,364

  Notes:

  These data are grossed for coverage. Figures are rounded and may not total.

  Source:

  Department of Health, Hospital Episode Statistics HES.

  Number of non-elective finished consultant episodes by region, thousands

  Region

  3rd Quarter 1995–96 (October-December)

  4th Quarter 1995–96 (January-March)

  3rd Quarter 1995–97 (October-December)

  4th Quarter 1996–97 (January-March) estimate

  Northern and Yorkshire

  143

  144

  157

  164

  Trent

  131

  138

  130

  133

  Anglia and Oxford

  100

  98

  106

  108

  North Thames

  136

  132

  137

  140

  South Thames

  127

  134

  133

  137

  South and West

  139

  134

  139

  144

  West Midlands

  111

  97

  114

  131

  North-West

  166

  169

  178

  178

  England

  1,053

  1,047

  1,094

  1,134

  1. All figures are derived from the NHS Executive's Quarterly Monitoring system. Figures for 1995–96 have been adjusted to estimate the effects of definitional and boundary changes to allow direct comparison with 1996–97 information.

  2. The figures relate to activity commissioned using NHS funds by health commissions in 1995–96 and health authorities in 1996–97. This includes activity in private hospitals and NHS hospitals outside England, but excludes private patients and patients from outside England treated in English hospitals.

  3. The figures are on a different basis to the long standing series published annually in "Ordinary and day case admissions for England". This annual series is based on activity reported by NHS hospital and community Trusts and includes private patients and patients from outside England.

  4. Non-elective finished consultant episodes comprise largely of all episodes during a patient spell in hospital which began either with an emergency admission or with a transfer from another hospital.

  Funding
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what account he takes of the expenditure levels and policy priorities of local authorities in respect of their social

  Emergency Admissions
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the total number of emergency admissions to national health service hospitals by region for(a) October, (b) November, (c) December, (d) January and (e) February in each of the years (i) 1994–95, (ii) 1995–96 and (iii) 1996–97. [7612]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information in the form requested is only available at present for the year 1994–95. However quarterly figures for non-elective finished consultant episodes are available for 1995–96 and 1996–97.

  service functions before deciding on the allocation of funds to (a) health authorities and (b) NHS trusts. [7634]

  Mr. Milburn
  Allocations to health authorities are informed by a weighted capitation formula which reflects the health needs of local resident populations. The need
  83
  of populations for social service provision is assessed separately. We are assessing how better to ensure more effective collaboration between health authorities and Social Services departments.

  National Health Service trusts receive most of their income through contracts with health authorities and general practitioner fundholders. They are not directly funded by the Department of Health.

  Departmental Budgets
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new plans he has to introduce cuts and savings in his Department as a result of the effect on his Department's budgets for 1997–98 and 1998–99 of the upward revisions to the GDP deflators in the Budget on 2 July; and if he will make a statement. [8304]

  Mr. Milburn
  All Departments are reallocating spending within their Departmental ceilings as part of the comprehensive spending review.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the changes in waiting times in key specialties, for consultations referred from general practices between June 1996 and June 1997 for(a) the north-west of England and (b) the United Kingdom as a whole. [8167]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information on the time waited by patients following written referral by their general practitioner to a hospital consultant is published quarterly in "Waiting Times for First Outpatient Appointments England: Detailed Statistics". This shows how long patients seen during the quarter had waited broken down by region, trust, specialty and timeband. Figures for the quarter ended 31 March 1997 will be published on 17 July. Copies will be available in the Library as is the corresponding publication for the quarter ended 30 June 1996.

  Questions relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively.

  Farmers' Suicides
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when the report into farmers' suicides commissioned by his Department will be completed; [8338]

  (2) when the report into farmers' suicides commissioned by his Department will be published. [8339]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Department of Health has commissioned a study into suicide in high risk groups, including farmers, which is being carried out by Professor Keith Hawton at the University of Oxford.

  The data collection of the farmers component of the study is nearing completion, and data analysis and preparation of the final report has begun. The Department expects that the final report will be submitted in early autumn 1997, following which publication in peer reviewed journals and Departmental publications will be pursued.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Benefit Centre
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will review the proposals to privatise the Child Benefit Centre in Washington; and if she will make a statement; [6247]

  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the future of the National Child Benefit Centre. [6644]

  Mr. Field
  We will streamline services to provide better, simpler more efficient services to clients.

  We will be assessing the Department's current programme of changes—including outsourcing proposals—in the light of
  their implications for customer service, staff and the tax payer;
  our aim of getting best value for money;
  and our commitment to work within announced spending totals.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and myself have started meeting and seeking the views of those affected—including the Departmental trade union side. I intend visiting the Child Benefit Centre very shortly.

  Pensions (Prisoners)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the effect on the pension arrangements of an individual serving more than five years imprisonment before being found by the Court of Appeal to have been wrongfully convicted. [7371]

  Mr. Denham
  People are not liable to pay national insurance contributions for the period of their imprisonment, but they can maintain their record for a basic state retirement pension by paying voluntary contributions for that period at any time before the end of the sixth year following the year in which it ended. The cost of the contributions may be included in claims for compensation under the statutory or ex gratia schemes for people who have been wrongfully imprisoned.

  Tax and Benefit Reviews
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the remit of the reviews of the tax and benefit systems being undertaken by(a) Mr. Martin Taylor and (b) the Minister for Social Security and Welfare Reform; if he will make a statement on how they relate to each other; and what the consultation process and time scale will be in each case. [7410]

  Mr. Field
  We are committed to modernising the structure and delivery of Social Security in order to encourage independence, social cohesion and well being; to develop an active welfare system which supports work, savings and honesty; and to help tackle effectively unjustifiable social and economic inequalities. To that end we will be examining the major components of the system. We will consult on specific issues in due course.

  Mr. Martin Taylor has been asked by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to examine the interaction of the tax and benefits systems to that they can be streamlined and modernised, so as to fulfil our

  85
  objectives of promoting work incentives, reducing poverty and welfare dependency and strengthening family and community life. The conclusions that emerge from that review will inform the judgments in my right hon. Friend's next budget, which will be in the spring of 1998.

  There will be close liaison between this tax benefit review and the wider review on welfare reform.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the cost of(a) not extending the restriction on housing benefit to the single room rent to people aged 25 to 59 years from October 1997 and (b) adjusting the level of non-dependant deductions from April 1998. [7595]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The cost of not extending the restriction on housing benefit to the single room rent to people aged 25 to 59 years from October 1997 is £6 million; £47 million; £69 million for the financial years 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–00 respectively.

  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, announced, as part of our commitment to keep spending within the planned ceiling for Social Security expenditure, our decision to review the levels of non-dependant deductions from April 1998. A final decision on the levels of deductions will not be taken until our annual review of benefit rates is completed later in the year. We will announce the outcome of the review on non-dependant deductions at that time.

  Housing and Council Tax Benefits
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the estimated annual savings for(a) housing benefit and (b) council tax benefit that will be generated by reducing to one month the time limit for their backdating. [7635]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  It is not possible to make precise estimates of the annual savings from this proposal because decisions on claims for backdating in housing benefit and council tax benefit, which are made by local authorities, are based on the circumstances surrounding each individual case. The best available estimate is that the measure may produce savings of up to £15 million in a full year.

  Appeals
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many applications for social security appeals were received in(a) Scotland, (b) England, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland in each year since 1992; [7741]

  (2) what is the average waiting time for an applicant to have his or her appeal heard and for the appeal process to be completed in (a) Scotland, (b) England, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland in each year since 1992; [7742]

  (3) how many social security appeals were carried out by the Independent Tribunal Service in (a) Scotland, (b) England, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland in each year since 1992. [7740]
  86
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Social Security Bill which was introduced on 9 July will modernise the delivery of Social Security. One of the key objectives is to improve the appeals system and reduce delays.

  Questions on the operational performance of the Independent Tribunal Service in England, Scotland and Wales should be directed to its President, His Honour Judge Bassingthwaighte.

  Questions on the operational performance of the Independent Tribunal Service in Northern Ireland should be directed to its President, Mr. Conal MacLynn.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many disabled people will be affected by removing the right to claim disability living allowance for those between 65 and 66 years of age; and what is the total amount of money that will be saved in the first year. [7747]

  Mr. Denham
  We are committed to a review with the objective of reducing poverty and welfare dependency and promoting work incentives. Provision for disabled people will form part of that review.

  From 6 October 1997, disabled people aged 65 will no longer be able to claim disability living allowance. This will affect an estimated 10,000 disabled people annually. Savings in the first full year have been assessed at around £50,000 in respect of administrative costs and £20 million in programme expenditure. Disabled people aged 65 and over will still be able to claim attendance allowance.

  Policy Reviews
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the total cost of her policy reviews. [7637]

  Mr. Field
  We are committed to modernising the structure and delivery of Social Security in order to encourage independence, social cohesion and well being; to develop an active welfare system which supports work, savings and honesty; and to help tackle effectively unjustifiable social and economic inequalities. To that end we will be examining the major components of the system. We will consult on specific issues in due course. In keeping with our commitment to manage within current cash plans, the costs of the policy reviews will be absorbed within the Department's existing running costs limits.

  Council Tax Benefit
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioner households will be affected by restricting council tax benefit so that claimants with property in bands F, G and H, have their council tax benefit restricted to that of band E; what is the average amount of council tax benefit that will be withdrawn; and what will be the savings in the first year arising from these changes. [7746]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We estimate that 30,000 pensioners will be affected by this measure which was left over from the previous administration.
  87
  The total number affected is estimated to be 65,000. The average amount of council tax benefit withdrawn will be £3.80 a week. The estimated savings in the first year are £15 million.

  Income Support
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much she estimates that her campaign to persuade more elderly people to take up income support will cost to run; and what increased benefit expenditure it will produce. [7638]

  Mr. Denham
  We are committed to examining the means of delivering more automatic help to the poorest pensioners. As a first step we have commissioned research to establish the reasons why pensioners do not claim their income support entitlement, and the most effective means of encouraging them to do so.

  Departmental Budgets
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what new plans she has to introduce cuts and savings in her Department as a result of the effect on her Department's budgets for 1997–98 and 1998–99 of the upward revisions to the GDP deflators in the Budget on 2 July; and if she will make a statement. [8308]

  Mr. Field
  All Departments are reallocating spending within their Departmental ceilings as part of the comprehensive spending review.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, following the recent Budget, she will give her estimate of the total real level of her Department's budget, in 1995–96 prices, in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99; if she will estimate what such figures were for (1) 1997–98 and (2) 1998–99 following the November 1996 Budget on the basis of the estimates of the GDP deflator contained in that Budget; and if she will make a statement. [8307]

  Mr. Field
  The figures requested for this Department's spending plans within the control total are as follows:

  Department of social security control total expenditure in 1995–96 prices

  £ million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Budget 1997 control total

  75,640

  76,596

  Budget 1996 control total

  76,272

  77,781

  In addition the Department will benefit from part of the Welfare to Work expenditure which was announced in the Budget. It is also responsible for cyclical social security spending. Both of these are outside the Control Total.

  Notes:

  1. The Budget 1997 figures were calculated using the GDP deflator assumptions for July 1997.

  2. The Budget 1996 figures were calculated using the GDP deflator assumptions for November 1996.

  Sources:

  1. Control Total Budget 1997—Financial Statement and Budget Report July 1997.

  2. Control Total Budget 1996—Financial Statement and Budget Report 1997–98.

  Advance Corporation Tax
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will place in the Library the advice 88
  she has sought from the Government Actuary following the Budget changes to advance corporation tax on (a) the relative attractiveness of (i) remaining in SERPS and (ii) opting out of SERPS and (b) on the estimated numbers of those who might now opt back into SERPS; and if she will make a statement. [8476]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 7 July,Official Report, columns 376–77.

  Residential Allowances
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will review the rates of residential allowance for which(a) residents of local authority homes and (b) residents of private nursing homes are eligible. [8548]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  A key priority of the Government is to focus on the central areas of insecurity for older people. A key element of the review process will be to listen to the views of older people on all matters which are of concern to them—including community care issues.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if Professor Holliday's 1984 report into radioactive waste disposal in the north Atlantic had access to correspondence between the Scottish Department, the Ministry of Agriculture and the War Office dating from October 1953 to November 1967; and if Professor Holliday had unrestricted access to documentation on the dumping of radioactive waste in Beaufort's Dyke. [7192]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department has so far been unable to identify any evidence that the correspondence to which I referred in my written reply of 1 July 1997,Official Report, columns 158–60, was shown to Professor Holliday or to those supporting his enquiry, or that staff serving in the Department at that time were aware of the existence of the correspondence. The search of archive records is still in progress.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what restrictions his Department has placed on public access at the Public Record Office to information contained in correspondence dated between October 1953 and June 1954 relating to the disposal of nuclear waste in Beaufort's Dyke; and on what precise dates correspondence on this subject dating from June 1954 to October 1954 could have been disclosed. [7193]

  Mr. Rooker
  The documents to which I referred in my written reply on 1 July 1997,Official Report, columns 158–60, were contained in a file which was closed in 1960 and sent to the Public Record Office in July 1977. Under the 30-year rule, the file was made available to the public there in January 1991.

  Agri-environment Schemes
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to provide financial support for the Weald Meadows Initiative. [7596]

  Mr. Morley
  The restoration and enhancement of species-rich grassland and other features within the High Weald, including the Weald Meadows Initiative area, have been identified as a priority under the Countryside Stewardship scheme.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the importance of maintaining rare plants within the Sussex Weald; and what action he is taking to this end. [7597]

  Mr. Morley
  The Sussex Weald is one of the target areas identified under the Countryside Stewardship scheme. These are areas which are identified as priorities in consultation with local environmental organisations and for which applications under the scheme are encouraged. Targeting statements are reviewed annually and are made available to applicants with the scheme literature. In the High Weald target area statement the restoration and improvement of species-rich grassland is listed as a high priority.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what factors underlay his decision not to allocate funding to the Weald Meadows Initiative. [7598]

  Mr. Rooker
  An application under the Marketing Development Scheme, for grant to match-fund the cost of a products co-ordinator and marketing campaign for the Weald Meadows Initiative, was made in October 1996. This faced strong competition for the limited funds available and, although the proposal had merit, other projects better satisfied the key scheme criterion of demonstrating a significant marketing development.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to increase payments for undersowing in environmentally sensitive areas. [7608]

  Mr. Morley
  The South Downs environmentally sensitive area was received last year, and new options were introduced for the management of arable land to benefit wildlife, particularly farmland birds such as finches, buntings and partridges. A payment of £110 per hectare is offered for leaving winter stubbles uncultivated until 30 November, and then sowing a spring cereal crop which is undersown with a grass and clover seed mixture. Applications for this option have been received for about 160 hectares of land. The payment rate is currently under review, and the outcome will be announced early in 1998.

  Horn Products
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what restrictions upon the import and export of horns and horn products have been imposed as a result of the BSE crisis; what additional restrictions are proposed; and if he will make a statement. [7941]

  Mr. Rooker
  Under the Heads of Sheep and Goats Order, 1996, the heads (excluding the tongue) of sheep and goats of any age other than those born, reared and slaughtered in Australia and New Zealand must be 90
  disposed of as specified waste material. This would include the horns if still attached to the head. However, horns themselves are not considered to be a risk provided they are removed without breaking into the cranial cavity in order to ensure that there is no risk of contamination with brain material.

  The Specified Bovine Material Order 1997, applies to cattle which have died or been slaughtered in the United Kingdom. It requires the removal and disposal of specified tissues (defined as the whole head excluding the tongue, spleen and tonsils of all animals over six months of age and intestines and thymus of animals of all ages).

  The export ban introduced by the EU in March 1996 applies to live bovine animals, bovine semen and embryos, mammalian meat and bone meal, products obtained from bovine animals that are liable to enter the animal or human food chains and materials destined for use in cosmetics or medical or pharmaceutical products. The ban, therefore, includes bovine horns for those purposes but not for other purposes, such as ornamental sticks or shepherd's crooks, which can be manufactured in the UK and traded.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy on the elimination of genetically modified organisms from the food chain. [8038]

  Mr. Rooker
  All genetically modified organisms currently in the food chain have been approved on safety grounds following a thorough scientific assessment. I cannot therefore see any reason for preventing their use.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to lay proposals for a food standards agency before Parliament. [8039]

  Mr. Rooker
  We intend to publish a White Paper setting out our proposals or a food standards agency in the autumn, and to consult on a draft Bill early in 1998. The legislation will be laid before Parliament as soon as parliamentary time permits.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his Department's specific policy on risk avoidance in food safety matters. [8042]

  Mr. Rooker
  Risks to the consumer can arise in many different points in the food chain and the Ministry ensures that a comprehensive system of controls and monitoring exists to cover the production of food raw materials, the manufacture of food and its handling and preparation. This combination of controls services to ensure that risks from food are kept to a reasonable minimum. In addition, the Ministry has developed an extensive programme of publicity and advice on food safety issues including food hygiene and nutrition.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how the release of genetically modified organisms into the food chain will be controlled by the proposed food standards agency. [8043]

  Mr. Rooker
  It is too early yet to say how the food standards agency might deal with genetically modified organisms for use in food. However it is anticipated that it will take over responsibility for the operation of the EC
  91
  novel foods and novel food ingredients regulation (258/97) and the running of the independent Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes whose job it is to provide safety assessments for these materials.

  Banana Quotas
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the Commission to respond to Belize's request for a larger banana quota within the European Union regime; and if he will make a statement on the Government's policy toward the transfer of Banana Licence tonnage between members of the Caribbean Banana Association. [8158]

  Mr. Rooker
  The European Union banana regime sets a specific quota for Belize of 40,000 tonnes. The Government have always recognised that this is insufficient to cover the increases in production already in the pipeline in 1992 and, as a result of pressure from the UK, an additional quota of 15,000 tonnes was reserved for Belize within the tariff quota for third country and non-traditional ACP bananas in December 1994.

  The Commission made a proposal in 1995 which would allow transfers of unused quotas between Caribbean producers but the Council has yet to agree to it. The UK has always supported this proposal. The current WTO dispute could have implications for both of these issues.
  92
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects a resolution of the appeal by the European Union against the WTO decision regarding the European Union banana regime. [8159]

  Mr. Rooker
  The ruling by the WTO appellate body on the dispute over the European Union banana regime is expected in September and will be adopted by the dispute settlement body within 30 days following circulation of the report to WTO members.

  Genetically Modified Soya Beans
  Ms Gisela Stuart
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his Department's policy towards the importing of genetically modified soya beans from the USA. [8482]

  Mr. Rooker
  The use of these beans in Europe have been approved on safety grounds following a thorough scientific assessment. There is therefore no reason to restrict their import. Under World Trade Organisation rules it is not possible for Governments to demand the segregation of genetically modified (GM) crops which have been approved as safe. However, we will be pressing at a European level for all foods which may contain GM ingredients to be labelled to indicate this even where, as in the case of these soya beans, segregation has not taken place.

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

Equal Pay
Baroness Turner of Camdenasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is the case that women are on average paid 20 per cent. less than men, whether as board directors or as sales assistants, and what action they are taking to rectify the situation.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the Government's new earnings survey for April 1996 shows women's average hourly earnings, excluding overtime, were 79.9 per cent. of men's. It also shows that the gap between women's and men's average earnings is narrower in some occupations and wider in others. Though the survey provides a useful comparison between men's and women's earnings, it does not prove there are unequal pay rates for comparable jobs. However, the Government are still concerned about the difference in average hourly pay between men and women. Our policies will enable more women to train for and enter higher status jobs and will encourage employers to pay full and fair rates.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. I am sure she is aware that my Question is based on statements contained in the excellent annual report of the Equal Opportunities Commission. It acknowledges that much progress has been made, but there are still problems. The EOC urges improved access to justice for those claiming equal pay for work of equal value. That the procedures are often complicated and very long is exemplified by the well-known case of speech therapists, which began as long ago as 1985 and has still not yet reached a conclusion. Could there not be a review of these procedures, in consultation with the EOC, with a view to improving them? That might help the situation as far as concerns the gender gap.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I should like to congratulate the Equal Opportunities Commission on its new code of practice on equal pay. It is the first of its kind to be developed by a member state in Europe. A good deal of consultation and care went into the drawing up of the code. If employers take note of it they can
816
certainly improve their pay systems and practices for all their staff. On the more specific question about the 11-year long speech therapists' case, sometimes known as the Enderby case, for understandable reasons, I cannot comment on cases which are still going through the legal process. These cases are particularly complex ones. In this case it is the responsibility of the Department of Health. However, I very much take on board the more general issue my noble friend raises about trying to improve the procedures in such cases. I shall certainly look into them.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there has been very little improvement since 1976 when the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, was in charge of employment policy? I believe that the move has been within 5 per cent. since that time. Can she tell us whether the Government's training policy will focus on the occupational concentration of women in certain low paid areas as compared with men?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. The Equal Pay Act was introduced by my noble friend Lady Castle back in 1970. There was then a rapid improvement in narrowing the gap between men and women as far as concerns average earnings. However, since 1979 there has been a substantial slowing down in narrowing that gap. One way of doing it is by improving training opportunities for those in jobs with low pay and limited levels of qualification. The Government are engaging in a variety of different policies: both through modern apprenticeships, where we are trying to increase the proportion of women, particularly the proportion of women in those areas where there have not traditionally been many women; and through the programme of training provided by the TECs.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that women can bring their own cases if they feel they are being unfairly discriminated against? I speak as someone who has sat on industrial tribunals since 1974. If the case is simple a woman can bring it under the Equal Pay Act and the industrial tribunal has power to deal with it. Long cases are the exception. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, is an expert in these matters. The Question refers to "board directors". Is there any suggestion that the boards of public companies are paying women less to be non-executive members? I have never encountered that.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am not aware of the board of a public company paying one of its non-executive directors less if she is a woman. On the noble Baroness's more general question, I am aware of the opportunity women have to take to industrial tribunals employers who they believe are discriminating against them. There are many such

817
cases. I am glad to say that quite often any discrimination is subsequently rectified as a result of taking such a case to a tribunal.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the issue of equal pay bites harder and more viciously on those at the bottom of the social scale? Such people not only suffer a disadvantage in terms of wages but in working conditions in general with regard to sick pay, maternity benefit and holiday pay.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am aware that discrimination of that sort is most common in jobs which are badly paid. One of the problems is that job segregation exists in this country leading to more women being concentrated in jobs that are probably undervalued in some ways in terms of the pay that is offered. That is something which we and all employers need to address.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Enderby case, to which she has referred, sends just the wrong sort of signals to one of the professions to which the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, referred—in other words, a hardworking profession whose personnel is almost entirely women?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do. It is most unsatisfactory that a case of this kind has dragged on for nearly 11 years. As I said earlier, that is something that we shall look into.
Earl Russell: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us how much more revenue the Chancellor of the Exchequer would enjoy were that 20 per cent. gap to be closed? If, as is possible, she is not provided with the answer to that question, can she please write to me and place a copy of the answer in the Library?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I cannot say exactly how much additional revenue would be available to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer if that were to happen. I am a little sceptical as to whether an army of civil servants will be able to provide the noble Earl with that figure, but I shall certainly take his question back and ask whether the figure can be produced.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, do the Government envisage that the introduction of the minimum wage will change the present situation?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, of course it will change the present situation because there are many women who are paid scandalously low hourly rates. A minimum wage will ensure that that position is changed.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, as the noble Baroness is aware, Opportunity 2000 was formed in 1991 by the business community, and its purpose was to raise
818
the profile of employment for women. Are the Government going to continue to encourage such schemes, and what plans do they have to develop that type of work further?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government will certainly encourage such schemes.

Customs and Excise: Gambling Duty
2.46 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovilasked Her Majesty's Government:
What percentage of total gambling in the United Kingdom is taken up by the National Lottery and what percentage of the total duty on gambling paid to HM Customs and Excise arises from that source.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there is no reliable central record of expenditure on gambling. A number of government departments record information on betting and gaming, and some is not recorded at all. However, the best estimate that we can make suggests that the National Lottery accounts for up to 20 per cent. of the total stake on betting and gaming in the United Kingdom. From January 1995 to the end of May this year, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise has collected over £1.37 billion in duty from the lottery. That represents about 37 per cent. of all duty on gambling paid to Customs and Excise since January 1995.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, perhaps I may say how flattered I am that a Question of mine should again have attracted the attention of the noble Lord opposite. I am not quite sure how roving his commission is, but I am glad to be included in it. On this occasion all I wish—and I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to do this—is for him to admit, on behalf of the Exchequer, that it is a very fortunate beneficiary of a very well-run operation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the appreciation is mutual. I am delighted to have the noble Lord continuing to ask Questions which I have the privilege of answering. Of course both the Exchequer and the beneficiaries of the various National Lottery distribution boards are all glad that the lottery is a success.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, can the Minister say what plans Her Majesty's Government have to extend Camelot's licence to other forms of gambling?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have no plans to extend Camelot's licence. Camelot can come to us at any stage and ask for extensions to its licence, and we shall consider any application that it makes.

Motor Car Emissions: Reduction
2.48 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What increases in all forms of taxes and what restrictions on the use of private motor cars will be needed to implement in part the Prime Minister's initiatives announced at Denver to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases by a further 20 per cent. in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, climate change is one of the most serious threats facing the world today and the Government are committed to taking firm action at home and to providing leadership abroad to combat the threat. We are examining a wide range of measures, including fiscal measures, which could help us achieve the goal set out by the Prime Minister to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 20 per cent. below 1990 levels by the year 2010.
Road transport is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United Kingdom and, along with other sectors of the economy, must make a fair contribution to meeting our target. The decision by the Chancellor to increase from 5 per cent. to at least 6 per cent. in real terms the commitment to annual fuel duty rises will, if continued to the end of the Parliament, save an additional 2.5 million tonnes of carbon in 2010, making a significant contribution to the 33 million tonnes which needs to be saved to meet our 20 per cent. target.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply. Will she confirm that, however good the objectives are, there will be considerable inflationary increases in costs to industry and to domestic consumers of fuel and that there may possibly be damage to our own car manufacturing and export industries? Do the Government agree that all the Prime Minister's proposals must be fully implemented by all the other major world economies and not simply be imposed unilaterally to the competitive detriment of the United Kingdom?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I agree that it is essential that we tackle the problem internationally. In setting the UK's domestic target, the clear intention was to provide leadership in the international scene. At Kyoto we expect to see other nations contributing towards a target. I repeat that the problem must be tackled internationally. Our competitiveness will be helped if other countries take similar measures. However, I must advise the noble Baroness that we are absolutely determined that those measures will not jeopardise the economy. Indeed, there are benefits for the United Kingdom in achieving significant emission reductions. If we achieve our target, we shall have a better transport system, more competitive industry with
820
new opportunities in the field of technological innovation, anti more energy-efficient homes for our citizens.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the best ways of reducing the amount of pollution, including CO2, in the atmosphere is to make those who drive their cars the most pay the most? Therefore, will the Government reconsider their attitude towards ending vehicle excise duty and transferring the taxation to VAT on petrol?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we have seen that increasing the duty on petrol is a very effective measure in terms of reducing CO2 emissions. It also provides people with an opportunity to reduce the number of car journeys that they make and provides incentives to industry to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles. On the issue of the other changes that could take place to encourage CO2 emission reductions, the Budget placed the environment at the core of the Government's objectives for the tax system with a statement of intent that environmental pollution should be discouraged through the tax system. It included the increase in the level of fuel duty escalator and recognised that we would have to consider the possibilities of a whole range of other measures.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the biggest contributors to emissions from road vehicles is congestion at peak periods? Have the Government any plans to deal with that problem?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, congestion does, indeed, contribute to pollution and it is important that we tackle it. The White Paper on an integrated transport policy seeks to consider in the most open and wide-ranging way all the possibilities with regard to how congestion can be tackled.
Lord Renton: My Lords, bearing in mind the great possibilities of having vehicles propelled by sources other than petrol and diesel oil, will the Government give every encouragement, including financial encouragement, to the development of those alternative sources of power?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, there are great opportunities for developing other sources of clean transportation which could yield huge benefits for both public and private transport. In certain areas such encouragement is being given. I shall write to the noble Lord with the details. However, there are a whole range of measures—not just relating to transport—by which, by exploiting technological advance in, for example, combined heat and power and energy efficiency, we could make a huge contribution to cutting CO2 emissions.
Lord Paul: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government consider dropping the tax threshold on company cars of 2,500 miles and 18,000 miles which encourages many company car owners to drive in the

821
last quarter of the tax year, thus creating more congestion and more pollution at the worst time of the year, given the weather?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I understand very well the point that my noble friend is making. It would be wrong of me to anticipate the measures which the Chancellor might choose to impose, but I am sure that the taxation of company cars will be considered.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we welcome the Government's leadership on this issue? Will the noble Baroness give us two assurances, first, that submissions will be made, particularly to the Government of the United States, to follow up the initiative taken by Britain and Germany, as the United States has done almost nothing to reduce energy use in that great country? Secondly, will the Minister assure us that steps will be taken to try to introduce the use of information technology in the control of industrial processes, given that we could massively reduce the energy misuse of many industrial processes, particularly older ones?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, on the second point, the noble Baroness clearly highlights the areas in which there are opportunities for cutting CO2 emissions, such as exploiting IT and technological advances, without taking some of the more painful measures. As far as putting pressure on the United States and other developed countries is concerned, we hope that at Kyoto the EU's negotiating position will be used to advantage with other developed nations to ensure that the burden in this area is spread fairly between the developed countries.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, do the Government take into account in this matter the physiology of trees, which make the major contribution to reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? If they do, what additional plans do they have for planting broad-leaf forests as part of the effort towards achieving the target?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I shall have to write to my noble friend on the issue of broad-leaf forests. However, on the issue with which I am perhaps more familiar, the mitigating effects of tree-planting on road development, the Highways Agency has a major tree-planting programme alongside its road development programme in order to do exactly what my noble friend suggested.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does the Minister accept that one of the chief pollutants in the world is the generation of electricity by the burning of coal and that two of the biggest offenders are China and India? Can the Minister say, first, what it is hoped to achieve at Kyoto with regard to encouraging China and India to reduce their burning of coal and the consequent pollution? Secondly, and for the same reason, what are the Government doing to encourage combined heat and power in this country?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, on the issue of combined heat and power in this country, we recently
822
had an interesting debate in this House on the very many ways in which we can support such initiatives. We are setting the target of aiming to generate at least 10,000 megawatts of power from combined heat and power schemes by 2010, doubling the previous government's target of 5,000 megawatts by 2000. On the issue of the developing countries, there is concern about CO2 emissions in such areas and particularly in the countries to which the noble Earl alluded. However, we have to balance that against the developing countries' rightful concerns about economic progress. I believe that we shall have a stronger negotiating and advisory position with regard to those countries if we in the developed world set a good example.
The Duke of Somerset: My Lords, does the Minister agree that those living in rural areas (away from public transport systems) should not be disadvantaged by fuel fiscal rates?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I understand the noble Duke's point about the impact on those living in rural areas and the need to find ways of helping them without penalising them because of their fuel consumption. Higher fuel costs encourage manufacturers to improve the fuel efficiency of their vehicles and can influence road users' decisions about car purchases and maintenance and their driving behaviour, particularly the speeds at which they drive as well as the journeys that they undertake. Some 30 per cent. of people do not own a car, and one must also be concerned about them.

Eurofighter Aircraft Programme
3 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoullasked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made on the European fighter aircraft programme.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, the Eurofighter development programme is making excellent progress. All seven development aircraft are now flying, five with the EJ200 engines as planned. In total they have made over 400 flights. The ECR90 radar has recently flown in the Eurofighter, and all the key development maturity criteria have been met. Consequently, we are now ready to proceed to the crucial production and support phases of the programme. I hope that, as a result of the positive outcome from the German cabinet discussion last Friday, final German approval can be secured in the Bundestag in the autumn.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. Does he agree that the project is of vital importance and value to the future capability of the Royal Air Force to defend the realm? Moreover, does he also agree that it is a great achievement on the part of our European partners, who over many years have maintained the political will to

823
show how effective a large European collaborative programme such as this can be and have produced a world-beating military aircraft far cheaper, as I understand it, than its American counterpart, the F22 project?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I confirm that this aircraft will be much cheaper than the F22. It is a tribute to the skill of those who have produced it and to those who have negotiated and sustained over many years such a complicated project. The aircraft has been flying since 1994. It will fill an essential role in the capabilities of the Royal Air Force.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge that while the industrial benefits of Eurofighter will be enormous, the overriding justification for proceeding with the programme is to satisfy the air power needs of our Armed Forces in the next century, particularly in air defence and air superiority?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I would never attempt to justify a procurement decision for the Armed Forces on the grounds that it produced employment. The fact of the matter is that in this particular case it does. The Eurofighter has already produced 6,000 jobs and is expected to produce of the order of 14,000 at the time of pre-production. The noble and gallant Lord is right. The justification for this expenditure is that it is necessary to meet operational requirements for the defence of the realm.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, speaking as one who worked for five years in Fighter Command during the late war—spent mostly on the ground—can my noble friend inform the House in what form of aerial combat it is envisaged the Eurofighter will be engaged?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am delighted to hear of my noble friend's gallant war record. I point out to him that the majority of pilots, however able they are, spend most of their time on the ground. This fighter will have the traditional dogfight capability. I do not believe that I am allowed to disclose how many Gs it will pull, but it is also hoped that it will be armed with a beyond visual range air-to-air missile to enable it to engage in very long distance aerial combat.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, can the noble Lord inform the House of the likely in-service date of the Eurofighter? Further, can he inform the House when he expects the Tornado production lines to cease?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, the Government hope for the in-service date of 2001. We are not completely out of the woods because the German authorities have yet to complete their parliamentary arrangements to see that it is approved. Approval of the aircraft will be put to the Bundestag either early in the autumn as a single item or may be wrapped up in a budget proposal later in the year. Until we have overcome that hurdle, we cannot be finally confident that the project will succeed. However,
824
we are far more optimistic than we have been up until now. As to when the Tornado production line will be closed, I am afraid that the noble Lord takes me a little wider than the original Question. I shall find out the answer and let him have it.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind the importance of this project in terms of national defence, is my noble friend aware that in its very early stages the project was about to be cancelled and the only factor that prevented it was the very vociferous campaign by the trade unions involved to ensure that it continued? Will my noble friend join with me in paying tribute to their foresight in their campaign to satisfy this essential defence equipment need?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am always happy to pay tribute to my friends in the trades union movement, who show great foresight in many matters.
Earl Howe: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Government intend to order no fewer than 232 Eurofighter aircraft, as was the policy of the previous government? Can the Minister also say what the prospects are of export orders for this excellent aircraft and what countries have expressed an interest in it?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, it is the Government's intention to order 232 of these aircraft, as was the proposal of the previous government. So far as concerns export orders, quite firm inquiries have been received from major Middle Eastern countries that have shown an interest in it. I am afraid that I cannot disclose their names at this stage.

Imperial College Bill
3.6 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed.

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

Structural and Cohesion Funds: ECC Report
3.8 p.m.
Lord Barnettrose to move, That this House take note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Reducing Disparities within the European Union: the Effectiveness of the Structural and Cohesion Funds (11th Report, Session 1996–97, HL Paper 64).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I begin by thanking the Members of the committee for the tremendous job that they have done in the preparation of this report. I have been very fortunate in having such an excellent committee. I also thank the clerk to the committee,

825
John Goddard, together with our special adviser, Professor fain Begg, who have helped the committee tremendously. I also mention the witnesses, who provided excellent evidence which is in one of the volumes of the report. I hope that this report will be recognised as a most useful document both here and abroad.
I also take this opportunity of welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, our maiden speaker this afternoon. To listen to him again will take me back to old days. I am sure that the House will also be glad to hear him. I also take the opportunity to welcome my noble friend Lord Simon, who is to reply to this debate. He has an unusual dual capacity in the sense that he gave evidence to the committee in relation to a previous report, not this one, and now he speaks as a Minister. I hope that he will give evidence to us of a character that equals the excellent evidence that he provided previously.
Finally by way of introduction, let me say that we received a letter from the President of the Board of Trade to which I shall refer on a number of occasions during my remarks.
The Motion on the Order Paper, which it is as well to read, refers to a report of the European Communities Committee on Reducing Disparities within the European Union: the Effectiveness of the Structural and Cohesion Funds. That may seem a dull and lengthy title, but the issue is anything but dull. We are debating a very important issue.
The committee tried to make the report a little livelier in the sense that we gave it an unusual cover for the House of Lords; that is, red with technicolour photographs. I notice that even the Chancellor of the Exchequer has changed this year's Red Book; only the back cover is red, the front being in a different colour, with photographs. I am glad to see that someone is taking note of what we have done with our report!
The structural funds were reformed in 1988 when their amount was doubled following the adoption of the Single European Act in 1987. The reforms followed four principles: concentration, programming, additionality and partnership. They are explained in our report and I shall touch on them briefly. The funds under discussion are very important because they cover some one-third of the European Union budget. I emphasise, and I hope that everyone understands, that we are not talking simply about regional disparities between countries but about the richest and poorest regions within all countries.
Apart from Holland, sadly, the disparities between and within member states have not improved a great deal. We saw something of what has and has not been done. We visited two countries, Greece and Ireland, with widely different success stories. We also visited Glasgow and Cornwall and saw the benefits that have occurred.
I welcome to the debate my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas, who no doubt will speak about Wales. I apologise in advance for the fact that the committee did not visit Wales. I can assure my noble
826
friend that that was due only to the shortage of time. We would have loved to have visited Wales, too. However, I am pleased to note that between 1994 and 1999 Wales will have received about £0.5 billion from the structural funds, which I am sure he will tell us is nothing like sufficient. Indeed, I see that he agrees.
In addition, the report calls for radical reform to reduce bureaucracy and delay and perhaps the nonsense of some of the small grants that are made. I am sure that the recipients of those small grants were pleased to receive them. But it is important that the grants are made not because, as was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, "We want some of our money back"—that is precisely the wrong reason to make structural grants—but because they are effective and economically sensible. They should not be made because of political expediency—and I do not mean "political" in the party political sense.
I recognise that that is a generalisation of the kind that departments like; and I know that the Department of Trade and Industry loves generalisations. Therefore, I shall be specific in my remarks. In the time available I can refer to only a few of our many recommendations, but I shall seek clarification from the Minister on some of the general views expressed by my right honourable and old friend the President of the Board of Trade.
The central point in my right honourable friend's letter was that the "debate" on the future of the funds is at an "early stage"—and that is only the debate! No doubt that is factually correct, but it is somewhat depressing. I assume that it means that it will be a long time before anything happens. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can reassure us that we shall not have to wait a long time before something sensible is done about the structural and cohesion funds.
My right honourable friend concentrated on our recommendations affecting the funds within the UK and therefore I shall do the same. However, any reading of our report will show that we covered many other areas, too. The first recommendation to which I shall refer is contained in paragraph 116 relating to devolution to regional level. That should be carried further to maximise the potential benefits of structural funds. That must be right. Indeed, it almost certainly is right because my right honourable friend stated in her letter that it was in line with government policy. That statement was unqualified, so naturally I assume that the recommendation is right. No doubt the Minister will confirm that.
In paragraphs 115 and 125 we recommend that programmes should not be imposed but should be the result of partnership between national and sub-national bodies, down to local communities. Indeed, we saw examples of that in Scotland, where the partnership between the Scottish Office and some of the local community bodies was excellent and very much appreciated locally.
Again, the letter from the President of the Board of Trade informs us that not only is that in line with government policy but it is welcomed. I am delighted to hear that and assume that the department agrees. I hope that that is not a rash assumption. However, there is a

827
reference in her letter to "strategies". That is a good word because it can mean much and it can mean nothing. She says that the department's policies are drawn up by English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland offices.
Perhaps I may ask my noble friend the Minister a simple question. As regards Scotland, will he confirm that the Barnett formula is sacrosanct? Of course, everyone will know what the Barnett formula is. I devised it some 20 years ago and I know that the Minister will be aware of it. I understand that there has been some little dispute in government about it, but I have no doubt that he will be able to confirm that the formula is sacrosanct. He may wish to use another form of words, but I hope that his confirmation will be unqualified.
The next recommendation to which I wish to refer is contained in paragraphs 135 and 136. It is also referred to in paragraphs 51 and 52. We believe that the funds are spread far too thinly. Approximately 51 per cent. of the EU population (which the committee gathered from the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, is about 400 million)— I am mistaken; perhaps it is a little more—live in areas which are eligible for assistance. Commissioner Wulf-Mathies told us that it would be better geographically for the spread to cover no more than 35 per cent. of the population, which is big enough. However, my right honourable friend's letter tells of the difficulties. It seems that we can identify areas of particular need but other countries cannot. My right honourable friend must have overlooked the question that we posed. I assume that she overlooked it only because she did not tell us whether she agreed with the Commission that the figure should be reduced to something like 35 per cent. I look forward to my noble friend the Minister telling us that he and the department agree that the figure should be nearer 35 per cent. than 51 per cent.
In paragraph 117 we recommend an important role for local authority elected members. I am glad to see in my right honourable friend's letter that that policy is "being implemented". It is marvellous to read that comment about a recommendation. It does not always happen and I shall believe it when I see it.
In paragraph 119 and 120, we strongly support the concept of additionality. I am glad to see again from the letter that the Government support that policy, but they add, "as a general principle". I hope it is not just my old suspicious mind—
Lord Bruce of Donington: Hear, hear!
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am sorry to hear my noble friend say "Hear, hear"! When I hear the words "in principle", I worry and my natural suspicions are aroused. When the Minister replies, perhaps he will remove any fears or suspicions which I might remotely have.
But, all in all, the report makes clear that there is urgent need for reform of the funds. In particular, there is a need for a radical reform of the administration not least in relation to delays of payment—something we
828
met on our visit. The letter from the President of the Board of Trade refers not to reviews, which we have heard a great deal about, but to a new formulation: it will be continually reviewed. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that that means something. I hope that it means that the review will be in the direction that we as a committee have strongly recommended.
As regards the delays, the letter explains how the Commission makes payment. We are aware of that. Indeed, anybody reading our report will be aware of it. I see that my noble friend Lord Bruce smiles and that he is aware of it. The letter tells us that once a claim is properly made out, payment is made "as soon as possible". It goes on to say:
"as a general rule, within three months … [they] seek to minimise delay wherever possible".
I see the noble Baroness smiling. She may have drafted it while she was in government. I hope that the delay will be kept to the minimum because we met a number of small firms which were hit very hard by the delay. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that there has already been evidence of improvement in the speed at which payments are made, because delay hurts companies large and small but it hurts small companies in particular.
But there is one major issue which will arise in a few days' time; that is, about the way ahead for the Community. President Santer is to publish the Commission's Agenda 2000 on 16th July, which is in two days' time, and it will eventually be debated fully in Luxembourg in December and no doubt beyond that, when we have the Presidency in the first half of next year. Perhaps the Minister will tell us when we can expect to see the Government's response to that. I suppose that it is asking too much to expect the Minister to tell us what will be in that response, but he may be able to tell us when we may hope to see the response to what is likely to be one of the most important documents to come out of the Commission for a long time.
One does not have to take a pro- or anti-European Union line on matters of regional policy. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington will understand that. My noble friend is not even smiling. The European Union policy rightly seeks to strengthen the economy and social cohesion—
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most anxious to have articulated clearly the question which the noble Lord wishes me to answer in due course. If he wishes me to answer something, then I can give it my most serious attention.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am sorry that I said anything at all because the last thing in the world that I want is to lengthen my noble friend's speech, which I hope may be briefer than usual.
As I was saying, one does not have to be either pro-or anti-European Union to want to see regional policies succeed. I see that my noble friend almost agrees with me—or the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, does in any event. But European Union policy, rightly in the view of the

829
committee and certainly in my view, seeks to strengthen economic and social cohesion within the Community in view of the significant regional disparities of which I have already spoken. These policies are a key instrument to assist the less prosperous regions to adapt to the single market. The main aim is to create jobs and to ensure balance and sustainable development. I hope that our report will make a small contribution to that objective. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House take note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Reducing Disparities within the European Union: the Effectiveness of the Structural and Cohesion Funds (11th Report, Session 1996–97, HL Paper 64).—(Lord Barnett.)
3.25 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the mover of the Motion concerning European Union disparities, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, whom I remember well and whom I admired in his previous incarnation, even though we sometimes disagreed.
As this is my maiden speech, your Lordships will forgive me for quoting very briefly an extract from a book written by David Cannadine, the well-known social historian, which a friend of mine sent to me recently. David Cannadine wrote that earlier this century,
"there existed a widespread feeling that Peers were raised above the scrimmage of public life [and] beyond the reach of the temptations that beset the ordinary man".
I look forward to learning more about the continuing truth of those comments in the years ahead.
I thought that the report written by the Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, was extremely clear and easy to read. There was a pleasant simplicity of language in it. As an avid follower of matters European, I believe that this is the very first report that I have read outside those produced by the European Commission on the subject of the effectiveness of the structural and cohesion funds. We hear a great deal about the common agricultural policy and fishing quotas, but I have never read anything of this standard on that subject.
As the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said, it is an extraordinarily important issue. Europe gets bigger all the time. That may be geographically correct but in terms of the European Union and its significance, it certainly is correct. The question of the enlargement of the European Union looms ahead. It was not settled at all at the Amsterdam Summit but we face the prospect that within five years, we may have a European Union with 20 or 21 members and five or 10 years later, a European Union with 25 or 26 members. All the newcomers are likely to have a gross domestic product per capita significantly below the average of the current 15. Therefore— and I think that this is the underlying message of the report— the question of the funds needed to diminish the disparity between the newcomers and the Cohesion Four and the other members looms very large indeed in people's worries about the future of the European Union.
830
I remember visiting the Mani at the southern end of the Peloponnese some years ago about whom Paddy Leigh-Fermor wrote in a brilliant book. How could that part of Greece, which still appears totally medieval, be at the same economic level as Frankfurt, Bonn or Brussels?
One of the main concerns, therefore, about joining economic and monetary union is whether the funds required for coherent and stable development throughout the democratic countries of Europe, as the important treaties pledge, are simply too great and whether the flow of funds to achieve that objective from north to south could cause disturbance, leading in the end even to social insecurity.
I add in parenthesis that I am not nearly as worried about economic and monetary union as are other noble Lords. I regard it as an inevitable outcome of the completion of the single market. It is a necessary means for Europe to stay competitive with Japan, China, India and Brazil in the next century. Furthermore, there will be significant competitive advantages for Europe and for the United Kingdom as a result of moving to a single currency. I suspect that five years after moving to a single currency we might look back and wonder what all the fuss was about. But that, of course, is a matter for another debate. I fully understand the concern that after economic and monetary union, the long-term adherence to the Maastricht criteria could cause an unacceptable flow of EU funds, particularly to the central and east European countries.
Therefore, I find it very satisfactory that this report shows how well, by and large and up until now, the problem has been dealt with in relation to the Cohesion Four—that is, Portugal, Spain, Greece and Ireland. There are of course problems involved. It would be impossible for there to be no problems and the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, touched on some of them; for example, delays in payment, insufficient involvement at the lower levels of the Community, local councils, and insufficient involvement in decision making. However, in the main, the result has been extremely good.
I note from paragraph 58 of the report that:
"In the last ten years the four poorest countries of the EU, the Cohesion Four, have raised their GDP per capita from 66 per cent. to 74 per cent. of the EU15 average".
The commissioner responsible, Commissioner Wulf-Mathies, said that,
"the performance of the Union's four poorest countries was 'truly remarkable by any international or historic standards'".
I do not believe that any of us would actually disagree with that remark. The figures are indeed very remarkable. The commissioner then went to say that about 40 per cent. of the benefit of the purchasing power which flowed back from the Cohesion Four returned to the,
"other richer Member States in the form of purchase of know-how and capital equipment".
That is almost the creation of a virtuous circle: dare one say, quoting the phrase from Dodo in Alice in Wonderland (which is quoted elsewhere in the report), "All must have prizes". As we all know, life is not like that. From that, at this early stage, it seems that to date the cohesion and structural funds are working extremely well.

831
However, there is one small point upon which I disagree with the noble Lord and his committee; namely, the statement in paragraph 95 that, in stressing the "devolution of real autonomy" down to a lower level in the United Kingdom, the government offices of the region should be used. From my previous experience as a Member of Parliament, I have to say that I found the government office for the south-east region to be absolutely useless. I do not know why it was formed. Indeed, when it was formed I wrote to the Minister involved, a good friend of mine, and asked him why. I saw that in its powers it was not only involved in planning applications but also that it was to be involved in tree preservation orders.
That seemed to be an extraordinary addition of yet another layer of bureaucracy and one which would be more likely to get in the way between the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and local authorities than to achieve any real objective. I have to tell your Lordships that if this is to be the vehicle for creating greater local autonomy in such an important area, much will have to be done to improve the powers, the competence and the knowledge of the government offices for the region before they are used any more.
In conclusion, I should point out that in paragraph 100 of the report, Commissioner Wulf-Mathies, refers to the hope that in the next programme period the figure for national GDP going to the European Community budget would remain constant at 1.2 per cent. of GDP; but that, nonetheless, there would be a 30 per cent. increase in the funds available for structural and cohesion policies and, of that, there would be a sevenfold increase in European Union support for the central and east European countries. I would be very grateful if the Minister would confirm whether or not those figures are correct. If they are correct, they are remarkably encouraging. Moreover, if they work out, I believe that the Phare programme which is responsible will truly be acting as a lighthouse for raising standards in former Communist countries.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, it very happily falls to me on behalf of the whole House warmly to congratulate the noble Lord on his maiden speech. It is a particularly pleasant duty to be able to welcome another member of the class of '74—indeed, a member of the class of February 1974—into this House. The noble Lord comes here as someone who has had substantial experience in another place as a Minister for a number of departments. For example, he served in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in the Whips' Office and, more particularly, as Minister for the Arts. That fact came out very clearly in the noble Lord's speech.
There may not be all that many Members of another place who find time to read or write books, but we have here an acquisition to this House of a noble Lord who is also a writer and that is to be welcomed. Indeed, the noble Lord's literary references in his speech today were very well received, as I am sure such references will be in the future. The noble Lord made one controversial point on devolution, but I shall not argue with him today. I believe he said that perhaps the government offices of the region
832
are not strong enough as yet to deliver the liberation of the English regions. If that is the case, I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord.
I have just two themes to pursue today. I am grateful for the opportunity to do so provided by this most excellently produced and excellently designed report by my noble friend's committee. The fact is that we have here a report which enables us to debate the issues, so to speak, beforehand—that is, before we have the announcements from the Commission which, as my noble friend said, are due to be published on Wednesday. We cannot anticipate what is in Agenda 2000, but I assume that the Minister who is to respond to the debate is aware of what is likely to be said on Wednesday in all his capacities; that is, both his previous and his present capacity.
It is essential that we in this House play our part in this debate on regional policy. I should like to do so briefly by underlining two themes, one of which has already been dealt with quite extensively, and one which has not perhaps had enough emphasis placed upon it as yet. I have in mind the regionalisation of regional policy and the greening of the regional policy of structural funds. It may seem rather strange to emphasise the regionalisation of regional policy, but my noble friend did so very effectively—as, indeed, does the report—in referring to the need not to have just a "top down" approach or just a "bottom up" approach—I refer particularly to paragraph 86 of the report—but also that it was essential for the programmes to be,
"the result of partnership between national and sub-national bodies, down to local communities, at the planning stage as well as at the implementation stage".
The endorsement that we have from the President of the Board of Trade of that line is warmly to be welcomed—an endorsement which we are not quite used to having from government, but it is a pleasure to have it now.
That theme was present in the report and in the minutes of evidence which, as always with such committees, was a very valuable resource. I hope that I pronounce the following name properly, Signor Arias Cañete—indeed, I understand from my noble friend that I have; I always like to get these linguistic matters right, and I am always pleased to receive advice. He was the chair of the Regional Policy Committee of the European Parliament and emphasised the importance of concentrating on the geographical issue involved in regional policy and the fact that, as he said in evidence:
"It should be a general principle that the thematic and geographical concentration policy should be totally applied to all countries, and all regions, whether they are rich or poor".
I know that my noble friend Lord Desai will pursue the matter further, because that was his major line of questioning. However, that is of particular relevance to the United Kingdom and to the Welsh economy. I shall not dwell at length on the Welsh economy as I shall have plenty of opportunity to do so.
Structural changes have taken place very successfully in the restructuring of the former coal and steel communities and the existing very competitive steel industry located in Wales. It is important to recognise the contribution made by the restructuring of old industrial areas emerging from Objective 2 and the need for that to continue for all similarly placed regions within the

833
Community, especially as we look to the extension of the Community eastwards through enlargement. It is essential that we have that urban old industrial dimension of policy, but it is equally important that the regions designated should be sufficiently specific so that where we use targets such as 75 per cent. of GDP in Objective I, that aid should be available even when there are sub-regions within more successful regions where the level of performance has not risen to the level of the region as a whole. That issue is important as we look to inward investment in south-east Wales and in north-east Wales and the position of the western seaboard which is benefiting from the INTERREG programmes and other Community initiatives.
It is important that we are able to have a sub-regional structure within regions that is able to deliver the benefits of the structural funds directly to the areas which need them. I am certain that the Minister will be able to comment on that because this is not just a matter for the European Union but also for member state governments. We shall want assurances that this Government, in their dealings with the European Union in the debate on the future of regional policy, will ensure that those areas within regions, such as the western seaboard of Wales—where I live and which I have represented in another place—continue to have recognition. If possible, they should be given further recognition because, as the Minister is aware, the lack of Objective 1 status under the present system in Wales has been a cause of great concern. That needs to be looked at most carefully as regards the new structure.
We have already heard about the emphasis on the decentralisation of partnerships and the concept that local communities are able to respond much more effectively to support through structural funds when they have an impact on planning. Robert Moreland, the chairman of the section for regional development and town and country planning in the Economic and Social Committee has written an excellent memorandum in which he emphasises,
"A sense of enthusiasm from Member States but in particular from the local community"
as being important to make a programme a success. We cannot over-emphasise that. We should consider recent successful initiatives. One such is the regional technology plan—although that was a Community initiative and therefore signalled from the centre, as it were—which has worked, certainly in the case of the Welsh economy, because it has been taken up by partnership institutions and by public sector bodies such as the Welsh Development Agency, local authorities, the academic sector and so on.
Therefore we cannot over-emphasise the importance of decentralisation in that context. That applies not just to regions or to sub-regions but also to local authorities themselves. I believe Sr Cañete pointed out that even where there are autonomous governments within member states, as in Spain, there is discussion in Spain as to whether local authorities should be associated with that matter. There is an ongoing fight between the different bodies of governing states. The regional policy committee of the Parliament has considered this issue and has
834
attempted, in the context of regional policy, to define the principle of subsidiarity, or at least to ask for a definition. However, I notice that the committee was told in evidence that there had not yet been a decision on whether the whole of the Parliament could agree on a definition of subsidiarity. Clearly they see the importance of applying the principle of subsidiarity to the whole area of regional policy.
It is also essential to apply the principle of sustainable development and the greening of policy. The concerns expressed in evidence by CPRE, I of course endorse as a member of CPRW. I also endorse the detailed evidence put forward by the RSPB itself and on behalf of Birdlife International. I know that the RSPB is a regular contributor of evidence to our Select Committees, but the evidence is perhaps more valuable for that as the organisation is aware of the detailed activities of our committees. That evidence is always welcome. In its emphasis on the need for sustainable development criteria within the structural funds, CPRE has emphasised what has been a serious failure of the operation of policies in the past. It draws attention to the importance of the Cork conference on rural Europe and the need for integration and the role of green tourism in creating employment which is also sustainable in environmental terms.
I warmly welcome the report. I welcome the initial Government response and I look forward to the UK continuing to play a constructive role in the debate on the structural funds. I hope—although this may be a fond hope—that noble Lords on all sides of the House may also play such a constructive role.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I add warm words of congratulation to the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, on his maiden speech. When we are treated to the eloquence and wisdom of an "old pro" coming to your Lordships' House from another place it is always a matter for great celebration. We look forward to many interventions from him.
Once again it is a great pleasure to participate in an inquiry under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Barnett. As usual, he guided us with his wisdom, wit and well-known skills through a long and complex study. I thank my noble friend for his eloquent and persuasive introduction to this debate.
The committee's recommendations fall into nine main subject areas. I wish to focus mainly on the three that look to the years ahead: the basis for reform; the implications of EMU and of the enlargement of the European Union; and the distribution of funds within the EU after 1999. Before doing so, I record my appreciation of the response of Her Majesty's Government to this report, as set out by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in her letter of 30th June, to which my noble friend Lord Barnett and others have already referred. On the whole, I found it positive. I shall mention three points which struck me as particularly encouraging.
First, I welcome the assurance that in line with our recommendation in the report, and indeed in line with the Government's commitment to lifelong learning, the Government will seek early adoption of an Objective 4

835
programme for this country. A programme of this kind to help adapt the workforce to industrial change is long overdue. I fully share the hope expressed in our report that this programme can be promptly formulated, agreed with the Commission, and implemented.
Secondly, I am encouraged that in accordance with their manifesto pledge Her Majesty's Government will pursue tough action on unfair state aids which harm enterprises in other EU member states. This accords entirely with the view expressed in our report. I am sure that the Government will use their enhanced influence in the Industry Council and the Commission to achieve that end. We await with great interest the report on this issue which the Industry Council has called on the Commission to produce.
Thirdly, I warmly welcome the Government's pledge to continue reviewing how best structural funds administration can be improved throughout the United Kingdom. I must, however, take issue with the view advanced in the Government's written response that delays in project approvals and payments are largely the consequence of current structural fund regulations, and that our contrary view in the report had resulted from our making comparisons with the Irish experience with the cohesion fund which was not relevant to our own experience with structural funds. With the deepest respect, the views formed by the committee were based on evidence from United Kingdom users of structural funds who found the roots of the problems a lot closer to home than Brussels. And this seems to have been the view also of the European Parliament's report on the use of structural funds in the UK published just three months ago. While that report was in the making, our committee took oral evidence from its rapporteur, Arlene McCarthy, MEP, and she was even then able to hint broadly at what her committee had learnt in the hearings it had held right across the United Kingdom.
In the words of the European Parliament's eventual report,
"Major problems exist in the UK government's management of the Structural Funds".
and it cites, inter alia, Government failures to act once projects have been approved, the delays often caused by inadequate staffing in government offices, and so on. I could go on but that is not the report that your Lordships are discussing this afternoon. Suffice it for me to suggest, with respect to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, that her response to our report's findings on this matter of delays and our consequent recommendations in paragraph 96 tend to let the previous Government undeservedly off the hook. That is the only real quibble I have with what I otherwise regard as being a very encouraging government response to our report.
I now turn briefly to the reform of the funds, the implications of EMU and EU enlargement, and the distribution of funds within the EU after 1999. I shall touch on only a few aspects which have been of particular interest to me.
In one respect the debate comes two days too soon. It would have been interesting to have known what Commission President Santer had said rather than relying on press accounts today of what he is expected to say
836
when he makes his Agenda 2000 statement this Wednesday—it was referred to by my noble friend Lord Barnett—when he presents the Commission's opinion on the preparedness for membership of the 10 applicant countries as well as the outline financial perspectives for the EU budget covering 1999 to 2004. It appears that the Commission is recommending that negotiations be opened with Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia and Estonia, with Cyprus already on course.
Agenda 2000 will also set out the Commission's ideas on reforming the CAP and the structural funds. What the Commission tells us this Wednesday is, of course, only the beginning of a long process of discussion and negotiation involving both the Council and the European Parliament. We hope, therefore, that our report's recommendations on these matters will be helpful to the Government in the process.
Noble Lords will note that in paragraph 93 our report urges the swift preparation by the Commission of detailed proposals for reform of the funds if new structures and regulations are to be agreed and in place in time to avoid delay in drawing up the programmes to be implemented post-1999. I trust that the Government share our sense of urgency and that they will use Britain's presidency in the first half of 1998 to push matters along.
As to what those reforms should be, our report puts forward a number of proposals in paragraphs 94 to 97. I shall here touch on only one: the recommendation that the number of structural funds should be reduced with perhaps one fund for human resource development and one for all other structural purposes. I signed up to this consensus in the committee but with some doubts lingering in my mind largely fuelled by a quite telling point made by Commissioner Wulf-Mathies when we discussed this issue with her last January.
The point she seemed to be making was that reducing the number of funds was less important than making sure that the basic rules, conditions and procedures for the different funds were the same. A reduction in the number of funds would not of itself reduce the range and variety of problems to be addressed. I also gained the impression from other oral witnesses that the frustrations felt in recipient countries had less to do with the number of funds and more to do with the irritating diversity of procedures and regulations that distinguished one fund from another. Commissioner Wulf-Mathies' plea for harmonisation would address that problem while safeguarding the specificity of the role of each fund.
Nonetheless, the case for simply reducing the number of funds is attractive to many. I ask only that in considering whatever the Commission's proposals are in this regard, Her Majesty's Government bear in mind that a reduction in the number of funds without any complementary harmonisation of rules, conditions and procedures among the lesser number of funds that will emerge from the reform will provide little added value.
I come now to the implications for the funds of eventual European and monetary union and the enlargement of the membership of the European Union. With respect to EMU, I have two points to make. We are aware that with the advent of EMU, and against a background of strict and

837
sustainable convergence, some member states might want to increase their domestic income transfer payments to adversely affected regions. But our report, quite rightly, argues against this being used as a justification for seeking additional EU funds for investment in structural development, even though EMU may make structural change more urgent. If that sounds half-hearted, it is at least consistent with what the committee wrote in its June 1996 report to your Lordships on an EMU of "ins" and "outs". I think that it is an important point of policy. When it comes to allocating scarce EU funds in the years after 1999, helping new members of an EU enlarged to the east and the south must take priority over relieving fiscal pressures on the older member states of the north and the west.
My second point on the impact of EMU relates to the committee's recommendation that cohesion fund assistance should be tapered off when a beneficiary country joins EMU. I find this logical because the cohesion fund's stated purpose is to assist convergence towards the criteria for entry into the single currency zone. However, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will vigorously encourage the European Investment Bank to help meet the continuing needs of the four existing cohesion countries, whether they are in EMU or waiting, in particular with their infrastructure, as the main focus of the cohesion fund gradually switches to central and eastern Europe.
That brings me to the impact of enlargement. It is sobering to recall that it took nine years to negotiate the entry of Portugal and Spain in 1986—two countries which were relatively more prosperous than today's applicants. No one expects these new negotiations to take as long as that since the Europe agreements have provided a head start. But they will still be long and arduous, and it is important that this is not used as an excuse for delaying the implementation of agreed reforms of the CAP and the structural funds, which urgently need reform irrespective of any enlargement.
My second point on enlargement is this. As the Economist pointed out last week, there is a danger that squabbles among the EU 15 over who gains and who loses from the reforms that must precede enlargement risk turning public opinion against the whole enlargement project. Those squabbles can be largely avoided if, as we point out in the report, the Commission provides convincing evidence to back the theory advanced by Commissioner Wulf-Mathies that the new members can be accommodated with structural funds, and that funds exceeding existing levels will still be available for programmes within the Community of 15, without any additional burden falling on Europe's taxpayers.
As Commissioner Wulf-Mathies stressed in her evidence to us, enlargement will mean a gradual inclusion and a gradual integration of new members into structural funding. The quality of their central and, importantly, regional and local economic administrations, and their capacity for matching funding (a serious problem in countries also coping with the costs of NATO enlargement), are generally not yet of a standard to ensure a high absorptive capacity. In our report we say that we
838
would be surprised if it were to exceed 4 per cent. of GDP for even the best performing economies in central and eastern Europe.
With that in mind, I find that the hypothesis advanced by Commissioner Wulf-Mathies last August to the Bundestag's European Affairs Committee quite compelling. If today's press reports are accurate, what she said a year ago appears to have been broadly confirmed as regards the underlying assumptions in Agenda 2000. If the assumptions and calculations are correct, this should pre-empt a great deal of unnecessary scaremongering about the costs of enlargement and the future of the funds.
I come finally to the question of the distribution of the funds within the EU after 1999. The report before your Lordships makes some important recommendations in paragraphs 105 to 110. They address central issues such as the need for greater geographical concentration and a better spatial definition of eligible regions. We know that there has been deep division in the Commission over how to reconcile the competing claims of declining urban areas and struggling rural communities with Commissioners Wulf-Mathies and Fischler doggedly fighting their respective corners. One can only hope that a fair compromise has been, or soon will be, reached.
The most important of the recommendations on post-1999 distribution in the report is that there should be a vigorous pruning of the themes or objectives that are eligible for funding. I am tempted to call this the "Lord Dahrendorf seaside bandstand test". That reference may seem a little obscure to some noble Lords; however, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, knows to what I refer.
As our report urges, the overriding considerations when determining eligibility for projects should be: increasing competitiveness; increasing sustainable employment; and adjusting skills to meet changing labour market needs. In the past too much funding has failed to pass these tests. Now is the time to get it right.
The bottom line of the report is that the funds which have overall made a positive impact have survived rather well the tests of times past but will not in their present form survive the tests of times to come. I believe that Her Majesty's Government, on the basis of the response we have had so far to the report, will use their new-found influence in the European Union's councils, particularly during their presidency next year, to help ensure the kinds of reforms to these funds which historical experience and current realities now demand.
4 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to the skill of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, which was indeed quite remarkable. The 12 members of the committee were almost as individually disparate as the 15 members of the European Union, yet he managed to control, cajole and encourage us in a most effective way. The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, put it much more elegantly, referring to his wisdom, wit and well-known skills. "Masterly" is the word. As an aside, he would do wonders in Brussels, bringing those self-same attributes to bear on the bureaucracy and making it more effective—the word "effective" is uppermost in our minds today.

839
However, we should miss the noble Lord's deft chairmanship of this excellent committee. (I can now describe the committee as such being no longer a member of it.)
Today we are taking note of the 11th report of the European Communities Select Committee on reducing disparities within the EU: the effectiveness of the structural and cohesion funds. Certainly the funds have been effective. But two questions remain in my mind: first, how effective; and, secondly, could they be more effective?
It is difficult to assess how effective the funds have been. When taking evidence one always has to discount the fact that by the very nature of the inquiry witnesses in receipt of funds wish to put the best possible case forward. An inquiry conducted by the representatives of a country which is widely regarded as the least enthusiastic member of the European Union, and one which receives little or no funding by comparison with either Greece or Ireland, must have resulted in a determined effort to convert us!
Witnesses from the Commission and witnesses in the member states or regions of this country in receipt of funds were universally supportive of the funds and were pretty reluctant to envisage a situation in which the funds would be diluted to take account of enlargement; withdrawn because criteria for receipt of the funds had been overtaken, as in the case of Ireland; or changed in concept.
We received masses of supporting evidence to suggest that, without the funds, economic progress and job creation would not have been as "relatively" successful. However, I was left with a lingering doubt as to whether the use of the funds was as effective as it either could be or was claimed to be.
That doubt is founded upon the universal inability to specify exactly how many jobs have been created. That should be a relatively easy calculation to make, but it seems to be outwith the competence of the Commission at present. A subsidiary doubt refers to the "quality" of the jobs created. It was exceedingly difficult to assess whether the jobs created were long-term, skill-enhancing jobs or just temporary, part-time jobs. In one notable instance funds were used to transform a hobby into a business for people who were quite happy to continue with their hobbies but saw an opportunity to make "pin money" out of them because they were in a "funds" area. In all conscience, that is surely not the intention of European taxpayers and does not meet the objective of,
"reducing disparities within the European Union".
Reducing disparities is the aim of the funds, and every single one of us would wish to do just that. In the absence of any other bright ideas, I guess that they are certainly better than nothing. However, since they are funded out of taxpayers' money, accountability is a prerequisite. I fear, as in many other cases regarding EU measures, accountability is not necessarily uppermost in the minds of the recipients of the funds—and probably not in the minds of the Commission doling out the funds.
Here I have a difficulty, and it relates to my second question: could they be more effective? If we insist on putting in place yet more administrative arrangements to ensure greater accountability—for example, post-grant
840
audits and the like—more and more of the EU moneys will be spent on bureaucracy and administration. One has only to let one's imagination run a little wild to arrive at the total cost of what has been called the "Lord Dahrendorf Padstow bandstand", which I am sure was well in excess of the £15,000 funding received. I am sure the noble Lord will tell the House what this bandstand is all about.
Everywhere we went we heard of "administrative nightmares" at worst, "hiccups" at best, in dealing with the Commission and with national governments from the petitioners for funds. I turn again to my second question: could the fund be more effective? In Ireland they seem to have the problem substantially licked. Networking by senior civil servants (who to a man—and I say the word advisedly—unfortunately were enthusiastic EU supporters, and most seemed to have "done time" in Brussels) was remarkable in its ability to get funds sanctioned within hours in some cases, while the UK experience was that it usually took many months.
My personal recommendation is for our civil servants to become much more adept at networking in Brussels and with Brussels. I should be most interested to hear whether the Minister has any radical ideas on how to achieve that. Several years ago I raised many hackles by suggesting that spending some time at the Commission should be a pre-condition for promotion to the level of Deputy Secretary in the UK Civil Service. I shall not elaborate on that but at some time, someone, somewhere might consider it.
There is a big requirement to cut red tape. But once more it must be asked: is it possible so to do and still safeguard taxpayers' moneys? We spent much time, officially and unofficially, chewing over this one. I fear that our combined inputs to the discussion did not yield so great a result. Diagnosis is so much easier than effecting a cure.
In our visits to Strathclyde and Cornwall I realised that sometimes the word "effectiveness" does not necessarily mean the effective use of funds to achieve an objective. Effectiveness is not always quantifiable in financial terms. I came to believe that the very existence of the funds has actually, in some cases, energised local groups to do some strategic thinking and local economic planning with the objective of seeing whether they might be able to build up a business case and win funds for it. There have been cases which were not successful in attracting the funds for which they applied yet the people were so energised that they decided to go ahead anyway. Effectiveness of the structural and cohesion funds is not judged by the catalyst effect that they have—perhaps it should be.
Debate on the subject of EU moneys being used to reduce disparities will continue; it will run and run. Future enlargement of the European Union will bring the subject to the fore year after year. One of the real achievements of the committee in undertaking this investigation was to produce a report which states clearly and in simple language the issues, the pitfalls which should be guarded against, while giving the best résumé to date of a complicated concept and an emotional subject.

841
I am sure that some disparities have been reduced. I am sure that the use of the funds, together with the "share of voice" of strong European Union supporters, have been in part responsible. I also believe that this report is in the category of "required reading" for anyone involved with, or interested in, the future of the European Union.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, it was a great pleasure to have the opportunity of listening to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, whose reputation in ministerial office in another place is well known to me. I look forward to his future participation in debates, particularly where they involve finance and even more so where the noble Lord's views may conflict with those of the former Financial Secretary sitting on my right.
It is also a great pleasure for me to see for the first time the noble Lord, Lord Shaw of Northstead, on the Front Bench opposite. He and I had many pleasant encounters in the European Parliament when we were both involved in a number of joint enterprises. I look forward to his participation in the debate.
I now turn to the report. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Barnett took advantage of the occasion to refer to the printing of the document. As one who was responsible for the most rigorous enforcement of the strictest financial disciplines, I am at a loss to understand why we suddenly have a House of Lords Select Committee report with a glossy cover, in colour and printed on expensive glossy paper. I must express some surprise that the report has not been produced at the most economic price. The quality of a Select Committee report lies, as I am sure noble Lords agree, not so much in its adornments, colours and dressing-up but in its contents.
Having read the report, I must confess to some disappointment. We are dealing with an endeavour to redress differences that have either always existed in one form or another or developed between various member states of the European Union. As I understood it, the original regional development funds were initiated for that purpose. The current report deals with cohesion funds, which do not concern us domestically but concern only four countries: Spain, Portugal, Greece and one other whose name escapes me for the moment—Ireland, of course.
As chairman of the European Parliament's Regional Committee, I had some experience of the European Community's endeavours to deal with these imbalances. Those endeavours were not entirely successful, at any rate on the basis on which they were originally undertaken. Year after year in the European Parliament we have been forced to acknowledge that, taken globally, they have not been successful at all.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that the country whose name he had difficulty recollecting leapt from 60 per cent. of the per capita GNP of the European Community in 1975,
842
when it entered it, to 94 per cent. last year, by any standards as remarkable an achievement as those of the outstanding little Asian tigers?
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I can only refer to the report itself in order to illustrate the point. By and large, the results have not been impressive. I refer to paragraph 59 of the report at pages 18 and 19, where it is stated:
"Across the EU as a whole disparities between the best-off regions and the worst-off regions were little changed: the 25 best-off increased their level of average GDP per capita from 140 per cent. of the EU15 average to 142 per cent. while the 25 worst-off regions moved from 53 per cent. to 55 per cent"..
I do not believe that that can be regarded as particularly impressive. I am not denouncing the European Community for that but merely reciting a fact which is already well known: that endeavours to reduce disparities within the fortunes of member states by the application of regional funds and similar measures have not been particularly successful. Year after year this happens and is underlined in budget speeches.
We need to realise why that is so. Whatever administrative and government arrangements are made about the levying of funds from member states in order to perform what is in effect a redistributive function, the macroeconomic policies pursued by member states of the European Union are the most important factor. One cannot run against the tide. The deflationary policies carried out in Europe as a whole over the last few years and more particularly now—and we shall not ultimately escape the effect—are likely to make endeavours to redistribute income or resources by the injection of quite trivial sums unsuccessful.
Instead of action by governments within member states to redress disparities within localities, even that small and basic function has now been spread to European institutions. That is what we have to face. At the moment, for example, structural funds involve in the United Kingdom the Department of Trade and Industry, the Treasury, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for Education and Employment, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Department of National Heritage, the Scottish Office, the Northern Ireland Office and in some respects the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. There are not tens but hundreds of civil servants involved.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, the noble Lord has forgotten another country, this time one inside the United Kingdom. I refer to Wales.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, that I should forget Wales? That is impossible. My noble friend adds Wales and I willingly accept it.
In the EC itself similar departments are involved in the process. There is Directorate-General XVI, regional policy; Directorate-General V, social affairs; Directorate-General VI, agricultural affairs; Directorate-General XIV, fisheries; Directorate-General II, economic and financial affairs; Directorate-General XIX, budgets; and so on. In addition, large numbers

843
of civil servants are involved in the European Commission itself. We are not talking of tens but of hundreds, and yet the report complains—though not over-vociferously—of matters becoming lost in bureaucracy. You can say that again! I have had experience of it. Once civil servants, whether international or national, are involved on such a scale, the system is bound to become over-bureaucratised.
Moreover, looked at from the report's standpoint, it seems to be automatically assumed that the funds are there. It is assumed that the funds are subject not to the caprice of individual ministers in different countries but subject to decisions made in monitoring committees, various planning committees and throughout the directorates and directorates-general. Rational decisions cannot be made on that basis. Also it is assumed that the funds are there. It is said that funds are being made available to projects in the United Kingdom. But it is not always realised, particularly in the United Kingdom—although the Commission always insists, as a matter of principle, that due acknowledgment is made by boards shoved on site to the effect that this project is undertaken through the courtesy and assistance of the European Community—that it is being made available out of funds provided by the British taxpayer. Little attention gets paid to that.
Yet that is indeed exactly the case. The contribution from Britain in these matters is not exactly to be sneezed at. The report itself says that the net contribution made by the United Kingdom to the structural and cohesion funds—to all the funds, whichever country benefits—involves the net payment by British taxpayers of £500 million. So it is not as though all these projects are provided by the generosity of the European Community. In fact, we pay for them. There is a net cost to us of £500 million. The Treasury is in a position to correct the figures, if it so wishes.
I do not necessarily object to it. It may be for reasons of high policy, our relations with other countries, our defence position, or for a whole series of other reasons that the British taxpayer should contribute to all those things that are alleged to be provided by the European Commission. But the public ought to know. I do not think they do, and I think that they should do so.
One thing is certain. If we are to become involved or even further involved in an enterprise of that kind, we should be quite frank and open about it. We should not attempt concealment or say, in effect—as does the report by not mentioning it in the conclusions—that there is no cost to us. There is.
Surely, also, it is best—the report brings it out on occasion after occasion—that all those decisions made by committees that shuttle across the Channel or across Europe in order to appraise certain items are decided at national level; not to have individual appraisals made of them, possibly aided by expensive consultants in order to talk about them once again in Brussels and argue whether or not they should be modified and if so who should pay and how much should be paid. Indeed, the report itself makes a note of that, even though it does not feature prominently at all in its conclusions.
844
Therefore, let us have some honesty about these matters. Let us admit that there is a cost. Without being carried away by too much jargon one way or the other, one can view the whole question of disparities between regions and disparities between localities and one's own country. These matters are far better reviewed not on the basis of ancient dogmas that come to be perpetuated in the wretched Commission rituals with which we are afflicted, but by the ordinary common sense of Parliament itself, including, I hope, your Lordships' House.
4.25 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, as a member of the sub-committee, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, for his leadership and skill—a word used by several noble Lords—in co-ordinating this inquiry. I should also like to extend my thanks to our Clerk, John Goddard, and to our special adviser, Professor lain Begg, for all their support in the extremely interesting inquiry. I join too in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, on his maiden speech. Certainly his interest in European matters will greatly enhance debates in your Lordships' House. I look forward to hearing much more from him in the years to come—if, that is, I am still here in years to come after any reform of your Lordships' House.
One of my concerns about the work of Sub-Committee A has been the apparent lack of distribution and exposure of its reports. I am by far the most junior member of the sub-committee. Perhaps the smart cover of the report may increase its penetration and exposure. I was saddened by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, felt that the quality of the cover does not match the quality of the contents. Certainly the report represents value for money.
I wholeheartedly support the commitment of the structural funds and the cohesion fund to reducing regional disparities. But it was crucial in the inquiry to establish whether the funds were correctly targeted and whether they have been effective. It is surely the delivery of results that is one of the key objectives of the funds. I agree with Commissioner Wulf-Mathies's view that one of the greatest challenges in Europe will be to reduce the levels of unemployment, particularly for those under the age of 25.
The report has comprehensively covered the key issues behind the strategy of the funds and the possible reform of the funds. Therefore, I shall keep my comments brief, but would like simply to highlight what I believe are a number of the points that are of special concern.
Central to the rationale and objective behind the structural funds is that the investments should be made to strengthen the economic base of the recipient regions, but not as income transfers. Their objective is to achieve greater equality in economic and social opportunities. Paragraph 35 of the report encapsulated the point that the inquiry was:
"not whether Community policies by themselves are achieving economic and social cohesion but whether they are operated so that they add value to and complement national cohesion policies so as to achieve results which would not otherwise he obtained".

845
What became clear certainly from visits to Athens, Dublin, Strathclyde and Cornwall was that a good relationship between member states and the European Commission is vital to maximise the use of the structural funds. That was particularly apparent, as mentioned by the noble Baroness Lady O'Cathain, from the strong relationship between the Irish officials and the European Commission. There is no doubt that the structural funds and the cohesion fund have made a major contribution to the recent success of the Irish economy. I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, highlighted that point. Those of the committee who visited Dublin were enormously impressed by the high standard of strategic co-ordination and effective delivery in Ireland. I emphasise "effective delivery" as this appeared lacking from the submissions of several of our key witnesses talking about the efficacy of structural funds in England.
A common complaint by many of the witnesses was that the structural funds, and, more specifically, the location for structural funds was over-bureaucratic, and that there were unnecessary resultant delays which affected approval decisions and the payment of funds.
While there have been many regional success stories— here I refer to the recent report by the European Regional Policy and Cohesion Committee on success stories—with profiles of 36 projects in Europe, there is no doubt that there is enormous scope for improvement. The words "scope for improvement" remind me of the comment always made by my headmaster. As I have already said, the emphasis for the structural funds must be on efficiency, adding value, and complementing national cohesion policies.
While I agree with the four principles of concentration, programming, additionality and partnership which underlie the structural funds, there appears to be a variation in the interpretation of those principles. For example, in the submissions from the British chambers of commerce, it was pointed out that one of the difficulties with the principle of additionality is that it is extremely difficult to access match funding for both the public and private sectors.
Unlike cases in Scotland, where there appears to be a good relationship between the Scottish Office and local organisations, there appeared to be far less of a partnership, as I have said, in England between Whitehall and the local authorities. That led to many calls for the administration of the structural funds to be simplified. It was felt that—I say this despite the reservations of the noble Lord, Lord Renton—with government offices for regions that should produce a better relationship between central government and local partners. My understanding of the legislative programme for the coming years is that government for the regions should be more effective.
I strongly support the recommendation in paragraph 46 that government should further improve the analysis of economic and social needs based on local area statistics. Paragraph 48 states,
"we are convinced that devolution to regional level of decisions about structural policies and their funding will need to be carried further if the potential benefits of the Structural Funds are to be maximised".
846
Further, paragraph 86 states:
"Programmes must be the result of partnership between national and sub-national bodies, down to local communities, at the planning stage as well as the implementation stage".
The point has already been made by my friend Lord Elis-Thomas. I was delighted to hear that the Minister for Trade and Industry gave her commitment to achieving those objectives in her letter responding to our report.
As for the reforms mentioned in the report, I concur that future funding should be targeted more closely on the most needy countries, regions and smaller pockets of deprivation, and central government and the European Commission should work as partners, not adversaries, to steer, but not to dominate, the planning of regional strategies and programmes. Those programmes should be seen to be regional needs assessed on the basis of reliable economic and social statistics, and the administration must be simplified. A great deal more should be done to encourage and entice more private sector involvement with the funds.
The pace and conditions of enlargement, as the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, said, will have major financial consequences for the future of European policies, including those for cohesion.
Finally, there is no doubt that to assess the efficiency of the funds, it is vital to have effective financial controls, and, here I refer to monitoring and evaluation of existing and past projects. There appears to be scope for more reform of the monitoring committees. With almost a third of the EC budget devoted to the structural funds and the cohesion fund, it has become all the more essential that the funds are targeted correctly, managed properly, and that lessons are learnt from past experience. I warmly recommend the report.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, as the last speaker in the debate, let me start by saying, "You may have read the report, but did you see the film? Little did you know that the chairman is not just the many things that speakers have said, he has missed a career in the movies". Anyone seeing him coming down that lovely staircase in the Greek Embassy, would have thought, "Ah, there is style". I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Renton, on a notable maiden speech. I remember how nervous I was when I made my maiden speech. I had great feelings of trepidation. He had the most relaxed manner of any maiden speaker I have seen recently. I am sure that that comes from his long experience in another place. I am sure we look forward to hearing many more contributions from him.
I shall confine myself to the future of the funds and not so much on what has already happened. I shall say one thing in response to my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. It is correct to say that on the one hand we have had the cohesion countries—Ireland, Spain and Portugal but not Greece—considerably improve their relative status in terms of average income over the past 15 to 20 years. That is a welcome result.
It is also true as the report points out in Paragraph 59, which my noble friend quoted, that indices of inequality have not moved all that much. The problem is—it is

847
a well-known problem in economics and politics—that inequalities, especially across regions within a country, are hard to correct in the short term. Some noble Lords may be aware of the brilliant work of Professor Putnam, who pointed out when analysing the Italian case that Italian inequalities across north and south can be traced back to forces and factors which go back 600 or 700 years with the building up of the culture of hard work, enterprise, and so on.
Those things are important. Even within the UK, I would bet that if we looked at industries as between the north east and the south east, inequalities persist for a long time. We are looking for funds such as these to arrest the growth of inequalities so far as possible. We must be sure that they do not worsen as a result of, say, a single market or joining a larger union, but that they stay the same or improve.
I am worried about enlargement. I am untypical in your Lordships' House. When the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, initiated a debate on enlargement, I was the only speaker to say that I did not like any of it. I am worried that we shall add six countries in the first instance—in a year we shall go from 15 to 21—which will add a third to the population and about 5 per cent. to total GDP. Therefore, the entry of the six and perhaps later on of another four will require a more fundamental rethinking of the EU structures than any of us has so far realised. We may even have to ask ourselves whether any of the old 15 receive any of the funds that are designed for redistribution.
That would be unfortunate. One of the lessons of the cohesion fund and of t he report is that one must not go too much into aggregates within a country. There are widespread regional differences. A country may be quite rich on average but within that country there may be serious pockets of poverty. One must not neglect that, especially if one sees that internal policies are not adequately dealing with the problem. There should be some mechanism for the EU process to look at the deep pockets of poverty which persist even in rich countries.
In this respect the use in the cohesion fund of average per capita income is far too crude. We shall have to revise the threshold level from 75 per cent. to a figure much below 75 per cent. to make people eligible for cohesion funds. However, by itself, income does not convey enough information. If we rely only on income at a national level to give aid to countries, and then rely on those countries to distribute them to where they are needed, we may miss the target. What is important is not that Greece, Spain or Portugal are that much below average or that Poland and Hungary will be much lower; what is important is to pinpoint the areas of those countries which are well off and able to manage by themselves and those areas which need help. In that respect one of the matters the Commission and perhaps even the DTI should look at is the construction of additional variables or indices which might help better to pinpoint regional inequalities.
Some noble Lords may be aware that I have made a contribution to the Human Development Index which looks at poverty across countries. The Human Development Index has been constructed for provinces,
848
and even for districts, of some countries in eastern Europe. The Hungarian human development report looked at how different districts compare in terms of their human development. That might help better to pinpoint where aid should go rather than relying on broad categories such as average income or how to help industry adapt to change. Those may be noble objectives but they are fuzzy. They are not good enough guides for operationalising the construction of a policy which is designed to tackle regional inequalities.
We should look at how we can find better measures for identifying where inequalities are. What is the nature of an inequality? Is it a poor region that has been poor for a long time or is it a region that has been impoverished recently because of industrial change? Those two things may require very different policies. The instruments that are currently being used are far too crude.
We should all think about how we can improve the detection of inequalities, how we can define the nature of those inequalities and how we should tackle them. Different problems may need different instruments. In this respect I agree that it is not so much that the number of funds is large but that they have a disparate set of criteria for giving money for different procedures. If it is made clear that our objective is reducing inequality, that inequality may have a different nature in different areas and may therefore require different instruments. Having thought like that, it would be better for the Commission to think about how it can simplify the criteria it uses and while simplifying them, make them much more precise than they are right now.
As the trends show, no doubt the total amount of money will shrink. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said, it is remarkable that we do not know whether the money has done the job it was supposed to do. We have broad indications, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, pointed out, that Ireland is a success story, but we do not know how much of that success is due to the cohesion fund. I hate to add another expenditure on to the Commission, but I think by now it should have made a much better study of the results of the various funds it has given and that we should have had a much better account of whether the funds were effective; and, if they were effective, what measures for judging effectiveness were employed.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I have enjoyed the whole of the debate, especially the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry. I particularly enjoyed that part of his speech when I thought he sailed a little near to the wind of our convention that maiden speeches should not be too controversial when he said that he regarded EMU as the inevitable outcome of a single market. In order to assist my noble friend, I would agree that this was not controversial, but I would have to put it to him that it was perhaps just wrong.
I wonder whether I might ask the House, in order to reach two questions which I should like to put to the Minister, to accompany me into the engine room of

849
the European Communities. I want to ask him two questions about how he envisages that the Treaty of Rome will actually work in the areas that we are discussing. In order to do this I shall quote briefly from two paragraphs, paragraphs 4 and 5, on page 8 of your Lordships' excellent report.
The first quotation reads as follows:
"the CAP takes about one half of the Budget's resources while the structural policies are taking a gradually increasing share which is planned to rise to about one third of those resources by 1999".
Other noble Lords have quoted that and indeed have referred to the following passage from paragraph 5 on the same page:
"The regime for the future financing of the EU, with or without enlargement, also calls for decision before 1999 when the current financial perspective arrangements expire. Negotiations and expectations on the overall size of the Budget, the enlargement of the EU and the impact of EMU, particularly on peripheral or poorer regions, will form the political context in which decisions on the future of EU aid for regional development—its structural policies—will be taken".
Quite so, my Lords. But your Lordships will have heard me before say that some decisions in the European Communities are taken by unanimity and some by the qualified majority voting system.
Under that system, I hesitate to remind your Lordships again, there are 87 votes among 15 nation states; 62 are required to pass a motion and 26 to block one. I imagine it is true—the noble Lord the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that the votes necessary to block reform of the CAP, which is so vital for enlargement, as your Lordships have agreed on many occasions, including this afternoon, are in the hands of recipient countries. Likewise, I think it may be true that a similar blocking minority may be in the hands of recipients who could block any change to the funds we are debating; or, I have to put it to the Minister, are any of these decisions to be taken by unanimity? In which case they become even more difficult to achieve.
So I merely want to ask the Minister whether the new Government have given any thought to these possible negotiating difficulties; and, if so, to what conclusion they have come.
4.49 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, those of your Lordships who have had the pleasure of listening to the entire debate will realise by now that it was rather fun to serve on the committee which has produced this report. It was fun because we had a chairman whose firmness was always coupled with good humour. It was fun because it was an interesting committee. Indeed, I shall for ever find it difficult not to refer to other Members of the committee as "my noble friends".
For me, it now emerges that the committee had a special significance in that it has given me what I have long sought, and that is a small element of immortality, if only in the form of a bandstand financed by the European Union to the tune of £18,000 and located in the harbour of Padstow. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, referred to. For me, it was one of the examples of how
850
perhaps not to spend European Community money, although I am sure that there are those who enjoy the effects of the bandstand, as I do now. I am now in a much weaker position in that respect than I was.
If we strip the whole European exercise of the rhetoric of union, we are left with three major policy areas. The first is what I would call the management of trade. I deliberately call it that both within the single market and outside. Second is the protection of declining industries, notably of agriculture in the countries which still had a major agricultural sector at the time of the foundation of the European Community. Third is the support for disadvantaged regions and groups, the area of the structural and cohesion funds. There are other activities. There are the remainders of EURATOM, which is the research area. There is of course a degree of privilege for former colonial countries associated in one way or another with present members of the European Union. But it is the three major areas which one is looking at if one identifies the reality of the European communities.
The first of these, the management of trade, does not cost any public money. It costs a lot of people a lot of money, but it does not cost any public funds to speak of. The second and the third between them consume about 80 per cent. of the total budget of the European communities. That is a fact that we should bear in mind as we discuss this issue in order to give it its proper, important place in the European scheme of things. As we have heard, and as noble Lords have seen from the report, about one-third of the total budget of the European Union now goes into the various funds which we have lumped together as the structural and cohesion funds designed to reduce disparities.
That is important. What is more, my conclusion, not least from the inquiries of the committee on which I had the privilege to serve, is that of the major activities of the European communities, the structural and cohesion funds are easily the most effective and important. I say that despite the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and others. In that regard averages, and even measures of disparity as such, are not necessarily the most informative.
It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, was carried away by the beauty of the cover of the report, because apart from being beautiful it is quite informative. It is an important fact that all the great success regions of Europe are not included in the areas to which the funds are applied and which we are discussing here. I refer to the south-east of England, the Low Countries, apart from Wallonia, Denmark and southern Sweden, the Île de France, south-east France, north-west and south Germany and northern Italy. They are not included. It is characteristic of the funds that we are discussing that they apply to countries on the periphery of the European Union and to peripheral regions within the major countries of the European Union.
That is rather an important fact because it probably tells us that on the periphery there is often a sense of insufficient recognition of needs even by national capitals. That is one of the discoveries that we made in

851
our travels. Therefore, recognition is an element of the success story of these European funds. I want to use a word which I am surprised has not been used before in the debate and which is in part a response to my noble friend Lord Desai. The word is "catalytic". In peripheral areas in particular even limited sums of support can have a catalytic effect in that they trigger developments which might otherwise not have happened. In other words, it is not simply redistribution; it is not simply pouring large sums of money into particular regions; but encouraging forces which in principle are already there but which need that bit of encouragement which can sometimes be given by outside funding. Incidentally, that is quite often the best conceivable effect of international action to support developments in regions which are particularly in need of such support.
In this regard Ireland is an extreme example. No one in his senses would argue that it was simply the funding that came from Europe which, as funding, turned things around. But one can argue that by having special attention paid to Ireland, those forces in Ireland which in any case were prepared to move forward to quite a different story of development from the history of the country were encouraged. That was done partly by their being recognised as important. That is only one aspect and there must have been other elements of motivation.
All this leads me to conclude—as one who was quite sceptical, as my initial comments showed noble Lords, about the effect of many of the policies of the European Union—that it is highly desirable that the structural and cohesion funds should be continued after 1999, and even if we (and I hope we will) promote the enlargement process emphatically. That has simple conditions which are in the report. I am glad that the President of the Board of Trade seems to accept them. I hope the Minister will confirm that they are very much in line with government thinking. Where the funds have been particularly successful, it has to be possible to discontinue them. I encourage the Government to take a very strong position. Since Ireland has virtually reached the average level of per capita income, the moment has come when Ireland can no longer be a recipient of funds which were designed to encourage; they were not designed to transfer resources indefinitely.
There must be a concentration of purposes, as has already been discussed. I very much hope that the sort of statements which Commissioner Wulf-Mathies made in her evidence to the committee will become policy. There must be greater integration of the different aspects of the funds and policies, including—here I strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, said—the environmental aspect in so far as it is relevant in both rural and urban areas; an integration of policies; and something which we do not have the time to discuss in great detail this afternoon but which relates to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. I refer to the fact that there must be quite a shrewd sense of whether, at the receiving end, there is sufficient preparedness to make the catalytic effect real. That is a complicated combination. It has something to do with regional or local organisation, including incidentally an item which the committee found important and on which I am eager to hear the Minister comment. I refer to the
852
representation of elected members of local communities and regions on the bodies which advise and which to some extent take the decisions.
Without any doubt, there must also be absorptive capacity for the funds. That is why enlargement is not quite so much of a worry as some people seem to think. It is evident that Poland—the country which, above all, I think should become a member—cannot absorb even 4 per cent. of its GNP by way of European structural money. It will have to be less than that. Absorptive capacity is itself a condition of catalytic success. There are a number of other factors which we might wish to consider before making available more concentrated European funding.
Having said all that, the structural and cohesion funds naturally remain of limited importance. I should like to underline strongly what the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, said: the funds have nothing to do with the sort of transfers that would be necessary among the members of a monetary union if such a monetary union emerged in Europe. They have nothing to do with that and it is important that we do not confuse the two. One of the great problems of monetary union is that those who are in it will be left with a transfer of resources and with the free movement of labour as their only adjustment mechanisms. These funds are not the answer to that question. They are independent of it. They belong to the European communities as we have them today. They can be improved in many respects, but of the key policies of the European Union they are, in my view, the most successful.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Shaw of Northstead: My Lords, my first and very pleasant duty must be to congratulate my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry on his maiden speech. We are, he says, beyond the temptations of normal man—and he arrives here in the hope that he will share that situation. I am bound to say that as my former Chief Whip—I hope that I was a loyal follower—I had always thought that he, as Chief Whip, was already beyond the normal temptations. I certainly treated him with the respect due to someone in that position.
My second duty must be to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, on his chairmanship of the committee. Long ago when I was a Member of the European Parliament we met from time to time—he in an exalted position as a member of the Government and myself as a humble Rapporteur in the European Parliament. Later he was chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and I was a humble follower and member of that committee for several years. The circle has now come full circle and I am glad to be again a member of a committee chaired by the noble Lord. I welcome that fact because the noble Lord led us with skill and, as the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, said, with some fun as well. I have always believed that work is carried out all the better for a little humour in the right place. I believe that all members of the committee entered our work with some considerable enthusiasm, but not always understanding fully what it was that we had undertaken.

853
The structural funds are intended, through investment, to strengthen the economic base of the recipient regions and the cohesion fund, set up especially to deal with the cases of the special four countries, was intended to try to bring them to a position where they could eventually be admitted to EMU. Although the need for regularity and the avoidance of fraud must be maintained, our main concerns were not so much in that direction, but were based on trying to see whether the projects were really carrying out the tasks which they had been set and whether they were being run as efficiently as possible. Here we have to remember the words of the commissioner and to accept, as we state in paragraph 27 of the report, that roughly one-third of the EC budget is devoted to structural funds and the cohesion fund. That point has already been made. Indeed, I believe that we made that point in our conclusion on the annual report of the Court of Auditors. I mention this because it is important to note that we also are making inquiries.
I must admit that no one is more surprised than I am at the fact that I am standing at this Dispatch Box this afternoon. I greatly welcome the kindness that has been shown to me by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, with whom I have shared many committees in the past. I speak both as a member of the committee and as a spokesman from this Front Bench and, putting on my other hat and speaking momentarily from this Front Bench, perhaps I may say that I believe that the committee did a splendid job in presenting the report in this form. The form adopted is easier and more sympathetic for those who are interested in reading the report. I hope that our example will be followed by other committees in due course.
The Court of Auditors has been going along the same lines as our committee. That is encouraging. When I was a Member of the European Parliament I took great notice of what was said in the House of Lords and by its committees. Such reports were helpful and were widely considered in the European Parliament. I find it a happy coincidence, having left the European Parliament and having given evidence to House of Lords committees nearly 20 years ago—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, also gave evidence at that time although I cannot remember the occasion—now to find myself serving on a House of Lords committee. It is much the happiest position to be in.
At paragraph 538 of its 1995 annual report, the Court of Auditors stated:
"If the various criteria to be taken into consideration for determining the eligible areas are applied, this results in more than 50 per cent. of the Community population being affected by one or other objective. As a consequence, Community aid measures are to a certain extent sprinkled over a large number of eligible areas. Indeed, it is proving difficult to reconcile the many factors involved & particularly bearing in mind the quality of the statistics available".
That shows very clearly that there is still much to be done. That was in large part the reasoning behind the efforts of the committee in producing the report. The committee found as a fact that there was a need for change. Commissioner Wulf-Mathies in her evidence to the committee repeated that which had been said by the Court of Auditors, namely, that 51 per cent. of
854
Community regions were themselves eligible for regional fund assistance. She claimed that that figure should be reduced.
It is absolutely essential that the help should be given efficiently to assist those areas that are clearly defined. It is also true—I believe that the report brings it out very clearly, particularly the evidence of Sir Alan Cockshaw—that the areas must be very carefully defined if the use of the moneys poured into those areas is to be of maximum benefit. The money is not just needed to help individual cases; it is needed through those particular cases to help the region as a whole so that it can kickstart further enterprises in its wake.
One should look again at the words of the Court of Auditors who have something to say on this matter. On page 9 of its last report it said:
"Moreover, a number of questions regarding the eligibility of projects for Structural Fund support are being discussed by representatives of the Commission and of Member State administrations within the SEM 2000 framework, together with an examination of other possible ways of inciting national authorities to ensure both the effectiveness of Community structural aid and proper accounting for it at national level".
That brings out a point that the committee has made in many other reports and I have spoken about in earlier debates in this Chamber. The court goes on to say:
"Finally the Court would again like to emphasise that prevention of fraud and waste is much more cost-effective than detection followed by, often problematical, punishment and recovery".
That must be borne in mind in organising structural and cohesion aid, although from what we saw the same problem does not exist with regard to other funding within the Community. The money may have been irregularly or inefficiently used but the same degree of fraud is not evident, according to the evidence taken by the committee.
As far as concerns structural funds, there is a great problem in defining regions. There is a need to create good organisations consisting of local interests, local authorities (one hopes) and local businesses and a close identification (one hopes) with government. As to that, I should like to put a question to the Minister who is to respond. On 3rd December 1996 a Statement was made in the other place by Mr. David Curry:
"We intend to revise radically the present administrative arrangements and to delegate to local partnerships considerable responsibility for project selection within an agreed action plan & We will be notifying the new arrangements to the European Commission and will be discussing the detailed implementation with the monitoring committees and others".—[Official Report. Commons, 3/12/96: col. WA 578.]
Both I and I am sure your Lordships will be interested to know what progress has been made in regard to the making of those new arrangements. Together with that there must be emphasis in those future arrangements on continued additionality. I believe that that is very important. I was very glad to see that Commissioner Wulf-Mathies came to the same conclusion on page 126 of the evidence:
"In general I would say that Structural Fund policies have been positive and successful & policies are made with Member States & what the Union can do is to add to those strategies but it cannot replace Member States' policies and it does not want to do so".

855
I believe that she is absolutely right.
The success of future policies—and the great value of reports such as this—depends on finding what is best for the future certainly by analysis of what has gone on in the past. But we must be interested in the future. The past is there to show the direction in which we should be moving forward. It is quite clear that national governments must play a great part in the use of these strategies; namely, through the structural and cohesion funds. Whatever tasks are given to the regions when set up, they must as far as possible feel that the projects are theirs, not those of the particular nation. The whole region must be identified with the developments that are taking place. That emerged clearly from the evidence.
I turn to the cohesion funds. Mention has been made of the success of those funds in Ireland. There is no denying that the funds have been of help to Ireland, but it is quite clear that those funds would not have been as effective, or not effective at all, had the organisation and administration of the Government of Ireland not been first-class. That lesson must be learnt by other countries which receive cohesion funds. Its success owes much to its sound economy. But there is a danger, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, has already referred, that every effort will be made to keep the funds coming in. I hope that in the planned expenditure of the money until 1999, which is the end of the present schedule of funds, it will be remembered that those who have succeeded in carrying out the objectives of the cohesion fund must prepare for an easing off or early termination of the funds so that they can stand once more on their own feet. Funding should not be expected to continue indefinitely, although benefits already achieved must not be endangered by sudden cessation or reduction of funding. There is a great need for good management at both local and national levels.
I believe that cohesion funds are valuable if they are handled correctly. I also believe that in the cases we have seen the second tranche of the cohesion funds up until 1999 has been handled much better than in the first instance. Ireland has already been cited. I should like to cite the Athens-Corinth motorway which the committee was able to look at in its journey through Greece. Incidentally, a number of people have mentioned that there has been a television programme on this topic. Our visit to Greece was not a feast of gastronomy; it was a feast of hard work. We had to eat. The fact that pictures were taken of Members eating had nothing to do with the work that we carried out. On that motorway we saw instances of new businesses that would not have been set up but for the ease of transport that it created. We saw a packing station which was built with Community aid and developed to such a state that regular contracts had been made with Marks & Spencer. The establishment of such a contract demanded a strong measure of confidence on the part of Marks & Spencer. In order to succeed, the packing station had not only to pack the goods successfully but it had to obtain them at the right time and at the right quality. It had to employ the pickers on the farms, for example, put them under contract, ensure that they worked regularly and that the goods came in the right condition and at the right time.
856
Therefore, there was a spreading effect of the aid that had been given. Such use of structural aid is of real benefit.
As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, the structural fund provides the best example of the help that can be given. However, I believe that there is a danger of over-bureaucratisation—a ghastly word—and of over-organising the help. We are talking about organisations in the regions, organisations in government, departments in the Commission and the necessity to have professional advisers to advise on various matters, to advise people on how to make their claim and so forth.
All that costs money. We have said that we need to make the organisation simpler. At the same time, I have seen the difficulties which bureaucracies have in making themselves shrink. I hope that, whatever the simplification, there will be a record of how it has led to less cost within the bureaucratic administration of the funds. I hope that the funds can be controlled, that they will prove useful, and that they will fulfil the object for which they were set up; namely, to try to help the assisted regions to stand on their own feet and to be successful without the need for additional funds from government. I hope that governments will monitor the use of the funds. I congratulate the committee on another successful report.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, as a young Member—if that is the appropriate word—my first task is to welcome to the House the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry. I had the pleasure of appreciating that extremely robust defence of the great adventure that is Europe, with particular regard to the points on monetary union. This is not the time to debate them, but I am glad to see and hear a new friend on the other side of the House. I hope that we shall have the opportunity of listening to him regularly.
It is also a pleasure to greet the noble Lord, Lord Shaw, to the Front Bench and to have the opportunity of exchanging views on what we are both agreed is a most excellent report. Furthermore, I thank my noble friend Lord Barnett. I am grateful to him and to the Sub-Committee which he chaired for producing the report. I like the cover, I like the inside and I certainly like the fact pack at the back, which is useful for incoming Ministers.
Perhaps in business fashion, I may respond to two or three of the points which I shall not cover in dealing with the body of the report. The first is the Barnett formula. That was a tricky one, due to my relative youth; but I understand that the noble Lord introduced it because it deals with general Scottish public expenditure allocation. We heard much of Wales from my noble friend and we heard something of Ireland from nearly everyone. The reason for introducing the Barnett formula must have been to cover Scotland. The only information that I have to add is that it does not apply to structural funds. It was interesting to hear about the formula, but it was not currently on the table for this debate.

857
I turn to additionality. As the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, observed when he was taking evidence from the President of the Board of Trade, this is an extremely tricky intellectual area. I was delighted to read the committee's first line of paragraph 23, because it is a wonderful sentence. It reads:
"additionality is a concept easily grasped but elusive when verification of its application is required".
I liked that sentence. I am all for additionality. The Government support it and, as the report states:
"in the required sense, it cannot be assessed by considering whether an individual project would have gone ahead without structural fund support".
It is conceptually complex. I believe that we shall reach a position where it will apply to the structural funds but not to the cohesion fund. The principle is understood, but I liked the idea that it would be elusive when verification of its application would be required. That is a timely warning.
In general, the timing of the debate is fortuitous. The day after tomorrow, the Commission will produce its opinions on the central and eastern European countries which have applied to join the European Union. Importantly, it will also produce initial proposals for the future financing of the EU for the period 2000 to 2006, as mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Pearson and Lord Grenfell.
Part of the proposal will include the structural and cohesion funds, which currently take up one-third of the EU budget. I have no doubt that the Commission has taken account of the points made in the committee's report as I noted that two commissioners came to London to give evidence to the inquiry.
The Government are committed to promoting economic and social cohesion throughout the United Kingdom. Indeed, that was one of the objectives of the Chancellor's Budget. We are also committed to seeing it across Europe both within the existing European Union and extended to those countries which will eventually join. Clearly, we are supporters of the enlargement process.
However, such cohesion depends on a multitude of actions principally at national, regional and, if possible, local levels. But we must support the European effort and the European level of co-ordinating what is a very complex organisational exercise. Much of the report was about that process and, as I was invited to do so by many noble Lords, I intend to speak a little about it.
The structural and cohesion funds are the principle European-wide financial instruments for strengthening cohesion. The question to the Government is not one of whether the funds will continue but how best they achieve their objectives. A major part of the answer is by contributing to improved competitiveness.
As the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, commented, those funds should be used to increase competitiveness in the regions. That is a wide subject and I know that it does not depend solely on spending money. It is about the capacity to add value. I believe that that is a question at the heart of this excellent report: are those funds, and the way in which they are distributed, adding value;
858
and are the systems up to scratch? I believe that that question stood very much behind the contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and the noble Lord, Lord Shaw. In reality, are the action plans delivering the "bacon" from that system?
As the report makes clear, the funds cover a wide range of subjects and a number of different structures. In the United Kingdom they are aimed principally at the original elements. Over the six years from 1994 to 1999, the UK's structural fund allocation is about £9 billion, covering such subjects as the productive environment, improving human resources—the training side—land improvement and regeneration and environmental improvement. Therefore, in recent years there has been a very wide range of targets. Now that we are beginning to fund business support and innovation in a very large number of small companies, control becomes much more important from a distributive point of view.
With regional programmes comes regional administration and decision making. That is a significant part of the Government's approach to competitiveness within the different parts of the United Kingdom. The proposed Scottish executive and Welsh assembly will take over the decision making which is currently the responsibility of the Scottish and Welsh Offices. No doubt those bodies and in particular the latter—I say this for the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas—will ensure that fair shares are maintained in Wales. The proposed regional development agencies will create economic forces within the English regions. The structural funds are based already on regional partnerships and we shall look to reinforce those. The regionalisation of Objective 3 is an example of the steps under way.
The then government announced on 4th March that structural funds monitoring committees—the bodies which look after the expenditure, for those who do not know the jargon—should decide whether to include locally elected councillors among their members. That happened after the sub-committee stopped taking evidence but before the publication of the report which called for councillors themselves to decide. That is now happening across England and Wales, although I should make clear that in the larger programmes, it is not individual councils which are represented but the local authorities collectively.
Therefore, the Government's approach is to ensure that local partnerships are represented properly and that the monitoring committees work effectively. As the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, said, it is extremely important that the precise composition of the committees should not be decided in the centre; each region and programme can best decide for itself. For example, the Objective 2 programme in the north east of England has just shrunk its monitoring committee, which is an unusual organisational event. That is precisely because it wishes to see even greater efficiency.
The Government also see the advantages of a wider social partnership, bringing employers' and trade union representatives into the local partnerships. We shall expect the social partners to make a real contribution to the programmes, as existing partners do. In Scotland,

859
parallel consultation arrangements already exist both for locally elected members and for social partners. As the report emphasised, those seem to work effectively and will continue.
Much of the Select Committee's report concentrates on improving the efficiency with which the structural funds are administered within the United Kingdom. Part of this results from complications introduced by the regulations themselves and the way in which they are applied. There is general agreement across Europe that substantial simplification is needed, though it is unlikely to take place before the current programmes end in 1999. We will be looking for significant proposals from the Commission and we will press further for streamlining during later negotiations within the Council of Ministers. After all, that is part of the drive for the completion of the internal market.
One example of how some of the delays occur was shown in the process of adopting Objective 2 programmes for the three years 1997 to 1999 in the UK. None was agreed on the start date of 1st January of this year and the last one has only just been agreed six months too late. That is not a good track record for the Commission. It must shape its act more effectively and we shall be asking it to do so, certainly before the year 2000. But it is fair to say also—and I echo the comments made by the committee—we must all look to improve. That includes our own structures inside the UK. The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, made that point clear. I believe that by restructuring the monitoring committees and in driving for a better action plan structure, as the noble Lord, Lord Shaw, said, we can come to terms with that. It is a question of delegation and focus. In England, the new arrangements for local action plans under the structural funds will enable simplified administration and greater responsibility at local sub-regional levels.
The Single Vote for the English elements of the European Regional Development Fund, which started in April of this year, is speeding up payment. It is replacing a decision-making process which, as we were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, used to involve six separate government departments. Therefore, the recommendations have been well taken.
The Commission frequently produces reports on aspects of the structural and cohesion funds. They are produced usually for information rather than containing legislative proposals. I shall mention two reports produced last year: first, the 7th Report on the structural funds, which was published last year and which looked at the last major changes in relation to the regulations governing funds which occurred in 1993. Therefore, updating is needed in that regard. It is quite clear that in that period there have been improvements in appraisal, monitoring and the evaluation of projects. I believe also that there has been greater transparency as part of the impact of the 7th annual report.
It is an extremely unwieldy document, like many produced, and it is not nearly as good as the sub-committee's report. However, it provides a great deal of useful information and it highlights some interesting matters from the UK's point of view: first,
860
that the implementation of the single programming documents for our Objective 1 regions, which, for the cognoscenti, are Northern Ireland, the Highlands and Islands and Merseyside, has progressed as planned. Therefore, we are on target for the Objective 1 regions. In general, we are not losing out on any Objective 2 programmes.
As regards how we are meeting our targets, which really is the test of the efficiency of the decision-making system, over the whole programming period, the UK led in the percentage of total funding committed in the first two years. We have achieved 41 per cent. of our funding against an EU average of 31 per cent. For payments the figure is 25 per cent. against the average of 19 per cent. Of course we can do better, but in relative terms, we are still ahead of the field.
The cohesion report was the first report on the progress made towards achieving economic and social cohesion in the EU. It is a useful summary of past actions and their impact.
Along with noble Lords to whom I have listened carefully today, the Government welcome the conclusion that disparities in the income between member states are narrowed significantly. I do not wish to become involved in the debate whether the comparisons should be regional or national. There was some debate about that. The national improvement is very clear: as has been noted, for the past decade, income per head in the four poorest countries of the Community has increased from 66 per cent. to 74 per cent. of the Community average. If we start playing about with sub-regions I am sure that we shall be able to prove that that very important point can be obscured.
However, the report recognises that member state policies are the primary instruments for cohesion and that low inflation, sound public finance and sustained growth are the key elements. Therefore, we should not believe that cohesion funds can replace sound economic management; they cannot do so. But both of them should be doing good for all of us if we are true Europeans. The cohesion report shows that the UK is one of the few countries where regional differences in unemployment have decreased. Although there has been a small widening of per capita GDP differences in the UK regions, that is relatively insignificant.
So much for where we have come from to date. I have tried to give the House a brief réméf organisational change, covering the monitoring committees, the action plans, the widening out of the process of decision between the social partners—all matters which I believe were signalled in the report and which, as my noble friend Lord Barnett said, the President of the Board of Trade has welcomed and put into our policy.
My last section is on looking to the future and the proposals which are due to come from the Commission the day after tomorrow. Of course, I would not want to make a speculative response to a press report in the Financial Times, would I? Therefore, I shall just describe the Government's aims as seeking a regime which is simpler, more efficient, affordable and durable

861
and, indeed, fair to all present and future member states. Each of those tests is important. Their future balance will require some reform of the policies, that is for sure.
The amount of space in the Select Committee's report devoted to the administration of the funds is just one indication of the need for simplification. We must get over the bureaucracy and get more focus for the money that we are going to spend. Referring to our test, parts of the process do add value—notably the partnership, the programming and the drawing on local priorities. However, in terms of its efficiency as a process, I have to say that that still contrasts with the cohesion fund. I should just like to point out that the cohesion funds typically commits 99.99 per cent. of its appropriations each year, which cannot be said for the structural funds. I hope that that is specific enough for noble Lords—two places of decimals.
We must look at good, focused expenditure. I believe that the next key question for the period ahead is affordability. That will mean keeping the overall cost of the structural and cohesion funds below the 0.46 per cent. of the European Union's GDP, both before and after enlargement, to include countries from central and eastern Europe. As I said, that is an enlargement which we support. As Commissioner Wulf-Mathies pointed out, and as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, that will still give us a large injection of funds into eastern Europe, even if we maintain that cap.
As my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington pointed out, the UK is a significant net contributor to the funds. We have no interest in seeing our contribution increased because, with tightening budgets across Europe, no member state has an interest in seeing overall costs rise. As the new member states will be much poorer than average, it means that all existing member states should expect cuts in their receipts if costs are to be contained. That will not be easy for some to accept, especially those who are currently net recipients or who have particularly acute regional differences, but they will need to do so. As my noble friend Lord Desai pointed out, we must focus on the neediest areas.
However, it is not just in the next few years that the funds have to be affordable. Indeed, we shall have difficult negotiations in agreeing this reform for the period up to 2006; but we shall need to pursue that aim if the outcome is to be a durable one and if the system is not to be disrupted when more new member states enter the Union. So there will be difficult negotiations ahead.
We believe that fairness is the key to durability, both for new member states and for existing member states. There are also other issues such as the capacity for very poor countries to absorb large flows of support, as the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, pointed out. The Select Committee suggested that inflows should be limited to 4 per cent. of the country's GDP. It is highly likely that some such rule will apply. We need to recognise the unsatisfactory nature of relying on such a cap to deliver an affordable regime beyond 1999. Some countries will, as a result, automatically receive less money per capita than other richer countries, which is ironic, but it also
862
means that as the poorest countries grow relative to the European average they will receive more, thereby putting very much greater pressure on total cost.
Even among existing member states, fairness will be an important test. We know that the UK is not the poorest EU member state, but neither is it the richest. We receive lower receipts per capita than a number of member states that are richer than we are. We recognise that the UK is likely to receive less in the next period, especially after any transitional periods; but we believe that the overall burden and benefits should be fairly distributed across all member states.
Perhaps I may respond briefly to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, on the structure and restructuring of the funds. I do not believe that it will be possible to reduce the number of funds; indeed, that chance was missed in Amsterdam. Nevertheless, we could perhaps reduce the number of objectives from seven to three. I should like to stress that the Government will provide an explanatory memorandum on the Agenda 2000 proposals that we expect to receive on Wednesday in the usual manner. However, I should point out that detailed proposals may not be published until next year when our presidency is in place.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, asked me whether we had given any thought to the restructuring of the structural funds, and indeed of the CAP, which is not on today's agenda. I can tell him that we have certainly given thought to it. I should remind the noble Lord that under Article 130D, the framework decision article, that will require unanimity. I also remind him that, on many of these great decisions which have required unanimity, we still expect a consensus to be found because that is how partnership works. I hope that we shall see that achieved in 1998. I further remind the noble Lord that the next budgetary period is for 2000 and 2006, so we have a little time. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the Minister was kind enough to refer to the questions that I asked and admit that the solution would be very difficult. He also answered his noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington by saying that we are indeed net contributors to the whole exercise. Can he say whether the United Kingdom might not have been able to spend all the sums of money that have been spent in this country without the extraordinarily expensive and wasteful filter of the EU and its various bureaucracies and committees? Indeed, could we not simply have spent that money and made a donation, which no doubt would have added another £1 billion or so to our costs, to the European Communities to enable them to do it themselves?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that observation. We have heard that this system works extremely well in Ireland. When challenged earlier about why the Irish system works, the answer showed that it was because the Irish networked so well, talked to their opposite numbers in Brussels and tried to form a partnership. I cannot help commenting that if that had not worked in the past under previous regimes, it is possible that they did not understand what

863
networking was about. Had they tackled Brussels in the appropriate way, perhaps we would have spent the funds more effectively.
My summary has done justice neither to the excellent detailed report nor, if I may say so, to the breadth of vision that the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, so strikingly encapsulated in his contribution as to the importance of such funds. The importance is to build a strong and committed Europe and one where we would find a partnership to the advantage of our electorate.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I shall be brief but, as everyone else has done, I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, on a quite excellent maiden speech. I have a feeling that I shall agree with him more than I shall with others on matters such as economic and monetary union, but we are not debating that today. I also thank members of my committee for their kind and over-generous remarks about my chairmanship; they are much appreciated.
I thank my noble friend Lord Simon for his reply to the debate. On another occasion I shall take up some of the points that he made and did not make. He did not even reply to my direct question about the Barnett formula. I should have loved to have an answer to that. Indeed, he did not answer any of the specific questions I put. However, I was not too surprised at that as he is obviously learning fast! He even managed to use a fair number of DTI clichés. I shall read those again later. I appreciated the contributions of all those who spoke in the debate. I look forward to discussing various matters relating to the European Union on many other occasions.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Court Fees
5.51 p.m.
Lord Acknerrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they have taken or propose to take to protect the constitutional right of access of a litigant of modest means from the impact of new and increased court fees.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, since I have no right of reply at the end of this debate, I thank noble Lords who will take part, and in particular my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, even more so as I believe this is the first debate to which he will reply. He and I have always seen eye to eye in our encounters in this Chamber. I am sure that that tradition will continue to flourish.
The stimulus for this debate arises out of certain court costs orders made at the end of 1996 by the then Lord Chancellor under powers conferred on him by Section 130 of the Supreme Court Act 1981. These orders not only more than doubled fees but added new fees where previously there had been none and removed certain exemption provisions. I have given notice to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that this debate gives rise not merely to questions of practical concern as to the extent to which access to justice is
864
being denied or restricted by the quantum of the increases. It raises a major policy issue, with wide-ranging implications, which has never been the subject of public debate. Historically, it has been government policy for salaries and pensions of judges and the cost of court accommodation in civil litigation to be paid by the state out of public funds, while other administrative costs should be met by litigants. However, in 1982 the Government decided that accommodation costs, such as the notional rent for the Royal Courts of Justice, should be included in the costs borne by litigants, and in 1992 judicial salaries should be included. In short, the civil justice system should become self-financing.
What is quite remarkable is that this radical departure from previous practice, not heralded by any White or Green Paper, has not been the subject of public debate in Parliament or elsewhere. Indeed the previous Government have acted in a way which seems to border upon the arrogant. Let me explain. Last year the Government introduced a Housing Bill. Tucked away in Section 83 was a seemingly harmless provision enabling an application to be made to a leasehold valuation tribunal, instead of the county court, when there was a dispute as to the value or provision of services provided by a landlord.
During the Committee and Report stages it emerged that the applicant to such a tribunal was to pay the entire costs of that tribunal. Indeed the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, cheerfully observed that this would include even the milk for the office cat, assuming such existed. What was distinctly worrying was the concession by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that the tribunal's costs could amount to as much as £2,000 per day. This was roundly condemned from all sides of the House and the Government were defeated on Third Reading on an amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, with a majority of 136 to 119. There was more than an hour's debate on that issue.
In the debate, to the surprise of those present, the Government revealed that they intended that full costs were to be applied to all courts. To this the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe—who is on the speakers' list but who may be impeded from attending—observed,
"So be it. If that is what they"—
that is the Government? —
"want, let them introduce a Bill to that effect. Let us see and debate the various consequences and safeguards; and let us hear the considered views of judges, lawyers, litigants, etc. Let us tackle the problem face on, in its entirety".—[official Report, 17/7/96: col. 861.]
Those sentiments were, I believe, shared by all those who spoke in favour of his amendment.
But not a bit of it—there was not even prior discussion with the senior judiciary. When the heads of division queried the necessity for these drastic fee increases they were told that the increases were essential to enable the Lord Chancellor to balance his departmental budget. It was on this occasion that the heads of division, whose concurrence to these new fees was required, were told that it had for some years been the established government policy that the civil justice system should be self-financing. The annual subvention

865
from public funds for the Lord Chancellor's Department is apparently nowadays calculated on the footing that nothing need be allowed for the civil justice system as its costs will be met by litigants. Thus without these recent increases in fees and the imposition of new fees the Lord Chancellor could not have—having regard to the annual sum allowed his department by the Treasury—met the expenses of the system for which he is responsible. Not surprisingly the heads of division felt obliged to give their concurrence to the orders, which I understand are expected to raise in excess of £50 million and a further £50 million by orders to be made this year.
In regard to the above facts I am indebted to the vice chancellor, Sir Richard Scott, who is also head of civil justice, for a transcript of a highly critical speech given by him on 13th March 1997 to the Kent Law Society in the Keith Tucker lecture. I agree with the views expressed by the Vice Chancellor in that lecture; namely,
"that the civil justice system is an integral and indispensable part of the structure of administration of justice that must be put in place by every State in which public and private affairs are to be conducted in accordance with the rule of law; and that a policy which treats the civil justice system merely as a service to be offered at cost in the market place, and to be paid for by those who choose to use it, profoundly and dangerously mistakes the nature of the system and its constitutional function".
In my remaining few minutes, I turn to issues of practical concern, hoping that others may develop the matter fully. The previous orders were made in 1980 and contained provisions relieving litigants on income support from the obligation to pay fees, and, in addition, giving the Lord Chancellor a discretion to reduce or omit a fee where,
"it appears to the Lord Chancellor that payment by a party & would involve undue financial hardship because of exceptional circumstances of the particular case".
Article 3 of the 1996 orders removed those provisions. I fear that I can spare no time on the humiliating decision suffered by the previous Government as a result of the application made by Mr. Witham to the divisional court within weeks of the orders coming into force. It declared that Article 3, to which I made reference, was unlawful. The value of the case for present purposes lies in the recognition by the court of the constitutional importance of access to the civil courts.
The House will recall from the recent debates on the provisions of the Crime (Sentences) Bill, in particular those provisions dealing with mandatory life sentences and minimum sentences, that those words "exceptional circumstances" are inevitably interpreted in a very restrictive manner. Although they do not amount to once in a blue moon, they get very close to that situation. There are clearly many litigants unable to obtain legal aid who cannot afford to pay court fees and whose circumstances are therefore not only unexceptional but extremely common. In regard to those persons, if access to justice is not to be entirely illusory, then the limitation on the exercise of the discretion must be changed. I would have thought it far more appropriate for the discretion to be exercised by the district judge and the words "exceptional circumstances" deleted.
866
Perhaps I may take the comfort of ending with three short quotations from brother Law Lords. First, in the case of ex parte Lwch in 1994, in Queen's Bench 198, Lord Justice Steyn said:
"It is a principle of our law that every citizen has a right of unimpeded access to a court".
In Raymond v. Honey, 1983, 1 Appeal Cases 13, my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce described it as a basic right. He said:
"Even in our unwritten constitution it must rank as a constitutional right".
Finally, in his interim report on civil justice reforms, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said at page 205:
"Court fees can have an adverse effect on access to justice if the litigant regards them as putting the cost of litigation out of proportion to the remedy sought. As part of the review of courts' fees I would therefore wish to see the position of the litigant of modest means being protected from the undue impact of increased court fees".
I await with, I hope, justifiable confidence the reply of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House will be indebted, as it often is, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for raising an important public matter. I am indebted to him for the comprehensive way in which he has dealt with the question, thus leaving me comparatively little to say.
I have always loved that chapter in possibly the most eloquent of the Old Testament prophets, Isaiah, which commences with the Almighty, through the prophet, having a discussion with us mortals. The chapter begins with the expression, "Come, let us reason together". I use the phrase not because I wish in any way to deify my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor (even though he may have as part of his traditional duty to be the conscience of Her Majesty the Queen) but because it is the right note to sound when one recognises the fact that, before the noble and learned Lord commenced to grace the Woolsack, all the matters of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, complained had been completed. Therefore, knowing well the breadth of the Lord Chancellor's mind, I ask that certain considerations be uppermost in the noble and learned Lord's mind when reviewing the matter.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, had limited time in which comprehensively to deal with the subject. He started by saying that there were some practical considerations but that he would talk about principles of grave concern. Perhaps I may therefore deal with some of those practical matters.
Fees were altered—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said that it was without any public debate or discussion, and without full consultation, as I understand it, with the Bar Council, the Law Society or the judiciary—on the following scale. On purpose I take examples which I believe will appeal to your Lordships as being of grave social concern. In 1995 and 1996, one had to pay a fee of between £20 and £50 for wardship applications. Those are often applications to protect the physical well-being of youngsters, or to ensure that they

867
remain within our jurisdiction, and are cared for in a proper way. From January 1997 the fee to commence the application was £100.
I turn to a debtor's petition in bankruptcy. Your Lordships will appreciate that when a debtor files his own petition, one takes it for granted, if he is an honest man, that he has literally nothing in his pocket; otherwise he would make an offer to his creditors, however small that may be. The fee used to be £20. In order that the debtor can file his own petition, from January 1997 the fee was increased to £50.
Lastly, as an example, would your Lordships take it for granted—noble Lords will have become familiar with this type of case having read the newspapers, if not from having followed it as lawyers would—that someone has been grievously injured for the rest of his or her life by the negligence of a doctor? Will noble Lords take it for granted—let me bear the pain of saying this—that a client of a lawyer has suffered immeasurable damage as a result of that lawyer's negligence? Will your Lordships take it for granted that, when the matter is as serious as I have tried to explain, the damages claimed may well be £100,000 or more? Before a writ could be issued, in October 1995 the fee payable was £100; in 1995–96 it became £120. Before the writ can be issued, since January 1997 a fee has now to be paid of £500.
The people whom I know the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will have in mind as much as anybody are those who fall just outside the net for legal aid. They are always the people who have the gravest difficulty in using our courts as they are intended to be used. They are the ones in the middle. The very poor are looked after; the very rich can afford it. The people in the middle are those who suffer most. It is in regard to them that I believe your Lordships will be especially sympathetic.
Perhaps I may make a plea to the noble and learned Lord following upon the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in relation to those on income support. They are now exempt. But there are means-tested classes within our community whom I want to mention in particular. They are those in receipt of jobseeker's allowance, disability working allowance, and family credit in those cases which are not family cases by way of the type of jurisdiction that the person concerned is trying to have exercised. If they are family cases, there is an exemption. I want to plead with the noble and learned Lord—although in his case I do not need to be of an unnecessarily pleading mind, because he will have these considerations very much in his concern. I ask that urgent consideration be given to exempting those who, I repeat, are means-tested from the increases that have taken place. Indeed, I want them, as I believe will your Lordships, to be completely exempted. Very apposite quotations were made by the noble and learned Lord. Since he referred to the case of in re Witham, I wish to quote Mr. Justice Laws, who delivered the main judgment in that case. He said:
"The right to a fair trial which of necessity imports the right of access to the court is as near to an absolute right to any which I can envisage".
868
Perhaps I may repeat, very humbly, the words of that very learned judge and hope that the House will endorse that judgment and that the noble and learned Lord will act within its spirit.
6.14 p.m.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for introducing this timely debate. It is timely not only because of the vast recent increase—in January this year—in court fees; but also because of the speech that the noble and learned Lord made at the annual conference of the Bar of England and Wales on 28th September last year, a speech to which he referred in his remarks during the Second Reading debate on the Civil Procedure Bill on 5th November last year. Perhaps I may remind the noble and learned Lord of what he said:
"an incoming [Labour] government would immediately undertake a wide-ranging review both of the reform of the civil justice system and of civil legal aid. That review would include the noble and learned Lord's reports"—
that is, the reports of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf.
"That remains the position of the Opposition. A rigorous cost-benefit analysis there must be".—[Official Report, 5/11/96; col. 611.]
Before I go any further, I should declare an interest. I am President of the Civil Court Users' Association, formerly the County Court Users' Association, which is chiefly concerned with consumer judgments and debts. I therefore much look forward to hearing where the noble and learned Lord is on this immediate, wide-ranging review of the civil justice system.
I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and his colleagues have put their finger on the right button. In its interim report, the Woolf Committee stated:
"The problem of cost is the most serious problem besetting our litigation system".
In Chapter 7, on page 78 of the final report, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and his colleagues said:
"Fear of costs deters some litigants from litigating when they would otherwise be entitled to do so and compels other litigants to settle their claims when they have no wish to do so. It enables the more powerful litigant to take an unfair advantage of the weaker litigant. The scale of cost per case has an adverse effect on the scope of the legal aid system. It also adversely affects the reputation of our civil justice system abroad".
The cost of litigation has therefore been a subject of increasing concern since I began practising some 34 years ago, and in recent years it has been of escalating concern.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to some of the increases. I should also like to point with some particularity to them. Prior to October 1995, the fee for a divorce petition was £40; from January 1997 it is £150. Then there is a new fee for amending that divorce petition of a further £50. Prior to October 1995, the fee for a county court summons was £80; it can now go up to £500. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, a High Court writ prior to October 1995 was £100; it is now up to £500. The fee for the debtor's petition, a point also mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mishcon, has risen from £20 to £50.

869
This increase in fees also has a cumulative effect. Let us take as an example a summons in the county court for a claim of between £50,000 and £100,000. Prior to October 1995 there would have been a fee on that summons of £80; then, perhaps if the litigant wanted to have some interlocutary hearings before the district judge, the cost would have been £10 per hearing; if there were three of them the cost would have been £30; and with the hearing before the judge the total would have been £210. From January 1997 the cost of the summons has risen from £80 to £300; the fee for the three interlocutary hearings has risen from £30 to £90; the hearing before the judge has gone up to £150; and the setting down for a trial, which is a new fee, is £100. The total is £640.
What is therefore the impact? It might be said that a litigant is in the big business of litigation if he is claiming something between £50,000 and £100,000, which carries a court fee of £300. It might also be said that a litigant is in the big business of litigation if he has a claim in excess of £100,000. That is not necessarily the case. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, pointed out, someone with personal injuries—a quadriplegic or someone with brain damage—may have injuries valued at well over £100,000.
Take another example of a lorry which crashes into a village shop whose owners are either not insured or under-insured. The damages to the fabric of the building, to the business and perhaps for personal injuries can amount to well over £100,000.
Let us also look a little more precisely at the cost of divorce proceedings. The cost is £150 and another £50 for amending the petition, on top of all the other costs that rain on a person going through divorce proceedings, including the cost of running two households. These court fees are hardly an inducement to litigants to end unhappy marriages.
Not only were these increased fees announced in January this year, but there were rumours last year of daily hearing fees, of £800 in the county court and £2,000 in the High Court. If those fees were introduced and passed into pensions and salaries for judges, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, would never need to raise again in your Lordships' House his well known concerns over judicial salaries and pensions. An enormous increase in court fees would result.
I hope, therefore, that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be able to tell your Lordships' House that there are no such plans for daily hearing fees.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said, the great importance of this debate—whether the litigant should pay the full cost of the administration of justice in our courts—is that it has never been considered and debated in Parliament. If the litigant does not undertake the full cost, then the taxpayer to some extent subsidises access to justice. But he and we should do so, particularly if to do otherwise would be a deterrent or a denial of access to justice.
6.23 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for introducing this Question, I am not merely making a conventional remark. It seemed that this debate was originally going to fall to me. I persuaded the noble and learned Lord to introduce it on the ground that he would do it better. I should like to thank him not only for doing so but also for proving me right.
I should also like to congratulate the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I think that this is the first time that we have exchanged words in a debate since his arrival there. We have so far tended to have the good fortune to agree and I hope that that will continue.
I appreciate that I am criticising measures which the noble and learned Lord was not responsible for introducing. I hope he will not reply with the words used about Parliament by King James VI of Scotland and I of England in an unguarded moment of bad temper: "I found it here when I arrived so I am obliged to put up with what I cannot get rid of".
I hope that the noble and learned Lord will take a rather wider view of the subject. If his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer should say to him that he cannot afford the cost of changing this measure, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will ask him to consider the cost of not changing it. This Government have so far been much better than their predecessor in considering the cost of not spending money as well as the cost of spending it. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not allow the first exception to that improvement to arise in his own department.
A long time ago, when I was an undergraduate, I took part in a large protest march. We passed through a medium-sized county town where the town council decided to forbid the marchers to use the town's public lavatories on the ground that, if they did so, they would cause a mess. Fortunately, the council was at the last moment persuaded that it would cause a great deal more mess if they were not allowed to use them. Similarly, I believe that, if the Government do not change the policy on these fees, it will cost a great deal more than if they do.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, quoted to us the words of Mr. Justice Laws, in which the learned judge spoke for his predecessors and our ancestors. When our medieval predecessors fought so strongly for the principle of access to the courts, they did so because they knew very well what people would do if they did not.
When John Lilburne's father was the last man but one to claim trial by battle in English law, he did so because his opponent had burned down his house with his evidence inside it. I recall the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool making precisely the same point in a memorable plea for the law centre in Liverpool, Toxteth. We must encourage access to the courts because we know what people will do if they do not have it. It is a live tradition and it deserves a hearing.
I have had experience of the introduction of full cost fees in another context, in the photographic service in the Public Record Office. It caused such astonishment

871
among the customers of that office that those managing it were finally reduced to displaying a Hansard page reporting a Starred Question in your Lordships' House, in reply to which the then Lord Chancellor explained that the costs covered the whole costs of the office. That was done because the office was becoming extremely unpopular as a result of collecting those costs. It is not in the public interests that our courts should become unpopular in that way.
It is clear as far back as records go that the maintenance of the courts is one of the Crown's basic responsibilities. Judges' salaries have been paid out of the Exchequer even at moments of greatest poverty in the Crown's experience. Nothing like the present proposal has been carried out, even in the reign of King Richard I, who, according to his critics, would sell his grandmother if he could be sure to get a good enough price.
This is a tax increase. The noble and learned Lord should perhaps portray it as the twenty-third increase introduced by the previous government.
It applies to all sorts of things. It is said that worse will happen if there is not this increase. There is a Treasury guideline to the effect that any Minister of the Crown proposing a saving on his departmental budget must consider the resource implications for other departments. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord can discover how far that was done in the introduction of this measure, but I am a little curious as to how the calculations might have been carried out.
Civil disputes easily turn to fighting if there is no resolution in the courts. People notoriously do not obtain a divorce if it is too expensive, which leads to a confusion of matrimonial relationships, differing from partnerships. Noble Lords will understand what I mean if I say that this could almost be described as Sadducean legislation.
As regards debt, the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, about bankruptcy are well taken. His remarks about compensation bear on actual cases. There are people who are entitled to large sums of compensation who, for the lack of a few pounds to begin proceedings, will never get it.
It applies also to eviction. In one case it was avoided because the citizens advice bureau in North Yorkshire paid the court fee out of a charitable fund of its own. But that cannot be a regular policy. Does anyone really suppose that the cost to the Government of eviction is ever as low as £10 per case? The arithmetic is a little curious, especially when we take into account the £14 million increase in the legal aid budget. That is what the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, used to describe as "churning". It is an exhausting and expensive activity.
We should also consider the effects on the benefits system. I am extremely surprised that income-based jobseeker's allowance has not been included under the terms of Mr. Justice Laws's judgment. The court which decided that did so on the ground, mistaken in point of fact, that it was more than income support. It makes my point that no appeal was possible because the fees could not be afforded. That creates injustice to other people as well as the particular litigant.
872
It is also a great concern to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Department of Social Security to eliminate poverty traps from the benefit system. There are far too many cases in which people who get into work are worse off than when they were on benefit because of the loss of a whole series of means-tested privileges. These fees add just one more to those privileges. I do not see why they do not apply to family credit or to disability working allowance.
If the Government do not intend to scrap those fees—as I believe, with proper costing, they probably would—I hope they will refer to Mr. Martin Taylor's review of poverty traps in the benefit system, which I welcome. The reason why it should go to such a review is that what is important is that the steps in costs as a person comes off benefit should not all happen at the same place. Otherwise there is a mountain. So they should be considered by somebody who is considering the other poverty traps. Instead of having steep steps, they should be spaced out, like a ramp for wheelchair users. Then people can come up a little further. I think that is something which only Mr. Martin Taylor can do.
We are told that it is difficult to deal with anything of this kind. But the Government do have certain basic duties. Doing justice is one of them; defending the realm is another. The noble and learned Lord was in the House at Question Time when the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, answered the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig. Speaking on the Eurofighter, he said that the defence of the realm was one of "the" basic duties of government. Doing justice is the only duty which comes on a level with that.
In 1637 in the Ship Money case, Lord Fynch, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, said that if an Act of Parliament were to enact that the King should not defend his kingdom it would be void. That never came to judgment. It was not tried. I do not know, if there were an Act to say that the Queen should not do justice, whether it would equally be void. I should rather not find out.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, the starting point and the governing principle for this debate must be the maintenance of effective access to justice. That is a basic right which is provided and guarded with equal force, both by the common law and by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
In the Witham case, the divisional court held that the 1996 amendment order impeded that right. Even without that trenchant decision of the divisional court, fee increases of that kind of level would have caused uproar, if they had been applied to, say, car tax or prescription charges. Today's debate has given an opportunity for the new Government to indicate whether matters are to remain in the unsatisfactory state left by the Witham case or whether there has been—or, at least, whether there will be—a more thoughtful review of the structure of court fees and the underlying policies and targets for any such structure. That is a review which should take place against a background of developing civil justice reform. In that context I am very glad that the noble and

873
learned Lord, Lord Ackner, quoted what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said in his interim report about court fees.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, characteristically selected an appropriate quotation from the Old Testament about reasoning together. Like many noble Lords participating in this debate I have been trying to grapple with what is the underlying rationale for any structure of court fees, particularly as it is a subject about which I suspect that most of us have not had to think very profoundly until, all of a sudden, there was this enormous uplift and an adverse decision, from the then Government's point of view, of the divisional court.
I am by no means sure that it is possible to reconcile effective access to justice with a full cost recovery, which was the policy of the last government. I suspect that, among other noble Lords, I am not the only one who has received the useful briefing material provided by the Legal Action Group which tells us something of what happens in other countries. It says:
"The proposal to raise the full cost of the courts through fees has been rejected in both the United States of America and Australia. The Judicial Conference of the United States discussed whether court fees should be raised to meet the running costs of the courts and rejected the idea. In Australia, a Government-appointed committee recommended: 'that fees should neither encourage nor be perceived as encouraging decisions by court administrators designed to maximise revenue. Accordingly, we are firmly of the view that there should be no budgetary link between revenue raised by the collection of fees …. and the appropriate use of monies'".
I suggest that it is necessary to ask whether full cost recovery is the policy of this Government and, if so, how that will operate in practice. For example, how will it operate as between the charges for issuing formal pieces of paper—which is what we have been discussing today—and charges for subsequent use of the court facilities once the necessary pieces of paper have been issued? That was a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking.
If full cost recovery is still the policy, what practical account is to be taken in the future of the impact on potential litigants of negligible or modest means? If full cost recovery is not the objective of the present Government, what is their policy and its rationale as between different categories of case and different categories of litigant; and what future uprating can be expected?
The present situation is unsatisfactory for a number of reasons: first, it does not give automatic exemption to those in receipt of benefits, apart from income support—a point made by my noble friend Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon; secondly, the undue financial hardship test creates uncertainty and takes time; and, thirdly, it bears hardest on those who are poorest, even if just above income support and legal aid limits.
In the Witham case, Mr. Justice Laws said:
"It is clear on the evidence before us that there is a wide ranging variety of situations in which persons on very low incomes are in practice denied access to the courts to prosecute claims, or, in some circumstances, to take steps to resist the effects of claims brought against them".
874
It may be said that the right of access to justice is not an absolute right. Nor is it; yet for most people, litigation is a last resort and, for many people, it is not a choice. Statistics show a decline in the number of civil cases being started. There is, quite properly, a growing emphasis on mediation and alternative dispute resolution. Apart from that, responsible lawyers always try hard to keep their clients away from the court, pushing them sometimes reluctantly to compromise and impressing upon them with firm advice the costs and hazards of litigation. Yet there will always be cases which need quick and easy access to the courts, sometimes urgently, and there will always be other cases in which a negotiated settlement can only be achieved in practice with litigation concurrently progressing to trial and concentrating minds.
Because some proper rationale for court fees is required, it perhaps does not help to focus the argument on particular categories of case, nor to try to compare or rationalise the different categories of case—for example, the fee for a bankruptcy petition, or that for a road accident claim, although, very properly, attention has been drawn to the enormous increases in those particular types of case. However, the public, and the court service itself, have an interest in compromising disputes. So why does there have to be a fee for amending a divorce petition? That usually reflects the fact of a compromise to enable a civilised end to a marriage on an agreed basis. Why does there have to be a fee for a consent application for ancillary relief following divorce? Likewise, that would normally reflect a cost-effective compromise rather than hostile litigation.
Finally, access to the courts for the protection of children should be the least impeded part of our system. Obviously children need to be protected—a point well made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—but it is also the form of litigation least likely to be covered by any form of insurance on either side, and in which it is least likely that the costs will be recouped from the other parties to the litigation. Surely a nominal fee, if any, is all that is appropriate.
Another category upon which I focus briefly is adoption. There is, as we have heard, an increased fee for an adoption application. Surely adopters, or prospective adopters, have more than enough hurdles already to overcome before they reach court, and once they get to court after the court process has been initiated. It is wrong to have a substantial fee for an adoption application, whether that bears upon the pocket of the individual adopters or upon that of the limited funds of the adoption agencies which support them.
Those cases are of course about access to justice, but they are about something much more. They are examples of situations in which the court is providing a public service, which any decent society would afford to its citizens for no more than a nominal charge.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I regret that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern is unable to speak in the debate. I am sure that he will take an

875
early opportunity to bring his immense intellectual and moral authority to bear on this topic. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for bringing this subject to the attention of the House. Perhaps I may suggest a few principles upon which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor might base the decisions that he will soon have to make on it.
First, the noble and learned Lord should endorse in its entirety the judgment by Mr. Justice Laws in Witham. Secondly, he should endorse the principle so eloquently explained by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the administration of justice is a matter for the taxpayer. That is not merely an important constitutional principle; it makes good economic sense. The vast majority of people do not use the courts. On the other hand, it is in their interests that the courts are there, just in case they want to use them. It seems to flow logically from that that they should pay for the fact that the opportunity is available if they wish to use it.
A further principle that I should like to emphasise is that any decision that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor makes about the structure of fees should wait until Sir Peter Middleton reports on the whole question of financial assistance to litigants; and, in turn, his views, which we eagerly await, about the implementation of the Woolf Report. One cannot make an objective assessment about the structure of fees in courts without also taking a view about the provision of legal aid, and, indeed, the whole running of court services. They have all to be seen together. I should not expect the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to come to any conclusion about the subject matter of the debate until well into the autumn.
I have something to say now—not very much your Lordships will be delighted to hear—about the structure of costs themselves. Given the fact that they will pay only for the cost of litigating, and not for the administration of the courts or the judges' salaries, considerable thought could still be given, with benefit to the—if I may put it this way—shape of the structure; for example, if one looks at most county court actions, the plaintiff wins a high proportion of them. Yet it is the plaintiff who seems to bear the initial costs. There are certain circumstances in which defendants behave rather badly. In those circumstances, why should they not have to put their money up first before their pleadings? That leads me to think that a greater degree of discretion should lie in the hands of the masters and the judges in taking decisions about the costs of interlocutory proceedings.
My other thought about the structure of costs is that at present they seem rather front-loaded—as the financial experts in the City say. The further into an action one gets, the higher the costs. At the moment the burden of costs seems to fall earlier rather than later in the procedure. Those are reflections which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I hope—I say this with due deference—will take into account when he applies his mind to the whole picture.
He has a difficult task in front of him. Treasury Ministers must be putting great pressure on all departments of government, including the noble and
876
learned Lord's, to keep down costs. He will have a big internecine battle to fight with his own colleagues in the Cabinet. If he sticks to the principles that have been so well outlined by so many noble Lords today, and stands up for them when it really matters, we will make real progress on what is, after all, an absolutely central constitutional issue.
6.48 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I welcome the kind words at the outset of the debate of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. His one-man opposition to the previous administration on issues concerning the administration of justice was one which the official Opposition, before the general election, from time to time joined. I hope that we may continue as allies generally, but I cannot undertake always to agree with him. I fear that this may be one of those occasions, but I hope that much that I am about to say he will find encouraging. I hope, too, that the views I express in the debate will satisfy the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that I have taken a wider view than my predecessor, though he, too, may not agree with everything that I am about to say.
The question in terms confines itself to the case which makes the strongest appeal: to protect the constitutional right of the litigant of modest means from the impact of new and increased fees. I expressed in your Lordships' House on 27th January this year my concern about the position of a family on income support unable to pay the £10 fee that was formerly required to reschedule a rent or debt obligation. I urged my predecessor to reverse his decision to remove exemptions and remissions. That decision of my predecessor came into effect on 15th January 1997, but in fairness to him—the point has already been made by the noble and learned Lord—I should add, with the concurrence of the higher judiciary who signed along with him the necessary fee order. Without their consent these changes could not have been made in the High Court. As a new Lord Chancellor, I hope that I will not be convicted of schadenfreude if I say that the fact that my predecessor could, with the concurrence of the Heads of Division, sign a statutory instrument which the courts in due course held to be ultra vires gives me a little confidence for the future, although I, of course, cannot guarantee to do any better.
My view, expressed in your Lordships' House, was supported by the Divisional Court in the Witham case, so I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, with respect, that I really have no need to endorse it. My position was well known before that court ever gave judgment. Its judgment was not appealed by my predecessor. It reinstated exemptions and remissions in the Supreme Court. Subsequently, my noble and learned predecessor also reinstated them in the county courts and in family proceedings.
It is right that those caused undue hardship by a requirement to pay fees should be protected; and they now are. I could not personally accept any other proposition, as I made plain from the Opposition Front Bench in January. At the same time, of course, the legal aid fund helps those who are eligible by meeting their

877
court fees and—an incomparably greater burden—by meeting the cost of their legal representation. And there is a general discretion, under paragraph 5(3) of the 1980 order, to reduce or rescind any fee where it appears that payment of it,
"would involve undue financial hardship because of the exceptional circumstances of the particular case".
I could treat that as an entirely satisfactory answer to the noble and learned Lord's Question, and I could now sit down; but I do not propose to do so. Lurking beneath the Question on the Order Paper, although not in terms asked, is another question: whether fees should be charged at all to those using the civil courts. In a democracy governed under the rule of law there must be a court system. I accept, of course, that citizens have what may be called a constitutional right to a court system. They enjoy that right. However, I do not accept that they have a constitutional right to a free court system. Those who claim that claim too much. What the state provides free, or at a charge, is a matter of policy for government. They have to determine priorities in the allocation of scarce public resources. Those who argue for free access to the courts in all cases say that no issue of policy arises—no discretionary decision how to allocate scarce public resources—because they attach the label "constitutional" to the right for which they contend. The real question is whether they are correct to do so.
I would not, for example, accept that a citizen has a constitutional right to free medical services in all cases, although a powerful argument can be made that the state should give a high priority to the provision of free medical services; and it does.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Would he accept a slight reformulation of the case he is putting? He said that decisions on charges are a matter of policy. Would he accept that they are a matter of policy so long as they do not prevent access; and that in order not to prevent access, the system needs to be slightly more generous than at present?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I would accept only that a system of charging for access must be fair. I shall elaborate on what I mean by "fair" in the course of this speech. What I am saying very, very clearly is that those who attach the label "constitutional" to their arguments are doing so quite deliberately so as to put themselves into a position of arguing that government have no discretion left in the allocation of scarce public resources because to charge anything for the use of the courts would be unconstitutional. It is that position that I cannot give intellectual acceptance to. For example, I would not accept that before the National Health Service was set up on 1948 there was a "constitutional" right of citizens to free medical services which was being denied.
I read in my Times on Friday that Mr. Justice Ferris recently described as "profoundly shocking" figures which showed that all but £60,000 of the £1.68 million personal estate of the late Robert Maxwell would be
878
swallowed up in professional fees. The judge said that if the amounts claimed by the insolvency firm appointed by the court to sell the remaining assets left after Mr. Maxwell's death were paid in full—and they were claiming at a billing rate of £270 per hour for senior staff and up to £195 per hour for other accountants—then the receivership would have produced,
"substantial rewards for the receivers and their lawyers and nothing at all for the creditors".
The modest fees charged by the court service did not of course merit a mention. They were a drop in the ocean.
Now any civil litigant who does not represent himself, but is represented by a lawyer, will in practice pay fees to his lawyers vastly in excess of the modest court fees. It is the fact that there are number of QCs in this country who do earn £1 million a year and many who would regard £500,000 in one year as representing a very bad year for them. I have to acknowledge that until recently I had myself what I think I could fairly describe as an entirely satisfactory and rewarding practice at the Bar, so that, to some, my calling attention to incomes of this order might bear comparison to the conversation of St. Paul. On the other hand, I am in an especially good position to know the facts and I do not believe that facts should be suppressed. It is also fair to say that there are very many more who earn fair and reasonable incomes, largely from criminal legal aid, the level of whose incomes are not to be criticised.
We are not talking expressly about criminal litigation today, but we are talking plainly. It is a staggering fact that of the total criminal legal aid budget of £566 million per annum, the top 1 per cent. of criminal cases consume 24 per cent. of the total expenditure. In a Written Answer on 24th June I confirmed that £13.36 million had been paid as of 17th June 1997 from the legal aid fund to lawyers who acted in the recent Maxwell cases. I shall not know what the final costs are until early next year. It is the fact that top lawyers in this country easily earn at least four times what top surgeons earn. The main deterrent on going to law is not court fees but the price at which lawyers value their own services and, so far, have succeeded in charging. To argue that court fees act as a deterrent to litigants is rather like arguing that people are deterred from buying a new motor car by an increase in vehicle excise duty.
It is the overall financial cost and risk of ligation that affects decisions whether or not to litigate, not any particular component in the overall cost. I therefore question whether it can be right to suggest that one of the smallest components in that bill—court fees—is really the determining factor. Fat cat lawyers railing at the inequity of court fees do not attract the sympathy of the public. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Let us for a minute consider the implications of any claim that users should not pay court fees. The total cost of civil business in the courts is £335 million per annum. Not all of this is required to be recovered in fees. The expression "full cost recovery" is a misnomer. The exemptions and remissions to which I have referred are funded by the taxpayer to the tune of about £15 million per annum. On top of this, the taxpayer, via the Legal Aid Fund, pays roughly £63 million of court fees. In all,

879
a total of about £78 million of the costs of the civil courts is met by the taxpayer on behalf of the poorer users of the courts. The amount paid by court users out of their own pockets is, therefore, around £257 million.
And let us be clear who these court users are. We estimate that around £100 million of fees are paid by large concerns, either issuing claims on their own behalf or paying to support those taking advantage of legal expenses insurance. Far less than half the cost of civil business therefore falls on individual litigants.
If I wished to provide courts free to all those who wish to use them, whether corporations or individuals, your Lordships will appreciate that the £257 million currently taken in fees would have to be found from somewhere else. Should I deduct £257 million from a legal aid budget which last year totalled some £1.5 billion? That would not be met with acclamation, least of all from the noble and learned Lord. I do not think anyone would argue that I should withdraw criminal legal aid to any extent, although I am sure that everyone will agree that I should control its cost. Nor do I think that any of your Lordships would wish me to cease providing assistance to those of modest means bringing family proceedings, or cases under the Children Act, or those seeking protection from domestic violence. Over £1 billion of legal aid expenditure would therefore be regarded as representing categories of legal aid, which I think almost every one of your Lordships would regard as inviolable. Perhaps I could make the saving by an immediate wholesale abolition of the advice and assistance scheme? That would excite howls of protest and rightly. Anyway, we have a manifesto commitment to develop, not to abolish, community legal services. A high priority therefore attaches to the £151 million which they currently cost.
The remaining £250 million or so goes to provide full civil legal aid, funding help for those bringing or defending housing and personal injury claims, or bringing proceedings for judicial review. Noble Lords will have observed that this £250 million would be just about enough to enable me to abolish all court fees. But would it really be a sensible development of policy to tear away legal representation from an impoverished tenant under threat of repossession; or to cast aside a person who needs help to prove a claim for injuries at work or elsewhere? Can it really be right to cast such people aside as the price for exempting people who have the means from paying a small fee to use the court? I do not think so.
The plain fact is that to cut my budget by £257 million Would affect access to justice even more comprehensively than the current court fees are claimed to do. Is the truth not that those who argue for free access to courts for all are really arguing that the Government should charge taxpayers an additional £257 million and then increase my budget by that amount so that I can dispense with court fees?
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord accept that no one participating in this debate
880
asked for no court fees, but did indeed ask that any rise in those court fees should be of a moderate nature and not induce hardship?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, although the unspoken premise is never articulated, the unspoken premise of much that is said on this subject is that courts are part of the constitutional fabric of the state and therefore should be provided free for all. It is that which lies at the root of argument on this subject, but the logic of that is very often not accepted and picked up and run with by those who tacitly are arguing that because they realise that they would not prevail in that argument. I am very clear as to what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, wishes to hear from me. I can see that the existing structure of fees is not as rational as it should be. The front-loading of fees, which involves those who pay a fee to commence a claim cross-subsidising that small group whose case proceeds all the way to a hearing, may be an anomaly. As noble Lords know, I have asked Sir Peter Middleton to review the proposed reforms of the civil justice system and legal aid together. That is what I said in my address to the Bar conference that we would do if we were elected. That is exactly what I have done in appointing Sir Peter to report to me. His review is well under way and it is expected that he will report to me by the end of September.
What Sir Peter Middleton is doing is looking at the problem both of the proposed Woolf reforms and legal aid together. But it is legal costs (lawyers' fees) which make up the overwhelming proportion of the total cost to litigants. Should I decide—and I am directly responding to the debate—following Sir Peter's report, to implement the Woolf proposals or to make similarly sweeping changes to the procedures of the civil courts, it is clear that fees will need to undergo a similarly radical restructuring. Changes to the procedures of the courts would remove or redefine the current charging points, by which I mean the stages in court proceedings where fees become due. Alongside any reform of procedures there will, therefore, of necessity be a restructuring of court fees. I intend to consult in the autumn on the principles which this restructuring of fees should follow. That is the clearest response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, on that matter. I am very concerned to get this issue resolved and resolved right.
I began by talking about protecting the poorest among us from the impact of court fees, and I explained that I regard the protections already in place—in the form of provision for exemption from, or remission of, fees, and in the form of legal aid—as adequate to ensure that they are not precluded from access to justice by being required to pay fees they cannot afford. The nature of the fees that are charged, and the way in which they are levied, however, needs to be reviewed. That is what I intend. But my present judgment is that there is nothing wrong with a general principle that those who can afford to do so should pay a fair fee for the use of the courts to resolve their disputes. The courts are cheaper by far than the charges associated with commercial arbitration.

881
I have listened to this debate with great profit. I have listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has said about daily hearing fees. I have no present plans to introduce them. The present principle is to recover the full cost of providing the civil courts, less an amount equivalent to the sum of exemptions and remissions. But I do not exclude any possibility from the review. There is a serious argument that court fees are excessively front-loaded.
Finally, in direct response to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I acknowledge that the current provisions limiting the granting of automatic exemptions in the county court and the Supreme Court to those in receipt of income support is worthy of consideration. Other forms of benefit are in practice taken into account by court staff, to whom the day-to-day exercise of the power to reduce or remit fees is delegated. But as part of the review of the structure of fees I intend to examine the basis on which remissions are granted and I shall consider whether it will be appropriate for other categories of benefit to give rise to an automatic exemption from the liability to pay court fees.
In a debate which has not lasted as long as was thought likely, I apologise for having taken a little longer than I should, but I took the view that the importance of the subject matter merited it.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, I wonder whether he can help me on one point. He referred to the Lord Chancellor's discretion, which is delegated, to remit or to reduce fees as being satisfactory. Would he not accept that adding the qualification that undue financial hardship must be shown and that that hardship must be due to exceptional circumstances renders that discretion very narrow indeed, since "exceptional circumstances" is a very restrictive qualification and rarely has any operation except to make the use of that discretion impossible to justify?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not at present accept that the discretion is too narrowly framed. I shall, however, consider representations in the review that it is.

The Caribbean
7.11 p.m.
Baroness Youngrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what proposals they have for addressing the needs of the Caribbean.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I start by saying how delighted I was to hear that the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, who is to reply to the debate, has already made two visits to the Caribbean. All of us taking part in the debate are delighted to feel that the Caribbean has a friend in her. The Caribbean needs friends.
Two weeks ago I had the opportunity to visit Washington to attend a conference that brought together an influential group from government and the private
882
sector from the US, Europe and the Caribbean to consider how best we might work together to assist the region to make the transition to a more open economic environment. I also had the opportunity to discuss privately a wide range of issues affecting the Caribbean region with members of the US Congress, the administration and others.
What was most striking at the conference was the continuing close nature of the relationship between Europe and the Caribbean and the similar approach to the region's concerns. Above all, Europeans saw the region's problems as development issues to be resolved through consensus. Unhappily, the same could not be said of the United States, a country with which I have a strong affinity and affection. While US officials fully recognised the nature of the problems facing the region, the Caribbean's problems were not seen in the context of partnership, but more in the context of trade advantage, security and stability. Few US participants recognised that the region's underlying problems could be resolved through the development over time of sound economic structures within which the private sector and democracy might flourish.
Trade negotiations within the western hemisphere and with Europe now make urgent the need to determine whether small states in the Caribbean are to have a special place in the global trade environment or are simply to be written off as losers. I should therefore welcome particularly any statement from the Minister on the nature of Britain's relationship after the year 2000 with the Caribbean. I say that because the Caribbean needs a significant period of adjustment.
By the year 2005 we shall all have a better picture of the environment within which the Caribbean will have to live. By then a post-Lomé arrangement will be in place and the shape of the free trade area of the Americas will be known. There will probably have been significant changes in the structure of Europe. The balance of power between EU member states may have changed and almost certainly the Union will have been enlarged to embrace the now free nations of eastern Europe. A new trans-Atlantic relationship will most probably be emerging as a result of the relationship with Mercosur, Mexico and other important players in the hemisphere.
The challenge for the Caribbean will be to develop a coherent strategy with a clear objective and timetable in mind. That will not be easy as the region will have to deal with the complex negotiating processes of both the free trade area of the Americas and the post-Lomé arrangement, as well as responding to significant changes in the trans-Atlantic relationship and the global economic environment. Above all, Caribbean negotiators will have to obtain from Washington and Brussels viable arrangements that ensure a secure economic transition in a manner which also ensures the retention of a high degree of sovereignty. That is something that we all want to see.
Let me voice my concerns. The first is that the US Administration and, to a much lesser extent, some of Europe's member states have not recognised that their present approach may not facilitate this but rather create

883
problems. This may result in high levels of economic and political instability, especially in the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States. The more so if policies are developed and implemented on the basis of short-term trade advantage, or by domestic concerns about economic refugees or narcotics.
If instability occurs in the Caribbean region as a result of poorly thought-through measures aimed only at encouraging trade liberalisation, this may well lead to a direct threat to both the US and our own interests. My fear is that if we and the US do not play a more active role in supporting, on a bilateral and multilateral basis, a more creative but gradual approach to economic transition, we will all lose the economic benefits we derive from the region and may, at worst, come to preside over an area of instability.
What do I mean by this? First, the free trade area of the Americas and any post-Lomé emphasis on eventual full reciprocity may make some of the smallest island states in the eastern Caribbean economically unviable. This is a serious charge. But this policy may result in us having to recognise that these states require permanent, special, and differential treatment. Present US trade policies, especially in respect of bananas, towards the eastern Caribbean States are not, if I may say so, in the region's best interest.
An outstanding example is the United States' current attack in the WTO (together with four Latin American states) on the special protection provided to imports from the Caribbean and other ACP countries under the EU's banana regime. Caribbean governments tried, in vain, to persuade the USA not to take this issue to the WTO. Now a WTO panel has ruled that special measures of protection provided by the regime are illegal, notwithstanding a GATT waiver which had been intended to cover them. If the current appeal against this ruling fails, this will pose a dire threat to the economies of the seven Caribbean states which have traditionally exported bananas to the UK.
My second area of concern is that a precipitate end to existing arrangements for these commodities may cause the region's economies to fail before they can change to newer industries, such as tourism, information technology, manufacturing and the service sector. Bananas, rice, rum, and sugar—through price—are already under threat.
The third area of concern is the isolation of Cuba. This, in my view, is counterproductive, and I base this statement on the three visits I have made to Cuba, the most recent in last October. If the approach of the US Congress causes an implosion in Cuba, the Caribbean and the southern US will come to reap the whirlwind of refugees, crime, narcotics trafficking, and even terrorism. These are the hallmarks of an unstable or violent transition from a centralised economy. History does not suggest that democracy would rise like Phoenix from the ashes.
Fourthly, new industries require stability. Tourism, the single largest industry within the Caribbean region, the financial sector, and information technology-based industries can flourish and attract investment only against a background of economic certainty. Achieving this requires external support.
884
Fifthly, narcotics trafficking and associated criminal activities will fill any vacuum left by collapsed industries.
I therefore believe that for reasons of economic and political self-interest, we need to develop now new approaches towards the future development needs of the Caribbean in conjunction with the private sector, NGOs and others.
There are a number of difficult questions that need urgent resolution. We need to consider how the mechanics of transition within a post-Lomé arrangement and the FTAA can be harmonised. It is in the interests of the Caribbean that the US and Europe ensure a co-ordinated and well phased economic transition. There is a need to find ways to foster the growth of newer industries in the Caribbean while broadening the economic base through the creation of schemes that encourage small and medium size enterprise and micro-enterprises. In this context there is a need to develop new financing mechanisms that assist in underwriting economic transition. There is a need to recognise that the British and Dutch dependent territories and the French Department d'outre Mer make our three European nations, plus the United States, special partners in the region. These remote parts of Europe and the territories of the United States offer options that to date have not been explored or understood.
I shall not repeat what I said in an earlier debate on dependent territories, save to note that absence of further advancement in our thinking about those nations for which we are responsible will lead to a growing resentment not just in the nations concerned but in the broader Caribbean region. Beyond this we need to engage in a much broader dialogue with the younger generation of Ministers in Cuba. We have a good relationship with that nation but it needs to be taken further. Despite our early start it is clear that in trade and other respects France, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and others are now outranking us. FCO officials and Ministers need to visit to engage in dialogue on the matters that concern us; invitations need to be issued to senior figures such as Carlos Lage and Roberto Robaina; ECGD needs to give creative thought to the ideas put to it by Sr. Soberon, the President of the Central Bank, for dealing with debt and establishing new forms of credits; we need to listen to the concerns of our businessmen who want to trade with Cuba; and we need to consider seriously the question of humanitarian assistance with medicines halted by the US embargo. We also need to prepare for when Cuba re-asserts its economic power and, together with the Dominican Republic, comes to compete aggressively for the market share presently held by the anglophone Caribbean countries in tourism, services and agriculture. There are also many other areas in which there might be closer co-operation and co-ordination which time does not permit me to raise.
If the Caribbean is truly to benefit from the special relationship it enjoys with us, Europe and the US there has to be a holistic approach that recognises that the best prospect for stability lies in working in a consistent manner over a five to 10-year period with government and the private sector in the region to ensure a measured

885
economic transition. We therefore need a long-term perspective. In the course of 20 or so years in public life, I have noted two occasions when small islands have caused disproportionate but very serious difficulties. The first was the Falklands war. The second was Grenada. I fear we are now witnessing a third in the island of Montserrat with whose people I have every sympathy. Small islands are vulnerable, and the small islands of the Caribbean need and deserve our support on a guaranteed long-term and carefully considered basis.
7.23 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness Lady Young for asking this Unstarred Question about a region for which over the years she has shown great concern and of which she has great knowledge. I thank her for the very sound sense that she has embodied in her speech. I should also like to congratulate my noble friend on having acquired her credentials so early for answering this Question by her visits to the Caribbean. Her visit to Montserrat was particularly appreciated. I shall not refer any further to Montserrat. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will ask all the questions and cover the position of that island very fully. She is more up to date than I am.
As I warned my noble friend's office, I shall be concentrating mainly on Cuba. As the noble Baroness said, she spoke in an earlier debate on Cuba in January this year. That debate was answered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie. This is but one of many parliamentary occasions on which the noble Baroness has emphasised the potential benefits of improved Anglo-Cuban relations. Today's Unstarred Question gives the new Government the opportunity to report on new developments since January and to announce their overall position on diplomatic and trade relationships with Cuba.
I have a particular interest in Cuba as a doctor concerned with the health of developing countries. I also went to Cuba on a private family visit in March and April this year. Cuba has an outstanding record in health care. From the start of the revolution the health of the population has been a top priority. This was not made any easier at the beginning by the departure in 1959 of half of the country's 6,000 doctors to the US. Since then new medical schools have been opened. There are now some 30,000 doctors and an equal number of nurses distributed on an equitable basis throughout the country, not merely in Havana where all of them used to practise. In most other developing countries health personnel and facilities are still concentrated mainly in the large centres because of private practice opportunities.
To cut a long story short, this concentration on health has resulted in Cuba enjoying a state of health as reflected in its health statistics which is comparable with that of the developed world. In 1995 it had an infant mortality rate of only 7.9—considerably better than that of Washington DC—and for the past five years life expectancy has been 74.3 years. These statistics are genuine, unlike certain statistics that one used to obtain
886
form the USSR (if any were available). They are vouched for by the World Health Organisation which has a close interest in the Cuban healthcare system. But this excellent record is now in jeopardy. A very full report entitled The Impact of the US Embargo on the Health & Nutrition of Cuba was published by the American Association for World Health in March this year. In January this year a shorter article on the same subject appeared in the American Journal of Public Health. These reports are the result of detailed on-the-spot clinical and statistical studies during a large part of 1996 by more than 12 experts in their field. I have with me the extremely detailed report which runs to 300 pages. It contains masses of references and provides details of all the many people who were interviewed and the institutions visited during the research. It is difficult to find better words than those of the report itself to describe its findings:
"After a year-long investigation, the American Association for World Health has determined that the US embargo of Cuba has dramatically harmed the health and nutrition of large numbers of ordinary Cuban citizens. As documented by the attached report. it is our expert medical opinion that the US embargo has caused a significant rise in suffering—and even deaths—in Cuba. For several decades the US embargo has imposed significant financial burdens on the Cuban health care system. But since 1992 the number of unmet medical needs—patients going without essential drugs or doctors performing medical procedures without adequate equipment—has sharply accelerated. This trend is directly linked to the fact that in 1992 the US trade embargo…was further tightened by the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act.
"A humanitarian catastrophe has been averted only because the Cuban government has maintained a high level of budgetary support for a health care system designed to deliver primary and preventive health care to all of its citizens. Cuba still has an infant mortality rate [only] half that of the city of Washington DC…Even so, the US embargo…has wreaked havoc with the island's model primary health care system. The crisis has been compounded by the country's generally weak economic resources and by the loss of trade with the Soviet bloc".
My own very limited observations during our visit certainly back up those conclusions. For example, during a visit to the diabetes institute in Havana I was told that it is almost impossible to obtain blood glucose testing strips which form the basis for the effective control of the treatment of diabetes. As a result of poor control, more patients will die from the complications of diabetes or will need hospital admission. During a visit to the main paediatric hospital in Havana, I was told that the most effective chemotherapeutic drugs for the treatment of leukaemia were in critically short supply and that infusion pumps and medications that ameliorate side-effects were virtually unobtainable. The hospital was modern but was in a run-down state because of the lack of maintenance. However, the standard of care seemed excellent. Among the many ordinary, very friendly Cubans whom we met was a young woman who two or three years ago had lost all her front teeth as a result of a bus accident. She had been unable to have them replaced because the materials which her dentist needed were not available. Other Cubans said that their doctors were very good, but there was little point going to see them for most complaints because no drugs were available unless they could be paid for in dollars.

887
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the US Government, in order to achieve their unilateral political aims, are prepared to make the population of Cuba suffer. In fact, it seems that they are deliberately doing so. It is the unilateral nature of this action which is so questionable, as much as the suffering of the Cuban people and the economic interests of those who would trade with them.
The embargo might be justified if it were the result of a UN Security Council resolution, as in the case of Iraq. But even there, humanitarian supplies have always been allowed through—and are now finally getting through—under certain conditions. We would all like to see more political openness in Cuba, but it has not broken any international convention that would justify the US sanctions. The comparison of US trade with other nations with a much worse human rights record than Cuba has often been made; for example, Indonesia, China and Turkey, which we are discussing on Friday.
The Organisation of American States, the regional organisation, is opposed to the embargo, although many of its governments are much more likely to face a communist takeover than is the United States. In January, when answering the noble Baroness, Lady Young—who is known well in Havana as La Varonesa—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, said:
"The United Kingdom and its EU partners have taken positive action to respond to the unacceptable assertions of jurisdiction by the United States contained in this legislation'",
that is the Helms-Burton legislation,
"and the EU has also adopted a regulation designed to counter the effects of US legislation on Cuba".—[Official Report, 22/1/97; col. 791.]
May I ask my noble friend to outline what has happened in the interim six months? So far as I am aware, there has been no high level World Trade Organisation meeting on the issue and discussions are still going on between the European Union and the United States. How long are we going to wait before the World Trade Organisation adjudicates on the matter? Time is very important for the Cubans and for our export trade. For the Americans, the more delay the better because their clear aim seems to be to bring Cuba to its knees economically. We are seeing that through the suffering of its people. Perhaps I may say in parenthesis that recently there were bombs in two hotels in the central tourist part of Havana. I wonder who has been trying to discourage the tourist trade.
Finally, what is the present position on the rescheduling of Cuba's debt to the Paris Club? My information from Cuban sources is that they are prepared to enter discussions on the issue on an open agenda with no preconditions, but that the Paris Club is insisting that certain positions are "non-negotiable". As the British Government were previously not prepared to allow further credit through the ECGD unless the matter was settled, surely it is highly desirable to make progress. Cannot our new Administration take a more open view on these negotiations and on the linking of the ECGD loans to their outcome? It is worth remembering that many British jobs could depend on these decisions, quite apart from the benefit to the people of Cuba. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young,
888
has put it, the Cubans are in a Catch-22 situation; they need loans to modernise their industry, which they need to do, in order to make the exports to pay back the loans.
7.35 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords. I greatly welcome the enterprise of my noble friend Lady Young in initiating this Unstarred Question. I was extremely interested in what she had to say.
My love affair with the Caribbean started some years ago. As a MAFF Minister, I was responsible for the really tricky question of bananas and I was fortunate indeed to be privileged to visit several Caribbean countries on behalf of MAFF. Tonight's debate has prompted me to make one point which is not only of the utmost importance to the Caribbean people but also to the United Kingdom. I refer to the disease known as sickle cell disorder.
The disease is an inherited blood condition. It is incurable. It is also extremely painful. It affects people of equatorial African origin and their descendants in north and south America, the Caribbean and Europe. It also affects people around the Mediterranean and central India. Sickle cell disease affects 10,000 patients in the United Kingdom and is an increasingly important cause of ill health.
When some seven years ago I went to Jamaica, I visited the Jamaican Sickle Cell Unit and was tremendously impressed by the dedication and high quality research and care of its patients. I wish to pay tribute to its distinguished and tireless director, Professor Sergeant. There are more than 5,000 people suffering from the disease in Jamaica. That country represents the ideal place for long-term follow-up because of the ease of tracing and the co-operation of parents and families. The lessons learnt have changed the concept of sickle cell disease. The expertise of the unit has permitted it to provide consultative services to the Caribbean, the USA, the UK, Brazil, Greece, Saudi Arabia and India.
I hope that I have given a flavour of the importance of the unit not only to the Caribbean but also to this country. Now comes my plea. At the present time funding for the unit comes from the British Medical Research Council, but this support will be phased out between 1999 and 2002. The Jamaican Ministry of Health has pledged 6 million Jamaican dollars a year to continue the clinical services. The University of the West Indies has pledged 6 million Jamaican dollars towards the research programmes. However, there will be a shortfall of 10 million to 12 million Jamaican dollars, without which the unit will not be able to continue its clinical and research programmes.
My plea is to this Government. The Jamaican unit, perhaps the greatest centre of expertise in the clinical management of sickle cell disease, has a vital role to play in the education and training of UK-based staff responsible for its management in the United Kingdom. If the unit were to close for lack of support, the unique training facility would be lost, to the detriment of training and also research which directly benefits sickle cell patients in the UK and worldwide. It is my hope

889
that the Department of Health can be persuaded to fund training fellowships for national health staff who could contribute to the running costs of the unit. I sincerely hope that my plea will not fall on deaf ears.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I too wish to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for asking this important question, and I do so much echo many of her words. I am going to limit my few remarks to the plight of St. Lucia, one of the most beautiful of the Caribbean islands. I must declare an interest as I am a residual beneficiary of a large estate on the island producing bananas. There are three points I wish to make; first, not surprisingly, bananas; secondly, ODA; and finally, pensions.
Bananas are St. Lucia's lifeline—65 per cent. of its total foreign exchange earnings come from bananas and 13 per cent. of the total population are involved in banana production, which is 30 per cent. of the working population.
When I first visited the island I was aware how vital it was for St. Lucia to reduce its dependence on bananas. Tourism and financial services are gently expanding but the St. Lucian Government accept that the banana will always remain the core product.
I know from experience how appreciative the St. Lucian Government have been for the support given by HMG in the past and most especially the interest shown by the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker.
I now urge HMG to: continue robustly to defend the current preferential market access arrangements; to encourage support for the obligations for the banana protocol of the Lomé Convention; and to continue to support those policies and mechanisms which will enable banana exports from St. Lucia to enter the EU Market on the basis of fair and remunerative prices.
St. Lucia, like other Commonwealth Caribbean countries no longer qualifies for development grants from HMG on the basis of what is regarded as its "high per capita income". As a result, St. Lucia has been "graduated" out of accessing grants and concessional aid. Bilateral aid from HMG (and other donors) is virtually nonexistent, except for technical assistance.
However, while St. Lucia understands the objectives of Her Majesty's Government's development assistance policies, there is nonetheless a good case for the Government to review their policies and strategies with respect to development assistance to St. Lucia and other member states of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS). In this context, I urge the Government to consider that modern and adequate physical infrastructure is necessary to support St. Lucia's efforts aimed at diversifying its economy and sustaining developmental activities. St. Lucia and other OECS countries are particularly vulnerable to external forces including hurricanes. Huge sums of money are spent on repairs and/or rebuilding in their aftermath.
I urge the Government to review their development assistance programme, particularly their bilateral programme with St Lucia, with a view to making grants
890
and other concessional aid available to sustain its economic and social development; to assist in encouraging other donor countries and agencies to review their "graduation" of OECS countries, and St. Lucia in particular, with the objective of causing a reversal of this particular policy. As virtually every motorised vehicle on St. Lucia is Japanese, it has often struck me that Japan ought to be doing more to support the island.
I now turn to pensions. The pensions of UK national pensioners who reside in this country benefit from cost of living adjustments. The 1,055 retired pensioners who have opted to reside in St. Lucia do not receive these upratings. The rate remains payable on the date of the entitlement. or the date the person left the UK, if they were already a pensioner then. Such a policy appears to be unjust and discriminates against pensioners who might want to relocate for medical or other reasons. This "frozen pension" policy has acted as a deterrent to pensioners who wish to return to their native country on account that they would be deprived of the "upratings".
I urge the Government to review the issue of "frozen pensions" with a view to ensuring that UK pensioners in St. Lucia receive pensions on the same basis as those residing in the UK; in other words, that their pensions are index-linked. With such a small number of pensioners involved, the charge to the Treasury would be minute. I look forward with interest to the noble Baroness's reply.
7.45 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Young has spoken at various times on the Caribbean. She has done valiant service over a number of years in drawing those problems to our attention and in making very worthwhile missions there which have always been a great success.
I expected that this debate would concentrate largely on the anglophone Caribbean, which, after all, is the ex-British area for which we should expect Her Majesty's Government to have specific policies. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Rea, I propose to concentrate entirely on Cuba, the largest island in the Caribbean and potentially the most important.
Cuba certainly has needs but they are quite different from those of the anglophone Caribbean. Since the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba has found itself living with a quite different sense of reality. The difficulties have been created to a large extent by US intransigence. I suppose that philosophically the US position has somewhat played into the hands of the Cuban leaders, who have been able to establish a fortress mentality behind the patriotic cause. I do not believe that the present system in Cuba could possibly have survived for so long in any normal relationship with its nearest neighbour, US policy having been so short-sighted because it has isolated the island and delayed progress there very considerably. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Rea, rather implied that in his remarks.
I have been to Cuba on a number of occasions and I have had the privilege of a very long conversation over dinner with Fidel Castro, who is a most charismatic

891
leader and extraordinary character. Indeed, having a long conversation with him is a fascinating experience and very worthwhile.
Of course, he is somewhat obsessed by the United States and uses that to maintain the zeal of the revolutionary cause and its ideals. But revolutions need to evolve and move on. That has been brought to our attention quite recently in Mexico where a long-standing revolutionary cause was brought to a close by the democratic process and the introduction of a much more pluralist democracy.
All systems where the supreme leader stays at the top for too long have tended to come unstuck in the end. Castro has been there for 38 years.
I believe that it is quite possible that the socialist model may have been right in 1959, considering the corrupt and appalling regime which existed before. But I do not believe that that is the case today. If the Cubans are convinced of the righteousness of their cause, I believe that they should be able to withstand the rigours of a pluralist democracy and, above all, a free Press.
That may seem an intrusion into Cuban affairs, but I have enormous affection for both Cuba and its people and I very much look forward to continuing the dialogue with that dynamic, striking and very hardworking people.
However, despite all those problems, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and my noble friend Lady Young pointed out, Cuba is changing and the economy is opening up, albeit somewhat slowly. Indeed, I believe that it would move faster if only the Cubans would realise that we all have to live in an increasingly globalised and interdependent world. But, of course, there is the further problem of Helms-Burton—a scandalous piece of extra-territorial legislation and a further example of flawed US policy, to which I referred earlier. I am tempted to continue developing the Helms-Burton problem, but as I have a Starred Question on this subject tabled in two days' time, I shall resist and turn to more specific UK interests.
Cuba is a very beautiful country, well endowed with both human and material resources. Cubans want to move away from their inward-looking past and their dependence on the Comecon countries, which no longer exists. Therefore, there are plenty of opportunities for Europe, and Europe is beginning to take a considerable interest. Spain and France seem to have taken the lead, while we are lagging behind. Trade missions have visited Cuba and, indeed, a Caritag mission returned only last week. However, their hands have been somewhat tied in following up those opportunities by the lack of cover from ECGD. I hope that something can be done in that respect.
Ministers have visited Cuba. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, who seems already to have visited the Caribbean twice, will include Cuba on her next round to that part of the world and also encourage many of her colleagues to do likewise. They can be assured of receiving a very warm welcome indeed. Moreover, by the same token—and my noble friend Lady Young mentioned this—Cuban Ministers should
892
be invited here. In the January debate, it was suggested by my noble friend Lady Young, and supported by me, that Dr. Carlos Lage should be invited. But, unfortunately, nothing has yet happened. But why only Dr. Lage? What about Roberto Robaina, the Foreign Minister, and Ricardo Alarcon, the President of the Parliament? They are all able and very talented Ministers with whose dialogue we would benefit if they were asked here.
Therefore, what Cuba needs from the UK, apart from our good will, which I believe exists, is trade and investment. We need to follow up the many opportunities which present themselves and I hope that we can do so as soon as possible.
7.53 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, perhaps I may be the first speaker to express my thanks to the noble "Baronessa" for introducing tonight's debate. I should also like to thank the Minister for her visits to the Caribbean. I heard her say how rewarding those experiences had been. That was a private remark, and one I hope that the noble Baroness will not mind being repeated publicly; indeed, I believe that it says a great deal for her commitment and that of the Government to addressing the issues which arise in the Caribbean.
As ever, I have learnt more this evening than I can possibly contribute to the debate. I had not thought that I would be asked to address the notion of the evolution of revolution. I think I shall leave that issue for later. The discussion of the attitude of the United States in seeing the Caribbean as a market and not a partner was a notion which moved directly from the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to that of the noble Lord, Lord Rea. I have to say that I was also struck by the association of the notion of bananas, rum, rice and sugar, which I believe were the commodities mentioned as being under threat, needing to be replaced by new commerce, including tourism. However, when that was followed immediately by reference to narcotics and terrorism, it struck me that the latter must be great threats to tourism.
Since the debate on the dependent territories on 11th June, the volcano in Montserrat has erupted and Hong Kong has been handed over to the Chinese. That has led to some interesting press comment on the treatment of what was this country's empire, although I do not much like to think of it in those terms. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for referring to Montserrat, which she described as being very vulnerable; indeed, it is. Perhaps I may confine my remarks to that island.
I am well aware of the sensitivities of the relationships between the British Government and the local government. I hope that the Minister can make some comment this evening about how relationships are developing. In particular, perhaps she can say whether the time may now be coming to declare a state of emergency in Montserrat which, as I understand it, would give the governor more powers. I should especially like the Minister's assurance that any holding back from declaring a state of emergency is a matter of

893
local sensitivities and not, if I may put it bluntly, one of cash in that it might lead to more obligations on this country.
With regard to cash, the Government have not shied away from the need to assist the people of Montserrat. I am aware that there has been a further investment—I hope that one might look at it in those terms—of £6.5 million. Can the Minister tell the House how that sum is to be spent? I have heard that it is perhaps to be used for housing some 1,000 people—that being an estimate of those who may be assisted by it. I would be glad to hear the Minister's comments on that in the context of the 1,500 or 2,000 people who had to move following the recent eruptions.
As I understand it, £450,000 out of the previous grant is to be spent on hospital development. That is clearly badly needed in this unhappy island. In that respect, can the Minister comment on the time that will be taken to provide medical facilities? I understand that there is to be a local consultation as to what is to be provided, which may take something like 15 weeks. Often in your Lordships' House I have begged for consultation. I feel somewhat embarrassed to make the point that this may not be an occasion for consultation but one for getting on with the job and spending money. If there is to be such a long period, how many people will be left on the island by the time that the hospital is built? I believe that a health study is in progress at present. However, as I understand it, it will be two or three months before a report is available.
A major issue for the people of Montserrat is how long the island can remain viable. I believe that a comment was made by the governor in a television interview; namely, that when the population dips lower than 4,000, the island may no longer be viable. As your Lordships may well understand, with the threat of further eruptions the population is decreasing very fast, though not I hope on a permanent basis. However, at present, it is decreasing at a great rate. Other dependent territories have tiny populations, certainly that applies to the Pitcairns and the Falkland Islands. If the Minister can assist the House as to the judgment of 4,000 being a viable population, I would be most grateful. I am particularly concerned to be assured that decisions about evacuation will be based not on the future financial viability of the island but on safety grounds.
I raised my next point in the debate on the dependent territories last month. I know that the Minister has shown an interest and an understanding of this problem; namely, the need for someone in this country under the wing of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to act as a liaison person with the community here. The representatives of the Montserrat community here have been most grateful for the Minister's sympathy. They would be even more grateful to know when such a person may be appointed.
8 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I left Tate & Lyle in 1983 to take my seat in another place. While over 10 years have passed since I would have to declare a
894
commercial interest, the passing of time has not lessened my deeply held commitment to this part of the world that we are debating this evening, nor to the important trading agreements which figured prominently at the time we joined the European Community, for it is trade not aid which the House has rightly focused on during the debate.
In 1974 the United Kingdom joined the European Union without an agreement on Commonwealth sugar which figures so prominently in the third of the Caribbean which comprises the Commonwealth countries. However, there was a commitment from the European Community that it would have—I quote from Protocol 22 of the UK Treaty of Accession—
"as its firm purpose the safeguarding of the interests of the ACP countries whose economies depend to a considerable extent on the export of primary products. and particularly of sugar".
As Patricia Jamieson, a leading expert on the subject, recently noted, the commitments made by the European Union to the ACP sugar exporters provided firm guarantees of access to the market.
We have heard reference to the post-Lomé era. Our historical commitments to our trading partners in this area, not least in the Commonwealth countries of the Caribbean, are important. In the context of today's debate we seek assurances from the Government that they will uphold their commitments to secure the interests of the Caribbean countries which remain heavily dependent on their trading links with Britain and the Community, and thereby recognise that trading access and opportunity should wherever possible supersede aid in order to maximise effective development potential.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has lucidly and movingly referred to Montserrat, the tiny island with roughly 6,000 residents which has figured prominently in this debate. As she mentioned, it is a dependent territory which is on the brink of collapse as a result of the volcano which has been simmering and, regrettably, occasionally exploding during the past two years. As I understand it, that threat has led to the island being divided into zones which vary according to their relevant danger. Zone A in the south, nearest to the volcano, is so dangerous that the area may be entered only by scientists when a helicopter is standing by to pick them up in an emergency. Unfortunately, the south is also the most productive region and includes the capital and the airport. It has in the past been agriculturally fertile. This has meant that many of its residents have chosen to go back and work in the area despite the warnings that it should be completely evacuated.
Meanwhile the majority of the population has been rehoused on the north side of the island, but understandably often in unsatisfactory conditions. There are widespread environmental problems as a result of many families being relocated together. The shelters are primitive and are unlikely to survive the hurricane season which is currently under way and will last until late September. What worries many people in this House—and I am sure it worries the Minister—is that the health facilities for the remaining islanders are poor. The hospital which was built with UK aid—that was

895
commendable—was located in the capital which is now almost completely out of bounds. I understand that at least one school has been converted into an emergency hospital but lacks suitable amenities. The lavatories are located outside the main building, for example.
This has also had a significant knock-on effect on education. The relocation of families, the annexation of at least one school for health reasons, and the mass exodus of teaching staff, who along with some of the wealthier citizens have been able to leave the island, have created a vacuum of decent education for many. Moreover, on an island where the crime rate has traditionally been low, the strains which inevitably arise from this form of disaster have, I understand, led to an increase in crimes of burglary and violence.
The UK Government and the Minister have commendably taken some steps to alleviate the suffering. The Government have built a new jetty in a designated safe area, but there is some doubt about whether a full scale evacuation could, if necessary, take place at short notice. I would appreciate the Minister's comments on the question of evacuation. This matter has been raised today. The Government also permitted all Montserratians to enter the United Kingdom should they choose. Inevitably only the wealthier citizens have initially at least been in a position to accept that offer. They face an uncertain future, as currently I understand there is no guarantee they will be permitted to stay here indefinitely. At the present time there are some 1,000 people in total here.
I know that a task force of officials has been working with the Government of Montserrat to assist with some of the difficulties. I hope that all my comments will be taken in the spirit of commending the work of that task force and of the Minister and her colleagues. I, for one, greatly admire her energy and the way in which she has committed herself to address these problems caused by what is unquestionably one of the greatest disasters faced by people in the Caribbean for many years. I commend the action of ensuring that helicopters have been mobilised to work on the island. I understand that four of them have been mobilised. A special ferry service is now in operation to and from Antigua which has alleviated the problems caused by the closed airport. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned, a further £6.8 million has been made available. This is in addition to the £16.5 million found by the previous government to assist the island following the first major volcanic eruption.
I understand that the present Government argue that the first priority is to see that the Montserratians are safe, and that secure housing will follow. There is inevitably a continuing debate over the viability of the island—which we have heard this evening—and the potential need for it to be completely evacuated. Obviously, if this were to be the case, the building of secure housing would have been premature and a sad waste of time. The Government of Montserrat are nevertheless keen to ensure that the island remains inhabited and viable. Of course the economy of the island has nevertheless been seriously disrupted. Although poor, with a per capita GDP of some 3,500 US dollars, the island was previously viable, producing
896
rice for the European Union and creating a haven for tourists. Both those pillars of the economy have been completely destroyed. The Minister's comments on all these points would, I know, be welcomed both by the people of Montserrat and those in this House who have taken an active interest in the terrible tragedy which has taken place.
I welcome the comments of my noble friend about the importance of trading relations and the uncertainty resulting from the considerable change in all those trading relations, not least from the impact of the free trade areas of the Americas and the adverse trade rulings on bananas which my noble friend rightly highlighted. That unquestionably threatens the long-term stability of the area. What is needed is a close and detailed look at the implications of this shifting sand and changing mosaic in the trade arrangements which impacts so deeply on the people who live there.
I wish to mention another subject which has dominated this evening's debate; namely, Cuba. I agree with noble Lords who have said that the Helms-Burton legislation in the United States was not only unwelcome but deeply contentious. Any legislation that aims to penalise companies from anywhere in the world that do business in Cuba by creating "black lists" and boycotts within America—I understand some 318 companies are reportedly doing business with the Castro regime—deserves the sort of response that the Canadian Foreign Minister took with considerable strength in his brave step of organising a state visit to Havana in January of this year to demonstrate his country's clear view on the American ruling.
Generally, international governments have taken the view that this kind of policy is not the right way to encourage a process of transition to a pluralist democracy, and particularly unnecessary at a time when Cuba is beginning to send some new and welcome signals to trading partners following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. That should be encouraged. I think that the confrontational approach that was demonstrated in the Helms-Burton legislation is unwelcome. I look forward with interest to hearing the views of the Minister on that subject.
Finally, I praise and thank my noble friend Lady Young for initiating this debate. After so many years of admiring her outstanding work, it is a privilege to be able to participate in a debate with her. I also congratulate the Minister on her commitment to the region's interests, despite suffering as a result from the necessary cocktail of immunisation jabs—I am pleased to report that she has fully recovered—required for her first visit. If I may say so, it was the only setback in an otherwise exemplary approach to understanding the problems of this vitally important region. I assure the noble Baroness that all noble Lords will support her if she continues to show the commitment and dedication to the people, not least those of Montserrat, and continues to work in the way that she has clearly demonstrated so effectively and vigorously in the early months as Minister responsible for this region.
8.11 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I have listened to the debate with great interest, as I am sure all noble Lords have done. Like other noble Lords, I thank and warmly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on introducing the debate tonight. We have touched on a wide range of topics. I shall do my best to answer the questions raised. If I am unable to get through them all, I shall write to noble Lords whose questions I am unable to answer in detail.
The economic and social progress of the small Caribbean Commonwealth countries is threatened by several global trends. Those include the erosion of preferential trade arrangements for their exports, growing competition for the tourism sector; drug trafficking throughout the region; and climate change which is likely to increase vulnerability to natural disasters. Poverty is still widespread in some countries and there are pockets of severe deprivation in others.
Britain's development partnership with the region aims to build local capacity so that Caribbean people are better able to face those challenges and achieve a sustainable reduction in poverty. At the same time we are negotiating actively within the European Union to moderate the impact of changing trade preferences, for example, as many noble Lords have mentioned this evening, in relation to bananas.
Britain maintains a significant flow of finance to the region through a number of channels. First, we provided £38 million of bilateral aid last year. Secondly, there are very substantial resources available through the European Union. The UK has contributed over £100 million to the region through this channel over the past five years. Under the eighth European Development Fund there will be an increase in EU assistance. Thirdly, we support the region through the activities of multilateral agencies such as the World Bank and the Caribbean Development Bank. Britain contributed £11 million to the most recent replenishment of the CDB's special development fund.
In addition, the Commonwealth Development Corporation provides direct assistance for private enterprise in the Caribbean. Last year, the CDC invested £50 million.
The Caribbean's future prosperity depends on the skills of its people and safeguarding its natural resources. Through our development assistance programme we are supporting education in many parts of the Caribbean, particularly for poorer children.
Law and order is crucial to underpin development, particularly in response to the drugs threat. Drug abuse and drug-related crime is a growing problem, particularly for the poor. We are continuing our assistance to strengthen law enforcement agencies in the Caribbean, with particular emphasis on anti-narcotics work.
We are also helping to strengthen Caribbean economies so that they can withstand the growing competitive pressures of the new trading environment.
898
The European Commission, with strong support from Britain, is helping the Windward Islands to restructure their banana industries and diversify their economies.
In these various ways we hope to develop Caribbean capacity to tackle the challenges ahead without the extensive reliance on external support which has been a feature of the past. Helping them to help themselves includes our support for regional organisations such as CARICOM. This will enable us to move towards a stronger and more equal partnership with Caribbean countries based on shared interests and mutual respect.
The conclusion reached by an EU Experts Group which visited the Caribbean early last year was that the drug problem had become the single greatest threat to the stability, democracy, and economic and social development of all countries (including our Dependent Territories) in the region. The growth of drug abuse in the Caribbean was also of major concern to almost everyone I saw when I visited the region.
Countering drug-trafficking and abuse of drugs is therefore a major priority for the British Government. Our West Indies Guardship is perhaps the most visible example of the Government's commitment in this area. We provide considerable bilateral assistance to the region for counter-drugs work—some £3.5 million in 1996. Britain is also active in supporting counter-drugs work by the European Union—in particular the Caribbean Drugs Initiative—and multilateral agencies such as the UNDCP. We recognise the need for a co-ordinated approach to the drug problem and close co-operation with major powers in the region. We work closely with the United States over counter-drug work. But the work on drugs and drug trafficking must be relentless. We shall continue not only to sustain these initiatives but to seek further ways of combating the international menace of this appalling trade.
The Caribbean region is vulnerable to money laundering because of its proximity to the major drug-producing countries in Latin America and the large number of offshore centres. We welcome growing recognition by countries in the region that failure to tackle money laundering cannot only damage their international reputation and drive away investors, but can also destabilise their economies.
Urgent action is needed to counter that threat. We are encouraged at the efforts now being made to criminalise money laundering, improve supervision of the financial sector and modify the strict banking confidentiality laws which apply in some countries. Britain is glad to have been able to support these efforts with advice and bilateral technical assistance both to our Caribbean Dependent Territories and to some independent states in the region.
Many noble Lords concentrated their remarks on points relating to Cuba. I should like to outline the ways in which the UK has steadily increased its range of activities and initiatives on Cuba over the past three or four years. We have revived the practice of so-called functional visits with an extensive exchange of business delegations: Ministers and officials responsible for trade, investment, health, justice and other fields. A first ever visit by the Royal College of Defence Studies took

899
place at the end of last year. There has also been a flow of sponsored visitors to the UK including the Minister of Justice, and, this summer, the Minister for Agriculture. In addition to seminars and training schemes, a successful trade mission to Cuba concluded earlier this month with over 20 companies represented. Wider assistance includes annual British Partnership Scheme support for economic reform and good governance and, earlier this year, the British Council restored a programme for Cuba.
The Government's policy towards Cuba, along with our EU partners, is to encourage a process of transition to pluralist democracy and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms as well as a sustainable recovery and improvement in the living standards of the Cuban people. Proposals to evaluate and implement the December 1996 Common Position on Cuba were adopted by the European Union in June. The Common Position notes that transition is most likely to be peaceful if the present regime were itself to initiate or permit such a process. We believe that constructive engagement is the most effective way of encouraging the reform process in Cuba.
We strongly object to the use of unilateral trading sanctions which target the trading interests of our close partners as exemplified by Helms-Burton. It makes it harder for us to achieve our shared objectives with our European partners in ensuring democracy, human rights and fundamental freedoms in Cuba as well as economic reforms.
My noble friend Lord Rea raised a question about medical supplies. Both the Cuba Democracy Act and the Helms-Burton Act, in Section 202, contain specific provisions on medical supplies. Under the UK's bilateral aid programme to Cuba, the British partnership scheme has been used in the past to provide some limited medical aid.
I was also asked about the UK's policy in relation to Cuba's debts. We agree that Cuba's indebtedness is indeed a problem that will affect its economic prospects. That underlines the importance of Cuba reaching agreement with its Paris Club creditors on the rescheduling of its debts and establishing a track record of repayments. The ball is in Cuba's court to establish a constructive dialogue with the Paris Club. Cuba has already had two debt rescheduling agreements with the Paris Club even without an IMF programme, which is the normal prerequisite. It is only natural that creditors will expect to see some undertakings in terms of economic reform when considering further rescheduling so that they can be satisfied that Cuba will be in a position to meet future repayments. That is particularly so given that the Cubans have allowed arrears to build up under the previous agreements.
I was also asked about ECGD cover. Cover is not currently available for Cuba. That is due to Cuba's poor economic situation and the outstanding debts that I just mentioned. However, short-term cover for consumer items is available from, I understand, the private company NCM.
A number of noble Lords raised the question, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, did so in particular, of the Government's policies post-February 2000, when
900
the current convention, Lomé IV, expires. Negotiations on a successor, Lomé V, must begin no later than September 1998. That means that the EU must agree a mandate for the renegotiations in the first half of next year, largely during the UK presidency of the EU.
I am fully conscious of the responsibility that that places on the United Kingdom. It is a responsibility that we take very seriously. Agreement of an EU mandate will be one of the external policy priorities of our presidency. We are determined to play an active and constructive role in preserving the long-standing ties that have grown between the Lomé signatories. I cannot yet give the noble Baroness, Lady Young, a detailed account of the UK's approach to the individual aspects of the Lomé regime. We are considering carefully how best to shape the convention for the next 10 years.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, raised questions relating to St Lucia, and again focused on the banana issue. Officials of the British Development Division in Barbados are in regular contact with the banana producing governments throughout the Caribbean. Indeed, they met the Prime Minister of St Lucia on 20th June to discuss this matter. We continue to promote the EU programme of restructuring and diversification for the economies that are adversely affected.
The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, raised questions in relation to sickle-cell disease and in particular in relation to the University of the West Indies in Jamaica, which provides valuable input into research into the disease.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is the unit; it is not the university.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I understood that the unit was in fact at the University of the West Indies. I beg the House's pardon if I was misinformed.
We are aware of the difficulties over funding, which at the moment comes not only from the British Medical Council but also from the Department for International Development. The funds currently pay for all staff, provide all consumables and cover the cost of the clinical care of patients. We shall consider further funding as and when the question arises in a few years' time.
I now turn to the question of Montserrat. Montserrat is in a peculiarly difficult position. After hurricane Hugo, in 1989, and a volcanic eruption in 1995, the second eruption on 25th June brought with it tragic loss of life. I am sure I speak for all those in the House when I offer my sympathy to those who were bereaved or made homeless. Montserrat's needs are not only the short-term needs of which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, spoke; there are, too, the long-term needs of the island to ensure that it can sustain a future for its people, particularly its young people.
The noble Baroness referred to the interview during which the Governor made some remarks about sustainable levels of population. I have spoken to the Governor on this point. He believes that his remarks

901
were, unfortunately and perhaps under the strain of the moment, taken somewhat out of context. The viability of the island is not dependent on a specific population figure. Some of our dependent territories have a much small population figure than that of Montserrat. Decisions about evacuation will be based on the needs of the safety of the people of the island, not on financial viability.
The noble Baroness asked me several detailed questions. Sadly, I am running up against the clock. However, I believe that the relationships we have with the government of Montserrat have strengthened over the course of the past few weeks—perhaps in adversity, but I believe that my own visits there and the steadfastness of our Governor in Montserrat have encouraged the people there to believe what is true: namely, that the British Government are supporting them in the profound difficulties that they face.
I have tried to cover most of the important issues debated this evening. I have sought to assure the House that Britain takes its obligations to the Caribbean seriously. It is true that the region faces great challenges. We will continue to review our policy to meet the
902
new needs that will arise. The Government of the United Kingdom look forward to flourishing relationships with all our friends in the Caribbean in years to come.
Lord Rea: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, will she consider arranging a meeting between representatives of the Cuban Government—possibly Señor Lage as mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery—to look again at the tricky problem of the Paris Club debt and the export credit guarantees that are so badly needed to increase our trade with Cuba?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do understand the difficulties on this front. I hope I did my best to answer some of the points made, perhaps not to the noble Lord's satisfaction but nonetheless to answer some of the points. I have discussed these matters with the Cuban ambassador in recent weeks. I will certainly consider the point that the noble Lord makes about further efforts that we might make to discuss these matters in a constructive way.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past eight o'clock.

  Defence Equipment Sale Guidelines
  Defence Equipment Sale Guidelines
  Intelligence Services Act: Commissioner's Recommendation
  Intelligence Services Act: Commissioner's Recommendation
  Women's National Commission
  Women's National Commission
  NATO: Civil and Parliamentary Oversight
  NATO: Civil and Parliamentary Oversight
  OSCE States' Bilateral Military Relations
  OSCE States' Bilateral Military Relations
  Bomb Test Drop
  Bomb Test Drop
  Defence Exports: End-use
  Defence Exports: End-use
  EU Membership
  EU Membership
  Turkey and the European Court of Human Rights
  Turkey and the European Court of Human Rights
  Georgia: CIS Peacekeeping Force
  Georgia: CIS Peacekeeping Force
  NATO: Funding for Peacekeeping Personnel
  NATO: Funding for Peacekeeping Personnel
  Strategic Defence Review: Procurement Plans
  Strategic Defence Review: Procurement Plans
  Pregnancy: Protection against Dismissal
  Pregnancy: Protection against Dismissal
  Questions for Written Answer
  Questions for Written Answer
  Minister without Portfolio
  Minister without Portfolio
  Department of National Heritage
  Department of National Heritage
  Food Standards Agency
  Food Standards Agency
  North East Drift Net Fishery
  North East Drift Net Fishery
  House of Lords Painting
  House of Lords Painting
  Criminal Trials: Judges' Summing Up
  Criminal Trials: Judges' Summing Up
  Government Information: Access
  Government Information: Access
  Curfew System for Children
  Curfew System for Children
  Immigration Act Detainees, Scotland
  Immigration Act Detainees, Scotland
  Official Secrets Act
  Official Secrets Act
  Income-related Benefits
  Income-related Benefits
  Education: Age Participation Rates
  Education: Age Participation Rates
  Water Fluoridation
  Water Fluoridation
  Motorway Hard Shoulder Accidents
  Motorway Hard Shoulder Accidents