Sitting of 15 July 1997

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

  KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Tuesday 22 July.

  LEVER PARK BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Tuesday 22 July.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Local Authority Pay Settlements
    Mr. Keith Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet local authority representatives to discuss the effects of pay settlements in local authorities in Scotland. [6690]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Chisholm): My right hon. Friend met local authority representatives on Friday 4 July, but pay was not on the agenda. The local authorities know that any increase agreed must be funded from their existing resources.
    Mr. Simpson: Will the Minister share his views on how a £4 an hour minimum wage would be funded if the Scottish local authorities and the trade unions agreed to pay such a wage?
    Mr. Chisholm: Pay awards are matters for local authorities within their allocated resources. Clearly, the substantial increase announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget—£89 million for education—will help local authorities considerably next year. Adherence to the best value regime, which we are promoting as a key plank of our policy, will help local authorities greatly.
    Mr. Gorrie: Can the Minister assure us that, within the budgetary constraints imposed on councils this year and next year, councils will be able to fulfil their statutory requirements?
    Mr. Chisholm: Councils will be able to fulfil their statutory requirements and, because of the Budget, will have extra resources for education. We stand by our election pledge to make education our number one priority.
    Mr. Welsh: As local government is one of Scotland's biggest employers, surely Labour's continuing of the Tory
    178
    policy of self-financing pay awards must lead to service cuts or higher unemployment. How many jobs will be lost or services cut as a result of this policy?
    Mr. Chisholm: We said at the election that we would abide by the public expenditure guidelines that we inherited, for years one and two. We have found substantial additional resources for education, and we are expecting efficiency savings in local government from the best value agenda.
    Dr. Fox: Is not the truth that the £4 deal is about Labour councillors buying off the trade unions in case they have to turn to them for support when it comes to running a Scottish Parliament, should one ever be established? Does not this mean that the ambition of Labour's second-raters will be paid for with the jobs and services of the ordinary people of Scotland?
    Mr. Chisholm: The simple answer to that is no. The agreement is between local authorities and the trade unions and has nothing to do with the Labour Government. Labour and other authorities know full well that any pay award must be funded from within existing resources.

    Scottish Parliament
    Mr. Graham: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps his Department will take to cooperate with local authorities in preparations for a Scottish Parliament. [6691]
    The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): The Government are committed both to strong local government and to the establishment of a Scottish Parliament. We are committed to establishing an independent review to consider the relationship between local government and the Scottish Parliament, and we shall be consulting on its terms of reference after we publish the White Paper on our proposals for a Scottish Parliament.
    Mr. Graham: Does my hon. Friend remember the absolute fiasco that local government was landed in by the Tory Government, and the fact that a lack of consultation and finance led to a disastrous position? I am absolutely convinced that the measure that the Minister has announced will strike up an accord between local authorities and the Scottish Office to ensure that we have one of the most famous Parliaments ever, set up in Scotland. I look forward to seeing close co-operation between the Scottish Office and local authorities.
    Mr. McLeish: Let me assure my hon. Friend that we intend to ensure that co-operation and partnership strengthen democracy in Scotland. Our intention is to strengthen instead of weaken local government. We want to see powers moved from Westminster to Edinburgh, not from the Western Isles, Glasgow and Fife to Edinburgh. We make a firm commitment on that basis. In view of the spirit that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has shown, we believe that we can march forward together and ensure better-quality services and a fundamental strengthening of democracy.
    Mr. Hogg: When the hon. Gentleman consults local authorities in Scotland, will he please make the point that

    179
    devolution proposals will not prove durable unless they are fair to England? Will he go on to make the point that the present proposals are not fair to England and will not be fair to England unless, for example, they are set in the context of a federal scheme for the entirety of the United Kingdom or, as another approach, they provide for a reduction in the number of Scottish Members of Parliament in this House, a reduction in their capacity to intervene in the affairs of other parts of the United Kingdom, and a further reduction in per capita spending in Scotland? Will he suggest to the local authorities that, if the Scottish people were faced with those realities, they might vote against devolution?
    Mr. McLeish: Far be it from me to try to curb the enthusiasm of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. What he has just said to the House convinces us that, when he sees the White Paper, he will be able to acknowledge and discuss some of the important issues facing Scotland. We want a fair settlement. Enormous discussions have taken place, but at the end of the day the White Paper will be published and that will be the time for the nation and the House to debate those matters.
    Mr. Canavan: May we have an assurance that the contents of the White Paper on the powers of the Scottish Parliament will be influenced more by our men of mettle in the Scottish Office than by our man of Straw in the Home Office?
    Mr. McLeish: It is widely known that we in the Scottish Office are, indeed, men of mettle. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall produce a substantial and detailed White Paper which will ensure a fair debate. Scots will soon have the chance to vote in a referendum on their future. The House has taken some decisions already. It will soon have a White Paper to debate. Then we shall move on speedily to the referendum. After we have had an endorsement through a substantial yes, yes vote, we shall come back to the House and introduce a substantive Scotland Bill.

    Fishing Industry
    Mr. Cash: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next attend an EC Fisheries Council to discuss the Scottish fishing industry. [6692]
    Mr. Chisholm: My noble Friend, the Minister responsible for agriculture, the environment and fisheries at the Scottish Office will normally attend Fisheries Councils. The next Council is planned for 30 October.
    Mr. Cash: Does the Minister accept that the quota hopping agreement reached at the intergovernmental conference has been received with disgust by Scottish fishermen? How many representations has he received in favour of the agreement? Does he accept that the arrangements for a Scottish Parliament—if they ever come about—will mean that the Minister responsible for Scottish fisheries will be able to achieve even less than this wretched Government did in respect of Scottish fisheries at the IGC?
    Mr. Chisholm: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on all counts. The agreement at Amsterdam was highly
    180
    significant. For the first time, we have a written statement from the Commission, which is guardian of the treaties. It sets out in precise terms the measures that can be taken to establish economic links between vessels and local communities. The new Government established more and achieved more in eight weeks than the hon. Gentleman and his friends achieved in 18 years.
    Mr. Godman: May I remind my hon. Friend—if, coming from the old herring port of Leith, he needs such a reminder—that it was a Conservative Government who inflicted the common fisheries policy on our fishing communities throughout the United Kingdom and agreed over-generous concessions to the new member states of Spain and Portugal? The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) ignores those facts. Will my hon. Friend assure me that he will continue to argue for a severe restriction in industrial fishing, particularly of sand eels at the Wee Bankie and the Buckie Man's Bank?
    Mr. Chisholm: I agree that there must be tighter controls of industrial fishing. The Government support the common fisheries policy but, equally, we believe that it must be reformed, and we will pursue that vigorously from within.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: When the Fisheries Minister next visits Brussels, will the Under-Secretary ensure that he has in mind the importance to the Scottish fishing industry of its village-based component, not least in the East Neuk of Fife in my constituency? Will the Fisheries Minister seek to ensure that the common fisheries policy takes account of the problems of the village-based industry, especially as it is suffering from an aging fleet and declining work force? What assurance can the Government give that it remains an important part of the fishing industry in Scotland?
    Mr. Chisholm: I shall certainly convey the concerns of the hon. and learned Gentleman to my noble Friend the Fisheries Minister. We have a wide agenda for reform of the CFP, including a greater regional dimension for it. I shall also convey the hon. and learned Member's concerns about Fife.
    Mr. Doran: My hon. Friend will be aware that there is a serious problem of black fish in the North sea. Scottish Office inspectors have recently clamped down on the markets in Scotland, but there seems to be no evidence of that happening in English markets, particularly in Grimsby. Will my hon. Friend communicate with his colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to ensure that enforcement of all aspects of our fisheries policy is as intense as it is in Scotland?
    Mr. Chisholm: I know that my noble Friend the Fisheries Minister has been very concerned about black fish since he took over at the beginning of May. He has promoted his concern in speeches in Scotland. I am sure that he will also convey to the Minister responsible for fishing in England the need to ensure that there is action against black fish in both England and Scotland.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Can the Minister confirm that, as a Scottish Fisheries Minister in a United Kingdom Government, he can attend, speak and vote at meetings of

    181
    the European Council of Ministers, but that, if fisheries became the responsibility of a Scottish Parliament, he would have to rely on an English Fisheries Minister to speak for Scotland there? How will that put Scotland at the heart of Europe?
    Mr. Chisholm: As usual, the hon. Gentleman is wrong on matters of constitutional change. The Scottish Fisheries Minister will play a full part in those matters when the Scottish Parliament is created. I suggest that he reads with great care the White Paper when it comes out next week.

    Referendum
    Mr. Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to make public funds available to groups campaigning in the forthcoming referendum in Scotland. [6693]
    Mr. McLeish: The Government made it clear during the debates on the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill that no state aid will be provided to any party or organisation for the purposes of campaigning at the referendum.
    Mr. Letwin: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is there an intention to distribute widely in Scotland leaflets describing the White Paper, as has been reported in the press? If so, what arrangements will be made to guarantee their neutrality in the light of what he has just said?
    Mr. McLeish: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that any material published and produced by the Government in relation to the referendum campaign will be totally objective. The Government intend to assist the voters in the referendum, first, through an absent voters campaign targeted at people who will be away from home or unable to attend a polling station on the day of the referendum. Secondly, a detailed White Paper will be published shortly. Thirdly, a summary of the White Paper will be made available to all households in Scotland.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should be grateful to the Scottish Constitutional Convention for preparing the ground for the White Paper with its proposals? Does he also agree that gratitude should be expressed to it for bringing forward proposals to ensure that women of mettle in Scotland play an equal part in that Scottish Parliament when it is formed? It is a disgrace that other parties are not willing to do the same.
    Mr. McLeish: I am very pleased to associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend. The Scottish Constitutional Convention has done an excellent job in preparing the way for the Scottish Parliament. It should be applauded for the preparation it has done towards the White Paper and the subsequent Bill. Of course, our White Paper will be based substantially on the document produced by it.
    In response to the final part of my hon. Friend's question, we hope that the political parties in Scotland will listen carefully to what she has said today. We want to see a move towards equal representation. Of course, it is up to the political parties to try to achieve that.

    Scottish Parliament
    Mrs. May: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about his proposals for tax—varying powers for a Scottish Parliament. [6694]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): As stated in the Government's manifesto, Parliament will have defined but limited power to vary revenues. The details will be set out in a White Paper to be published shortly.
    Mrs. May: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for confirming that, despite some recent uncertainties, the Government retain their commitment to impose 18 tax rises on the people of Scotland compared with the 17 tax rises announced in the Budget for the rest of the country.
    Will he confirm that the summary of the White Paper, which the Minister has just said will be distributed to households in Scotland, will include details of the tax-varying powers? Will it explain why the Government feel that it is necessary to impose that extra tax when the Prime Minister consistently said to the people of the country prior to the election that there would be no tax rises? Will the right hon. Gentleman provide an explanation in that paper about whether the Scottish Parliament will have full tax-varying powers or whether, as the Prime Minister suggested before the election, it will simply be like a parish council?
    Mr. Dewar: I congratulate the hon. Lady on her assiduous repetition of propaganda from central office. I commend the White Paper to her when it is published. Perhaps she could start, however, by visiting Scotland and talking to people there. As I am sure she will know if she reads the papers even in a cursory fashion, the polls show an increasingly healthy majority support not just for the concept of a Scottish Parliament but for the need to give it the discipline and responsibility of having powers to vary some of its revenue.
    Mr. Dalyell: What is the answer to the question put in yesterday's leading article in The Scotsman as to who pays for the new Parliament building on Victoria quay, which apparently the Secretary of State has discovered he now needs?
    Mr. Dewar: The one thing that I have always enjoyed about my hon. Friend is his precision, but I can assure him that on this occasion he has fallen short of his normal high standards. Consideration is being given to various options, the reasons for which I think anyone who knows the Royal high school building will appreciate. We will be looking for a scheme that gives value for money, combined with effective government and an effective working environment for new members of the Scottish Parliament. I think that there will be widespread support for that.
    Mr. Wallace: Although the Labour party has suggested that it would not necessarily use any tax powers given to the Scottish Parliament in the first term of that Parliament, can the Secretary of State confirm, having consulted his officials and the Inland Revenue, that those powers will be available for use by that Parliament in its first term if

    183
    the Parliament wishes to make the necessary additional investment in education and health that some of us think is needed?
    Mr. Dewar: That is the intention. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for precisely drawing attention to the difference between an existence of the power and the use of it.
    Mr. McAllion: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a directly elected Scottish Parliament will have a democratic legitimacy that cannot be matched even by the Scottish Office? It will therefore be a far more significant player in the annual public spending round than any Whitehall-based Department. It will therefore be better placed to defend levels of public spending in Scotland and to build upon that with its tax-varying power. Will my right hon. Friend therefore join me in recommending all those who want to see better public services in Scotland, which are better funded, to go out at the referendum and vote yes, yes?
    Mr. Dewar: I certainly endorse what my hon. Friend says about the need for a good turn-out and to maximise the enormous potential support that exists, as almost every opinion poll has shown. The most recent one showed that eight out of 10 Scots, in the sample polled, felt that a Scottish Parliament directly elected in the way we suggest would produce policies more attuned to the needs of Scotland. There is an essential democratic case at the very heart of our argument for a Scottish Parliament.
    Mr. Ancram: The Secretary of State is always keen to remind the House that the tax-varying power means downwards as well as upwards, so can he confirm the statement made in the other place recently by Government Treasury spokesman Lord Haskel—that, if a Scottish Parliament lowered the standard rate of tax by the permitted 3p in the pound, the Treasury would cut the Scottish block by £450 million to make up the lost revenue? On that evidence, can the right hon. Gentleman still claim that the tax-varying power, to reduce or put up tax, is good for the Scottish people? Will they not suffer either way from this half-baked tartan tax idea?
    Mr. Dewar: The right hon. Gentleman will want to read the White Paper with care. I congratulate the noble Lord, who seems to have gone some way to educating Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen about the proposals. If we reduce taxation, that will have an obvious impact on the subvention from the United Kingdom Exchequer—it would be extraordinary if it did not. I hate to imagine the assault that would be mounted on us if we proposed otherwise.

    White Paper
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to publish his White Paper on his proposals for the Scottish Assembly. [6695]
    Mr. Dewar: The White Paper will be published on 24 July. This will allow both Houses proper opportunity to debate it before the summer recess.
    Mr. Spring: Why has the White Paper been so long in coming? Surely, after all the years of discussion and
    184
    debate about devolution, it would have been far better to produce specific proposals immediately after the general election.
    Mr. Dewar: That shows a remarkable degree of naivety. For the hon. Gentleman's sake, I am glad that he is on the Opposition Benches; he will have some time in which to learn about the realities of government. If he were truly interested in what we have promised, he would know that we have said definitively, from the beginning, that we would publish a White Paper before the House rose for the summer recess. We have met that promise exactly, just as we shall meet many other promises in the time that lies ahead.
    Mr. Hood: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the support of tens of thousands of former Conservatives for the White Paper, even before it is published? Will he comment on the decision of Arthur Bell, a leading Scottish Conservative, who has decided to dump that lot opposite us because they are anti-Scottish, anti-British and anti-Conservative?
    Mr. Dewar: I do not want to intrude on private grief by discussing the internal state of the Conservative party. There is, however, substantial polling evidence to show that many Conservative supporters will vote yes in the referendum. That is perhaps not surprising when we recall how attractive the concept of devolution was to many distinguished Conservatives now sitting on the Opposition Front Bench.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: If the White Paper includes the option of a new building for the Scottish Parliament, will the Secretary of State consider making it our celebration of the millennium—not a dome or a museum, but a building that reflects the best traditions of Scottish culture and architecture? It should be a living and working building, serving all the people: a truly exciting Scottish experience.
    Mr. Dewar: I have a great deal of sympathy for what the hon. Lady says. For one horrible moment I thought that she was about to suggest that the Parliament should be housed on a hill above Oban, where, the House will recall, there is a building that might be turned into a dome with a bit of new roofing. I agree with the hon. Lady; the start of the new Parliament will, we hope—it depends on the vote of the Scottish people—almost coincide with the millennium, and I should very much like to think that it will catch the spirit of the time and will usher in a new era. I want an environment and a building that is worthy of that.
    Mr. David Marshall: If the Royal high school building in Edinburgh is no longer suitable for the Scottish Parliament, does that open up the debate about where the Parliament will be located? Does it need to be in Edinburgh? Will the Secretary of State's proposals include consultation with local authorities, especially Glasgow, to ascertain what suitable alternative buildings and sites may be available to house the new Parliament?
    Mr. Dewar: I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the chance to make the position clear. The Government have not ruled out the Royal high school, but we are conscious

    185
    of its shortcomings as a possible site, and we want to look at other options. To stop many hearts a-fluttering and rumours a-running, I should say that we shall not be looking beyond Edinburgh.
    Mr. Ancram: Given that, on his own admission, it has taken the right hon. Gentleman a quarter of a century to bring the proposals to fruition in a White Paper—and it has taken the Labour party 18 years, the convention eight years and the Cabinet three months to bring the White Paper to fruition—does not he think that he is treating the Scottish people with contempt by asking them to make a sensible and valid judgment on the proposals in less than two months? Would it not be right, even now, for him to show some respect for the importance of his White Paper and postpone the referendum until the Scottish people have had a chance properly to consider and understand the highly complex issues, over which, we understand, even the right hon. Gentleman's Cabinet colleagues are falling out among themselves?
    Mr. Dewar: I understand why the right hon. Gentleman wants more time to try to invent a few arguments to put to the people in Scotland. I realise that, through no fault of his own but through electoral mischance, he has been removed from the debate for a long time to come. If he is in Scotland more often, as doubtless he will be with his new responsibilities, he will find that, after the lengthy period of discussion, the mood in Scotland is that it is time for action. That will be confirmed by the referendum vote, and I look forward to making progress rapidly thereafter.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the speed with which he was able to bring forward the White Paper is based wholly on the fact that, for the past eight years, the Labour party has been engaged in detailed discussions, rather than—as it could quite easily have decided to do—telling the people of Scotland what to do? We have been discussing with all the parties that have been prepared to sit down with us in the constitutional convention; even at the last moment, the offer was still open to Conservative members to join us. That discussion has allowed my right hon. Friend to produce the White Paper within such an excellent time scale.
    Mr. Dewar: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the discussion over recent years laid a valuable foundation on which we were able to build when we came to power in May this year. I do not want to sound complacent, but we have made good progress in getting the White Paper ready for publication within a tight timetable. To be fair to the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), I am sure that, with his knowledge of government, he will accept that. People have worked hard, and with great skill and commitment, to achieve that end.
    Mr. Salmond: As he is talking about recent years, does the Secretary of State recall that he was the co-author and signatory of the Claim of Right, which asserted the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall his Minister of State endorsing, in front of 25,000 people, the democracy declaration that stated that the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament was no longer acceptable to
    186
    Scots? Does the Secretary of State still hold those beliefs and will they be reflected in the White Paper, or has the Home Secretary told him to change his mind?
    Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman always puts it so endearingly. Of course I signed the Claim of Right. I was pleased to do so—proud to do so, almost—and I do not regret having done so. The fallacy in what the hon. Gentleman has put to me—we have had this debate before—is that he makes the arrogant assumption that that right of the Scottish people has to be exercised in a specific way. In my view, however, they could exercise that right as they think fit. I feel that they will want to exercise it in favour of the devolution proposals within the United Kingdom that I am advancing. The referendum puts that to the test, and I hope that, afterwards, we can move ahead with the minimum of further delay.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Before the Government finalise the contents of the White Paper, will the Secretary of State ensure that it addresses the issue of Scottish representation in this Parliament?
    Mr. Dewar: It is a comprehensive White Paper. I have no intention of revealing its detailed provisions, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is a well-founded and well-formulated scheme, which I know he will read with great interest.

    Environmentally Sensitive Areas
    Mr. David Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to review his Department's policy on environmentally sensitive areas. [6696]
    Mr. Chisholm: Policy reviews for the Breadalbane and Loch Lomond environmentally sensitive areas are due to be undertaken later this year. Reviews of the remaining eight areas are scheduled for 1998.
    Mr. Stewart: I thank the Minister for his reply. As he must be aware, environmentally sensitive areas are designed to help farmers and crofters adopt more environmentally friendly farming practices. In his review, will the Minister examine the ceilings for payments, which do not exist in England, with a view to increasing uptake of the scheme and ensuring that farmers and crofters are much more involved in ESAs?
    Mr. Chisholm: The ceilings exist to prevent a disproportionate share of resources being swallowed up by a few very large farms or estates. My hon. Friend refers to England, where there is a different farm structure, without the large hill farms that we have in Scotland. The principle of ceilings is supported by the Scottish Crofters Union and was endorsed by the Scottish Affairs Committee in a recent report.

    Health Service (Women and Children)
    Ms Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet health board chairpersons to discuss health services for women and children. [6697]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Sam Galbraith): I meet health board chairmen regularly to discuss a range of issues.
    Ms Squire: When he next meets health board chairmen, will my hon. Friend emphasise the importance

    187
    of full public consultation on the provision of services for women and children, especially in obstetrics and paediatrics? Will he further agree to urge the new chairman of Fife health board to go out directly to the communities throughout Fife and seek out and listen to their views on how best to provide local maternity services?
    Mr. Galbraith: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's interest in maternity services, especially in Fife, and the efforts that she has made on behalf of her constituents. As we all know, maternity services are undergoing significant development and change in the health service. That process will vary depending on each health board. I am convinced, however, that the main motivation for that change must be the health and safety of mothers and babies, and that that will be the motivating factor in Fife as well.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: When he meets the chairmen of the health boards, will the Minister tell them whether the Scottish Parliament—if there is to be one—will be competent to determine abortion questions?
    Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman has thought to be clever and introduce an issue relating to the devolution proposals. As my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, he need be patient for only a little longer. The White Paper will be published on 24 July, and he should read it with great interest then.

    Public Transport
    Mr. Savidge: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for increasing the use of public transport. [6699]
    Mr. Chisholm: I intend to publish a White Paper on an integrated transport policy for Scotland early next year.
    Mr. Savidge: I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that the Government's promotion of public transport, combined with the decision that the roads review will pay regard to environmental as well as economic factors, should help us to fulfil our ecological responsibilities? Will he further be prepared to consider, with specific regard to my constituency, whether the western peripheral road, combined with an integrated public transport service, might be an environmentally friendly and economically sound way of solving Aberdeen's traffic problems?
    Mr. Chisholm: As I told my hon. Friend in the Scottish Grand Committee, I shall look at the western peripheral road as part of the roads review. The criteria that we shall use for that review are the environment and the economy, but we shall also have regard to considerations of safety and congestion. We shall look at the scope for a modal shift towards public transport, which will be a key theme of our White Paper, and we shall consult on that very soon.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: If the democratic will of the Scottish people is that a Scottish Parliament should have tax-raising powers, and if local authorities in Scotland go to that Parliament asking for public transport grants
    188
    to help them to get more public transport, will the Labour Government stop that new Parliament from raising additional taxes? Are they asking the people of Scotland to give a democratic view of what should happen and then denying them the ability to use that varying power?
    Mr. Chisholm: Once again, Conservative Members try to tempt us to reveal what will be in next week's White Paper. Transport will be dealt with clearly in the White Paper. A debate about congestion charging is going on at UK level among the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Scottish Office and local authorities.
    Mr. Donohoe: Will my hon. Friend give us some idea about the progress that has been made on the roads review, particularly in connection with the A77? The economy of Ayrshire will be greatly affected if the section that has already been proposed does not go ahead.
    Mr. Chisholm: I am aware of the arguments in favour of that section of road, and it will be considered as quickly as possible. It will be early next year before it is completed, because we are determined to have a comprehensive review to introduce a coherent rationale into the road building programme. We inherited from the previous Government a make-believe roads programme; we are determined to form a real roads programme. The previous Government promised roads here and there, but there was no money in the forward budget plans to pay for them. We shall therefore introduce a coherent roads policy, which will be revealed early next year.

    Block Grant
    Mr. Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the future of the formula used to calculate the Scottish block grant. [6701]
    Mr. Dewar: People express a range of views to me about how public spending in Scotland should be financed.
    Mr. Greenway: From what the right hon. Gentleman has told the House this afternoon, can we take it that he intends to build a new Parliament building for Scotland? If so, can we have a categorical assurance now—there is no need to wait for a White Paper—that it will be paid for out of the Scottish block grant, not by taxpayers in England?
    Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman wants details but, yes, there will be expenditure on a new Parliament building, whether on the refurbishment of the Royal high school or on a new site. Obviously that is an integral part of our proposals, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the new Parliament when it comes.

    Health Boards and Trusts
    Mr. Russell Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to reduce the number of health boards and trusts in Scotland. [6702]
    Mr. Galbraith: I certainly intend to reduce the number of trusts, but I have no master plan. All proposals that are

    189
    sensible, involve clinicians, are supported by local health boards, and will improve clinical links between hospitals and between hospitals and primary care, will be considered on their merits. I have no immediate plans to change the number of health boards in Scotland.
    Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. My constituency and that of the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) have two trusts and one health board in a sparsely populated area. Is not such a system overburdening in terms of bureaucracy and red tape?
    Mr. Galbraith: I do not want to pre-empt any review at this stage, but any review will be put out to wide consultation and the hon. Members who represent that area will be involved. I am therefore grateful to my hon. Friend for putting his proposals to me at this early stage, and I shall certainly take them into consideration.
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Will the Minister intervene with Dumfries and Galloway health board in connection with the number of community care beds being provided in Stranraer, a matter that is causing great concern in Galloway?
    Mr. Galbraith: I was not aware of that problem, but I shall look into it on behalf of the hon. Gentleman and give him a reply when the information is available.

    Dental Health
    Mr. Maxton: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends meeting the British Dental Association to discuss dental health in Scotland. [6703]
    Mr. Galbraith: I have asked my officials to arrange a meeting with the British Dental Association in September.
    Mr. Maxton: Does my hon. Friend agree with the British Dental Association that the quickest and most effective way dramatically to improve dental health in Scotland, particularly among young people, is to ensure an adequate supply of fluoride in the public water system? If he agrees, will he hold urgent talks with the water authorities to ensure that that happens and, if they refuse to fluoridate water, will he introduce legislation to ensure that it happens?
    Mr. Galbraith: There are three main ways to reduce dental caries. The first is to cut sugar intake, the second is to clean teeth regularly and the third—and by far the most effective—is to introduce fluoride, which is the best way forward.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    House of Commons Disqualification Act
    Dr. Tony Wright: To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on the role of the Privy Council in relation to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. [6720]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): The offices and bodies, membership of which disqualifies individuals from being Members of the House of Commons, are listed in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. Amendments to the list are made by Order in Council on the advice of the Privy Council. In addition, the judicial committee of the Privy Council would consider any application that might be made to Her Majesty in Council by a person claiming that a Member of the House of Commons is disqualified by that Act.
    Dr. Wright: Did my right hon. Friend notice the recent remarks of Lord Nolan, who suggested that the time had come for the House to look again at the issue of outside interests? Now that certain Conservative Members have expressed their intention of responding to the rigours of opposition by devoting themselves to making serious money outside, is it not time to examine the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 and the role of the judicial committee to see whether that is a way of dealing with the matter? Will my right hon. Friend give it urgent consideration?
    Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising issues that are of concern to many people. We now have a code of conduct for Members of Parliament and the new system that is supervised by the Standards and Privileges Committee. In view of that, it is somewhat early to suggest a different course of action. The Standards and Privileges Committee is working well.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the President consider whether the Privy Council might have a role in examining blind trusts for the financing of private offices? I have taken advice from the assistant registrar, who says that a blind trust would no longer be acceptable because when the system was last used it broke down. Perhaps the Privy Council could advise the Prime Minister whether he should publish the names of all the people who donated to his blind trust.
    Mrs. Taylor: The matter was considered by the previous Standards and Privileges Committee on the advice of Sir Gordon Downey. The new Standards and Privileges Committee will inherit some of that work and make its recommendations in due course. It is right that the guidance should come from there.

    Modernisation
    Mr. Hill: To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on progress made in respect of the modernisation of Parliament. [6721]
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons was set up on 4 June with a wide remit to consider how the practices and procedures of the House should be modernised. I hope that the Committee will soon be able to report its initial conclusions on improvements to our legislative procedure. We have already made suggestions about changes in the voting Lobby, which are being adopted on an experimental basis.
    Mr. Hill: In thanking my right hon. Friend for her reply, may I remind her that impatience for change is

    191
    shared not only by newly elected Members, but by Members of all generations, not least my intake of 1992. With reference to long overdue reforms, has my right hon. Friend any plans to remedy the absurd situation that occurred yesterday evening, when the House was kept up until the small hours by a handful of Liberal Democrats on entirely non-controversial legislation?
    Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right to say that the House was detained last night by part, if not all, of the Liberal party. He is certainly correct when he says that not only new Members of Parliament favour change: many experienced Members have submitted ideas and evidence to the Modernisation Committee and we hope to take their views into account in due course. I think that there is a general mood for change the procedures of the House.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the right hon. Lady accept that, if her laudable desire for full and proper scrutiny of all legislation is to come to pass, we must have more prior consultation and much fuller debate than she has allowed us today on the Finance Bill?
    Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman will know that today's Finance Bill debate was agreed with the Opposition: the Government acceded to their request to consider the Bill for two days in Committee of the whole House. In the longer term, we must examine procedures to ensure that there is appropriate scrutiny of all Bills. However, I do not wish to rehearse the issues raised in yesterday's guillotine debate.

    Order Paper
    Mr. Miller: To ask the President of the Council what plans she has to propose changes to the format of the Order Paper. [6722]
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons is currently considering ways in which the Order Paper might be made more user friendly.
    Mr. Miller: My right hon. Friend may have noticed the event being staged outside the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre for Plain English Week. In view of that event and the fact that many hon. Members have great difficulty explaining to our constituents the meaning and structure of the Order Paper, will my right hon. Friend carefully consider revising its format to make it more user friendly? We must avoid the pitfalls that the previous Administration encountered when the Department of National Heritage won the plain English booby prize.
    Mrs. Taylor: I certainly hope that a redesigned Order Paper does not win a booby prize. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed concern about the Order Paper's current format. We want to make it more comprehensible, and we think that there is a strong case for applying plain English principles to every document, including the Order Paper. [HON. MEMBERS: "Pictures?"] Opposition Members may need pictures because there are so many new Labour Members. However, we are not considering pictures for the Order Paper.
    Mr. Soames: Will the President accept that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Order Paper and that
    192
    she would be better occupied turning her attention to more important matters? For example, will she try to help the Prime Minister recover his bottle so that he may come to this place twice, rather than once, a week?
    Mrs. Taylor: Many people inside and outside the House believe that the current procedure for Prime Minister's Question Time is a significant improvement on the old procedure. [Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen think that it is boring, perhaps that shows that the new procedure is more constructive than the old one. As to the Order Paper, I repeat that we have received representations from hon. Members on both sides of the House about the need for change, which the majority would agree is long overdue.

    Messages Between the Houses
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan: To ask the President of the Council what proposals she has to replace Norman French with English for the endorsement of Commons Bills being sent to the other place. [6723]
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: None.
    Mr. Morgan: While we are on the subject of plain English, why do we use Norman French in all communications when sending amended legislation from the House to the other place? Is it not ludicrous that, 550 years after the last speech was made in French in this place, we still do not use English, plain English, modern French or even grammatical old French for those communications? If it is considered indelicate to use the English language when endorsing Bills and returning them to the other place, why do we not use the language of heaven?
    Mrs. Taylor: I must take my hon. Friend's word for it that the Norman French that is used is not even grammatical; I would not like to challenge him on that point. There is a role for traditions in the House but we should always ensure that any tradition that we maintain has a purpose. It may be that in due course the Modernisation Committee will be able to turn its mind to these issues, but I do not think that they can be a priority.
    Mr. Baldry: Is not the proposal modernisation gone mad? Will the President confirm that the phrase "La Reyne n'avisera pas" was last used in the House during the reign of Queen Anne? Unless someone has a rush of blood to the head, we are unlikely ever to hear it again in our lifetime. If the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) cannot cope with one phrase in Norman French, there is a real problem with the national curriculum in Wales. Perhaps it is about time, with all this modernisation, that we started sending Cromwell's men back to their barracks.
    Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's attitude, approach and comments will be taken into account during the devolution debate.
    Mr. Skinner: Would it be fair to record that during the past 18 years a great deal of modernisation took place? Successive Conservative Governments desired its introduction. Most of those who have spoken of

    193
    modernisation, apart from new Members, marched into the Lobby to support so-called modernisation of the House. They removed many opportunities for Back-Bench Members by getting rid of debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill. Countless other measures were taken to prevent Back Benchers from speaking. They got rid of Adjournment debates before recesses, of which there were three in any given year.
    Those proposals were introduced and finalised in accordance with the Jopling recommendations, which were made in the name of a Tory Member. All that resulted in many of the things that we used to do on the Floor of the House being taken in Committee. I warned Tory Members at the time that they would rue the day that they introduced such changes. I told them that when they went into opposition—they were so arrogant that they believed that they would never return to opposition—they would find their hands and feet tied together.
    Madam Speaker: Order. We heard all this yesterday. It is becoming rather tedious.
    Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend's analysis of the attitude of Conservative Members is entirely right. Of course, the Jopling report did not deal with Norman French.

    Scottish Grand Committee
    Mr. Rowe: To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what is the estimated annual cost to public funds of sittings of the Scottish Grand Committee. [6724]
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): Separate estimates for the additional indirect costs of the meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee are not kept independently. A manual check of the records for the financial year 1996–97 for the 13 meetings that were held of the Scottish Grand Committee furth of the Palace of Westminster totalled £108,000, an approximate cost of just under £10,000 per meeting.
    Mr. Rowe: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Does he believe that the cost of the proposed Scottish Parliament will be very much greater? Would he envisage the Scottish Office team of Ministers, which is paid for out of United Kingdom funds, being cut pro rata? Does he think that that would be a good idea?
    Mr. Kirkwood: I can confidently give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that the House of Commons Commission has no immediate territorial ambitions to invest in real estate in Edinburgh; we have enough difficulty dealing with estimates to cover the costs of the administration and works budget. These are matters for Ministers of the Crown. The hon. Gentleman is entitled
    194
    to make his political point in his own way, but I suspect that the publication of the White Paper next week will provide him with a better opportunity so to do.
    Mr. McAllion: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the costs of the Scottish Grand Committee during the past Session were inflated because of the decision taken by the then Secretary of State for Scotland to take the Committee on a tour of every constituency in Scotland that had a Tory Member? As every one of them was defeated in the subsequent general election, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there has never been such a waste of public money at any time by any Government?
    Mr. Kirkwood: The House of Commons Commissioners are simply servants of the House; we will the means while the House wills the ends. I know that the hon. Gentleman will be aware of a motion of 30 June, which will restrict the number of meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee during the coming Session. It is true that some of us believe that the former Secretary of State for Scotland had an eccentric predilection for compering in important but out-of-the-way parts of Scotland early on Monday mornings late in the winter.
    Mr. Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to install an accounting system that will show the English taxpayer how much of the costs of these exercises he is expected to bear in indulging these Scottish nonsenses?
    Mr. Kirkwood: Perhaps I may advert to the fact that Standing Order No. 117 contains powers for a Standing Committee on Regional Affairs. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that he is being left out and treated less well than Scotland, which has access to a Scottish Grand Committee, the Leader of the House might table a motion to constitute such a Committee and the hon. Gentleman could have the same benefits as members of the Scottish Grand Committee.

    Committee on Standards and Privileges
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the President of the Council what plans she has to review the responsibilities of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. [6725]
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: I have no such plans, but I will, of course, consider any views that hon. Members might wish to put to me.
    Mr. Winnick: On a relatively minor matter—I would not describe it as anything else—is the Leader of the House aware that I sent a note to the Clerk regarding dress? It would be odd for us to wear the dress of our predecessors of centuries ago, so is not it about time that we brought the Chamber into line and perhaps—without in any way wishing to be offensive to anybody—remove wigs and the rest of it?
    Mrs. Taylor: That could be considered by the Modernisation Committee, although not by the Committee on Standards and Privileges.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Ken Maginnis: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should like to draw this matter to your attention. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made a statement on Radio Ulster's "Talkback" programme yesterday, which conflicts with specific assurances given to the House on 30 June—I refer specifically to columns 62 and 63 of the Official Report.
Has the Secretary of State indicated to you, Madam Speaker, whether she intends to come to the House to explain why assurances given here on 30 June were either inaccurate or misleading? Furthermore, has she indicated any intention to come to the House to inform hon. Members why policy relating to Government contact with Sinn Fein-IRA, as defined by the Prime Minister after the murder of two RUC officers in Lurgan on 16 June, has been substantially changed, and why contacts are again taking place? If she has not, would you consider it incumbent upon her to do so?
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it not clear from what the hon. Gentleman just said that either the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was wrong when she made her statement to the House, or there has been a change of policy since she made her statement? In those circumstances, should she not come to the House to make a personal statement to explain a possible error, or explain why there has been a change of policy?
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you not aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has in fact made a statement explaining the situation; that she is seeking to clarify the Government's position with regard to the talks process; and that all right-thinking people in this country would welcome any steps that are being taken to try to get Sinn Fein-IRA to enter into the peace process and give up the use of violence?
Madam Speaker: This is not a matter for me, but I can tell the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) that I am not aware that the Secretary of State is seeking to make a statement in the House. I understand that the Secretary of State has already written to the hon. Gentleman on this matter, and that a copy of her letter is in the Library of the House.
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. We heard today, during Scottish questions, that the White Paper on Scottish devolution will be issued on 24 July. I know that you, as guardian of the rights of Back Benchers, will have noted that there will not be another Scottish Question Time before the summer recess.
I am sure that the whole House is concerned that the White Paper will be produced with no assurance that there will be a statement in the House—we have seen again that Ministers do not come to the House to make statements any more, and I am glad that the Leader of the House is in her place—and no absolute assurance that we shall have a
196
full debate. The people of Scotland will have to vote on the White Paper without their parliamentary representatives having had any chance to comment on it.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may seek to catch my eye on Thursday, to ask the Leader of the House whether a debate will follow the publication of the White Paper.
Mr. Hogg: Further to that self-same point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: No. I shall take no further points of order.
Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I have answered that point of order. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) asked whether a debate would follow the publication of the White Paper—
Mr. Hogg rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. It is incumbent upon hon. Members to put such a question to the Leader of the House when she is answering questions about next week's business.
Mr. Hogg: Mine is a related point of order, Madam Speaker, but it is a point of order to you.
Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman obviously does not understand. He has been in government for a long time. Once I have responded to a point of order, I do not take further points of order. That is why I allowed a number of points of order on the first point of order.
Mr. Hogg: I was putting a related point of order, Madam Speaker, which goes to the possibility of a statement. It is clearly the will of the House that we should have an opportunity to explore the White Paper before the full debate. One way to address that point is for an oral statement to accompany the publication of the White Paper. That will give the Government an opportunity to develop their thinking and right hon. and hon. Members an opportunity to explore that thinking.
Madam Speaker: I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench has taken note of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: On a different point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Good.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: You will be aware, Madam Speaker, of the annunciator screens around the House. In the old days, one look would reveal the nature of questions, statements or private notice questions, and the time. It now takes 75 seconds to establish from different frames the date, the nature of statements and private

197
notice questions, the grouping of questions and the time. The screens even refer now to faults on the equipment. Can we revert to the old system whereby the annunciator screen required only one glimpse, thereby saving time?
Madam Speaker: Perhaps we have too much business for the annunciator screen to cope with. I sometimes think so.

BILL PRESENTED
  WIDENING OF THE M25 MOTORWAY
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, supported by Mr. John McDonnell, presented a Bill to make subject to a local planning inquiry any proposal to widen the M25 motorway or to vary the number or width of lanes within its existing curtilage: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 November, and to be printed [Bill 48].

Television Licence Payments (Age Exemption)
3.36 pm
Mr. Howard Flight: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 to exempt persons who have attained the age of 75 from paying the fee for certain wireless telegraphy licences; to make provision with respect to the funding of the BBC; and for connected purposes.
I hope to persuade the Secretary of State for Social Security to make good the finance to the BBC. I appreciate that an hon. Member may not introduce a Bill that involves revenue expenditure, but it is no intent of mine to interfere with the finances of the BBC, which have been put on to a proper footing until 2002.
My motivation is simple. When I was campaigning during the general election, I met large numbers of pensioners aged 75 and older, living virtually entirely on their old-age pensions, for whom the television licence fee was a substantial burden and worry. For them, their televisions were their main conduit of communication, information and entertainment. Little did I know at that stage the history of the House's deliberations and the number of Bills and questions that had been tabled during the past 20 years.
I shall summarise the position, as I believe it to be, which goes back to the 1950s, when the Post Office, as an act of philanthropy, exempted people living in old people's homes from paying the full licence fee. That was put on a statutory basis in 1969, and various regulations between 1984 and 1988 added the disabled and the mentally disordered.
After the Kirklees judgment, the issue of sheltered housing came up, and in 1988 regulations attempted to clarify and deal with sheltered housing. On 1 April 1997, the Wireless Telegraphy (Television Licence Fees) Regulations became effective, which defined accommodation for residential care and confirmed the £5 licence. The regulations provide for a £5 licence for residential homes and for sheltered accommodation that is not in the private sector and where not more than 25 per cent. of the residents may be subject to a right to buy. There is an extraordinary anomaly, in that the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 deals with places and not people.
I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) for their efforts over the years in campaigning for a wider licence fee exemption for all pensioners. My objective is an exemption for the older part of that population. There have been 56 representations on concessionary licences since the general election, but the Government are not willing to review the matter: their most recent parliamentary answer was on 2 June.
I want to stress three points. Conservative Members believe that benefits should be targeted. The crucial point is that the older part of the population—those over 75—do not in the main benefit from personal or occupational pensions. A far greater number of pensioners between the ages of 65 and 75 participate in such schemes. The oldest are the most cash-strapped. An increase in the old-age pension, other than an inflationary increase, is extremely unlikely. Means testing is too complicated and too costly for the elderly.

199
Last year, the cost of such a measure was estimated to be £190 million. Allowing for the increase in the licence fee and the increase in the number of people over 75, the cost is now about £220 million. That is 0.22 per cent. of all social security expenditure, and contrasts with the £628 million cost of exempting all pensioners.
The present arrangements discriminate unfairly. Old people living in a home pay nothing and those in state-run sheltered housing pay £5, whereas people who are encouraged to stay in their own homes under care in the community must pay the full licence fee. It is unrealistic to think that an exemption for all pensioners could be afforded. It should be focused on the oldest part of the community, because people under 75 are generally in receipt of better incomes.
I hope that Labour Members will support me. If the Government have such amounts to spend, it is much better to put the elderly at the top of the list than to make political gestures such as abolishing handguns, which will cost in aggregate £180 million in compensation. Top priority should be given to a simple and tangible measure that is directed, cost-effective and brings help to some 85 per cent. of the retired population who are in real need.
Mr. David Winnick: Do I take it, Madam Speaker, that one can only oppose the measure and not draw attention to the fact that my Bill on 16 January 1987 was destroyed by the Tory Government? In so far as the hon. Gentleman is trying to amend my Bill, I support him.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Member got those comments in while there was still time.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Howard Flight, Mr. Graham Brady, Miss Julie Kirkbride, Mr. Christopher Fraser, Mr. David Ruffley, Mr. Oliver Letwin, Mr. David Prior, Mr. Tim Collins, Mrs. Caroline Spelman, Mr. Andrew Lansley, Mrs. Eleanor Laing and Mr. Robert Walter.

Television Licence Payments (Age Exemption)

  TELEVISION LICENCE PAYMENTS (AGE EXEMPTION)
  Mr. Howard Flight accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 to exempt persons who have attained the age of 75 from paying the fee for certain wireless telegraphy licences; to make provision with respect to the funding of the BBC; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 November, and to be printed [Bill 45].
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I beg your indulgence for a moment? You referred to a letter which you said that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had sent me, and informed me that it had been placed in the Library. Having checked, I find that it has indeed been placed in the Library—although it was marked "confidential", and although I believed that it was confidential to me.
  The letter does not answer the questions that I put to you earlier. In fact, it endorses the point that I have made. That suggests to me that the Secretary of State should be advised that it is proper for her to come to the House to make a statement on what is obviously a change of policy and practice, contrary to the impression that she and the Prime Minister gave until 30 June.
  Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is aware that I have no authority to require a Secretary of State to come here. I understand the argument, but I can only suggest that the hon. Gentleman try in other ways to clear up the matter, and his argument with the Secretary of State.

Orders of the Day

  Finance Bill
  (Clauses 1, 15, 17 and 19)
  Considered in Committee.
  [SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

  Finance Bill
    Clause 1

      CHARGE TO WINDFALL TAX
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      3.47 pm
      Mr. Peter Lilley rose—
      The Paymaster General (Mr. Geoffrey Robinson): I see that the shadow Chancellor is in some doubt as to whether he or I should speak first. Are you prepared to rule on who should speak first, Sir Alan? Perhaps you could also enlighten us on whether there are any amendments for us to discuss. The Opposition may already have decided that they will not oppose clause 1, or, indeed, the Bill as a whole.
      I am at a loss. It is some time since I have served on a Committee of the whole House, but normally amendments are tabled—sometimes, in extremis, starred amendments. It is, in my experience, unique for us to find that there are no amendments for us to discuss. Should I move that the clause stand part of the Bill, Sir Alan, or do you recommend some other procedure?
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): This may be a first occasion for many of us. It is the first occasion on which I have chaired a debate on the Finance Bill, just as it is the first occasion on which the Paymaster General has opened such a debate. I have, however, already put the Question, so the debate will take place on clause stand part.
      It is fairly unusual for a Minister almost to solicit amendments to one of his clauses. Having looked to see who had risen, I saw the Paymaster General and did him the courtesy of calling him first.
      Mr. Robinson: I am grateful to you, Sir Alan. We can take it, then, that the Opposition could not table an amendment that was in order, but still intend to offer some sort of latter-day attack on the windfall tax.
      Clause 1 heads a group of provisions that together introduce the windfall tax, thus meeting the commitment that we made in our election manifesto to introduce a windfall levy on the excess profits of the privatised utilities. Those companies were sold too cheaply, so the taxpayer got a bad deal. Their initial regulation in the period immediately following privatisation was too lax, so the customer got a bad deal.
      As a result, the companies were able to make profits that represented an excessive return on the value placed on them at the time of their flotation. We are now putting right the failures of the past by levying a one-off tax. The
      202
      yield of around £5.2 billion will fund our welfare-to-work programme, and the new deal that we have announced for the young long-term unemployed and schools.
      Clause 1 provides a one-off charge, set at a rate of 23 per cent. It also gives effect to schedule 1, which will be debated in Standing Committee. It may be helpful if I set the clause in context by explaining briefly how the windfall tax works.
      Windfall tax is charged on the difference between the value of the company, calculated by reference to the profits made in the initial period after privatisation, and the value placed on the company at the time of privatisation. The value of the company is calculated by multiplying the average annual profit after tax for, normally, the first four financial years after flotation, by a price-to-earnings ratio of nine. That ratio approximates to the lowest average—
      Mr. Lilley: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Robinson: In one second. I shall just finish this point.
      If the shadow Chancellor wants to intervene on the ratio, it may be helpful for him to know that the ratio approximates to the lowest average sectoral price-to-earnings ratio of the companies liable to the tax. The value placed on the company at flotation is calculated by multiplying the number of ordinary shares by the price at which shares were offered to financial institutions.
      Mr. Lilley: I think that the Minister has kindly answered the question that I was about to ask, which was simply: whence did he pluck the figure nine? On reading Hansard, I shall be able to investigate exactly where he got the figure from.
      Mr. Robinson: I am grateful to have so easily assisted the shadow Chancellor. May that ease continue as we proceed into more difficult waters during proceedings on the Bill.
      Tax will be charged on that amount at 23 per cent. The tax will be payable in two instalments, due on 1 December 1997 and 1 December 1998. The companies liable to the windfall tax are those that were privatised by flotation and subject to economic regulation. That links with the rationale of the tax; the companies were sold off too cheaply when their shares were offered under value on flotation, and were regulated too loosely in the initial period after privatisation.
      We have wasted no time in introducing the legislation and in fulfilling our electoral pledge. I commend the clause to the Committee.
      Mr. Lilley: That was hardly a ringing endorsement of clause 1, and I can set the Minister's mind at rest: we have every intention of opposing this and subsequent clauses vigorously, both today and in Standing Committee. We have tabled amendments which, by definition, were in order because they are on the amendment paper. However, you have rightly decided, Sir Alan—all your decisions are right—not to select the amendments and that we can cover this ground under clause stand part, and that is what I intend to do.
      Clause 1 introduces the only tax, out of the 17 tax increases imposed by the Budget, which does not breach promises in the Labour party's manifesto. If the House

      203
      recalls, Labour promised that it had no need for any taxes over and above the windfall tax; it did tell the nation that there was to be a windfall tax, and it was in the manifesto. However, even that tax was based, essentially, on a deception: the pretence that it would not be paid by ordinary people. It was to be a sort of victimless crime, or rather a fine on the guilty—the so-called fat cats and the speculators—or on some abstract entity, the utility companies.
      We have four major criticisms of the clause and the windfall tax that it initiates. First, the clause makes it clear that the tax will not be borne by the so-called fat cats and speculators, criticisms of whom justified its introduction. Secondly, it makes no meaningful attempt to define what is a windfall and should therefore bear the tax. Thirdly, it increases instead of reduces cost to customers; any improved profitability should be passed on to customers in the form of lower prices. Finally, it is retrospective, arbitrary and symptomatic of the Government's belief in arbitrary government, rather than in government by known and predictable rules.
      The first issue, therefore, is who will pay the tax in the first instance. I should like the Minister to confirm that next to nothing will be paid by the people whom Labour spent many years vilifying—the so-called fat cats. How much of the tax will be paid by directors of privatised utilities? Next to nothing, I venture to suggest. How much will be paid by the notorious Cedric Brown? Not a penny, I suspect. Nor will it fall upon the so-called speculators, if the definition referred to in the clause is incorporated in the Bill. Virtually no one who subscribed early and sold immediately—who stagged the market—or sold within a brief period afterwards will pay any of this tax. Yet those who bought the shares after flotation, for long-term investment—on behalf, usually, of pensioners—will pay the tax in full; unless, of course, it is passed to their customers.
      Mr. George Stevenson: Would the shadow Chancellor care to comment on the obscene procedure that applied when National Grid was given away, when regional electricity companies received windfalls of hundreds of millions of pounds at public expense, without lifting a finger?
      Mr. Lilley: My recollection is that that resulted in £50 being knocked off every quarterly electricity bill in the country. The hon. Gentleman may think that that is obscene. We think that that is what privatisation is all about—reducing costs and prices and passing the benefits to consumers.
      Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May I ask the shadow Chancellor a simple question? Has it dawned on him that one of the reasons why millions of people changed their vote at the election was that they believed that the Conservatives represented and condoned greed? Does not this debate derive in essence from that greed, which the Opposition failed to control when they were in government?
      Mr. Lilley: This may surprise the hon. Gentleman, but there is undoubtedly an element of truth in what he says. That is why I have no doubt that he will share my
      204
      criticism of his Front-Bench colleagues for erecting a superstructure of criticism on the basis of the alleged greed of the directors of those companies, to justify the imposition of a tax which, according to the Bill, will not fall on those people of whom the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the former Prime Minister, were critical. The hon. Gentleman has highlighted the very weakness in the clause that I am seeking to highlight.
      The clause says:
      "Every company which, on 2nd July 1997, was benefiting from a windfall from the flotation … shall be charged with a tax … on the amount of that windfall."
      The company, of course, is the shareholders at any point in time, but the so-called windfall arose in many cases a decade or more ago. If there was a windfall, it may have been paid out in dividends to the shareholders who held the shares in the intervening period.
      How can it be meaningful in the clause to describe shareholders on 2 July 1997 as "benefiting from a windfall", which may have arisen years before and which may have been paid out in dividends to a previous generation of shareholders? Will not the clause be open to legal challenge, as it is internally contradictory? Will the Paymaster General explain why he did not put that benefit in the past rather than the present tense, when clearly the definition in the schedule relates to alleged excess profits arising many years before?
      That brings me to my second set of concerns. What do the Government mean by a windfall? No serious attempt is made to define anything that could be meaningfully defined as a windfall. Most people would assume that it referred to the rise in the share price soon after flotation. Previously, informed sources—who appeared to have the ear of the Labour party—made it clear that Labour intended at that time to relate the tax to movements in share prices after flotation.
      Why did not the Labour party proceed down that route? Was it because the burden of tax would have fallen more heavily on the companies that were wooing the Labour party at that time? Or was it because that approach would have made it all the more obvious that it was essentially unjust to levy a tax on today's shareholders, which related to gains that accrued to a previous set of shareholders—a tax that would by definition not fall on those who realised those gains before the tax was introduced?
      Instead, the Government have come along and defined excess profits arbitrarily. They have taken average profits over four years after flotation. If those profits exceed one ninth of the flotation value, the company will pay windfall tax on the excess. The factor of nine seems to have been plucked from the air. If I heard the Minister correctly, he said that it was related to the lowest price-to-earnings ratio.
      4 pm
      Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: The shadow Chancellor was kind enough to say that I had been clear with him. I apologise if I was not. I think that I was. It is the lowest sectoral price-to-earnings ratio, which was 9.2 for water. We have rounded that down to nine. Is the shadow Chancellor saying that we should take a higher

      205
      price-to-earnings ratio in calculating the windfall tax? Many sectors and companies had much higher price-to-earnings ratios in the relevant period.
      Mr. Lilley: There are not many companies in Britain with which to make comparisons. Why does the Minister not compare more widely, say, with utility companies floated on the American stock exchange? From my recollection, which is hazy with the passage of time, the price-to earnings ratios of those utilities are more like six than nine. It seems odd to say that anything above the norm is an excess that should be taxed. There is in any marketplace a range around the norm, which reflects the different degrees of success of companies. It is odd not to allow for that fact.
      Mr. Robinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Lilley: In a second. While the Minister is about it, perhaps he could tell us why he chose four years after flotation rather than three, five, 10 or two.
      Mr. Robinson: Four years broadly corresponds with the first period of price regulation, when regulation was lax. It seemed appropriate to encapsulate the profit that arose in part from the undervalue at sale and in part from the lax regulation in the first period of price regulation.
      I fear that I still have not made it clear to the right hon. Gentleman why we have taken the factor of nine. The windfall gain is not that in excess of nine, but that measured between the funds realised by the sale of shares on flotation day and the application of nine—which is the lowest—to the profits. We could not be fairer on any account.
      Mr. Lilley: I am not sure that everyone will agree with that. Most people would regard as fairer a number that reflected what was excessive rather than what was just above the normal.
      Essentially, the windfall tax boils down to a tax on success. Companies that failed to improve their profitability over the said period will pay much less or even no windfall tax. Some companies are complaining that other companies in the same industry that were conspicuous failures in modernising, improving and increasing their profitability and efficiency will pay little tax, while those that have done most to invest, reform their working practices and diversify into other businesses will pay most.
      I understand that companies that have diversified into new ventures, even if outside the regulated activities, will pay windfall tax on the benefits of diversification. I stand open to correction by the Minister if that is not the case. As he does not correct me, I assume that I am correct and that the Government will impose a windfall tax on profits made in areas other than those in which the company was operating at the time of privatisation and other than in directly regulated areas. That is an indication that the Labour party has not changed. The Labour party still believes that profit is a dirty word. The more profits people make, the dirtier they are and the bigger the tax they should have to pay. That is the essence of the proposal before us.
      206
      The Government simply do not understand what privatisation was for or how the regulatory system was intended to pass on the benefits to customers. The aim was to harness the profit motive, which was conspicuously lacking under nationalised ownership, to improve efficiency and reduce prices to the customer. Given the monopoly position of many of the industries involved, some regulatory system was essential to ensure that companies did not improve their profits simply by raising their prices.
      We could have chosen a system of fixed profit margins. That has been tried in some countries, but it is grossly inefficient because it leads to cost-plus pricing: the more the company's costs increase, the higher its prices. It is automatically allowed to pass costs on by the regulator. We therefore did not choose that method. We could have gone for a rate-of-return system, which is often used in north America and elsewhere, but that, too, leads companies to wasteful, gold-plated investment. They automatically earn a higher return the more they invest, which leads to inefficient use of resources.
      We initiated and developed—it has since been copied elsewhere—the so-called RPI minus X system, which requires companies to reduce their prices in real terms by fixing price increases at X points less than the rise in the retail prices index. That requires companies to reduce their prices. If a company cuts its costs even faster than it reduces its prices, it can improve its profits. However, after a fixed period—the Minister gave an average of four years—the RPI minus X system is revised in the light of performance, so that the benefit of past efficiency gains is passed on in lower prices in the next term.
      There is a sharper spur for further gains in efficiency, as companies can make higher profits only by exceeding that even more demanding price reduction target. If the Government can convince the House that more than adequate profits are being earned by any of the industries concerned, they or the regulators should require at the next price review bigger reductions in prices, and faster falls in prices thereafter, to ensure that the benefits are passed on to the customer. It is the customer, not the tax man, who should benefit from the efficiency that privatisation has brought.
      Lorna Fitzsimons: The shadow Chancellor should be aware that the water regulator, Ian Byatt, has pledged that his current pricing review will mean direct reductions in prices for customers, taking account of the windfall tax, in the next five-year retail prices index calculation.
      Mr. Lilley: Exactly. The hon. Lady has hit it on both buttons. First, the regulator will automatically pass on efficiency gains, and, secondly, he will take the windfall tax into account. The reduction will be less than it would have been had it not been for the windfall tax. She has made for me my very next point. Because the Government are imposing an extra cost on these industries, the reduction in prices will not be as great, or will not occur at all.
      We should not underestimate how effective privatisation has been in reducing costs to consumers, both domestic and industrial. Since privatisation, telecoms prices have fallen by 40 per cent. in real terms. As a result, calls are cheaper than in France, Germany or Italy. Gas

      207
      prices have gone down 20 per cent. for domestic consumers and, for domestic consumers, are below those of Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Belgium. The price of gas for industrial users has fallen by 48 per cent. There has been a reduction of 9 per cent. in the price of electricity for domestic consumers, and one of 10.5 per cent. for businesses. Generators have doubled their productivity since privatisation. That is an indictment of the failures of nationalisation and a recommendation of the success of privatisation since we introduced the policy.
      The Government simply pretend that a tax can be levied on companies without any impact on the customers and users of their services. In last year's Budget debate, the then shadow Chancellor said that the windfall tax would not be paid by ordinary families. It is nonsense to pretend that there is any tax that is not ultimately paid by ordinary people. It is not just I who say that, but John Kay, the guru who advises the Chancellor and the Prime Minister. He made it clear in the definitive work on British taxation that there is no tax that is not ultimately paid by individuals.
      If the £5 billion that is being levied on those industries by the tax is ultimately fed through to individuals, the average cost per household will be between £250 and £300.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is a total exaggeration.
      Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman may think that it is an exaggeration when I divide £5.2 billion by 19 million households and get the answer of £270, but that is in accord with the normal laws of arithmetic that have applied in the House for some while.
      The Government tried to change the actuarial rules in order to lessen the impact of the advance corporation tax charge on pension funds; now they want to change the ordinary rules of arithmetic, to pretend that a tax on those industries will not affect household bills. It will affect them to the tune of £270 on average, and pensioners will lose most because they spend disproportionately more of their incomes on household bills and typically have lower than average incomes.
      Mr. Geraint Davies: On simple arithmetic, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the £5.2 billion will not simply be put in a hole in a ground or burnt, but will be invested in jobs in our welfare-to-work scheme? Therefore, that money will come back to those same ordinary people through lower tax bills. The right hon. Gentleman's prediction about the future net effect is quite wrong. In the longer term, the whole point of the investment announced in the Budget is that people will pay less in bills and taxes.
      Mr. Lilley: All taxes are spent and therefore go back into the economy. On that basis, no tax costs anything and we could have 100 per cent. tax and be no worse off. Most people will see that there is a flaw in that argument somewhere, even if they cannot instantly tell where.
      The burden of the tax will fall particularly on pensioner households, who will receive no special protection of the type introduced when the change in VAT rates on fuel
      208
      was announced. We shall seek to introduce such protection as the Bill progresses in Committee. Why is no compensation to be offered? If the extra costs imposed on household bills exceed the impact of the 27p a week reduction in VAT on fuel, which the Chancellor will introduce in September, such compensation should be offered.
      If the regulators prevent those companies from passing on the cost in higher household bills—the hon. Member for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons) thought that the regulators would do so—by definition, the impact must fall on the value of the shares.
      It is worth noting that approaching two thirds of those shares are held by and on behalf of pension funds. Therefore, instead of about 28 per cent. of the burden of the tax falling on pensioners, more than 60 per cent. of it will fall on present and future pensioners. That is in addition to the major, on-going attack on pension funds through the ACT charge which has been introduced in clause 19 and which we will attack with the greatest possible vigour in Committee.
      Ultimately, the cost has to fall somewhere, and it will fall disproportionately on pensioners.
      Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: As for the share prices and the link to the eventual value of pension funds, surely the right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that, as at 11 o'clock this morning, the average of those shares was up by 7 per cent. compared with the FTSE average of just 4 per cent. since 1 July this year.
      Mr. Lilley: It will not have escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice that the share markets in this country and in some other countries have been rising fairly rapidly and continuously for some time. That is almost certainly not the effect of imposing a tax on them. If he thinks that shares go up when one imposes a tax on them, one ends up with the absurd justification that the Government offer for almost everything—that taxing things is good for us. If the Minister really believes that the shares have risen because a tax has been imposed on the pension funds in question, he will believe almost anything.
      We are against this tax because it is retrospective, and over a long period, too. The Institute for Fiscal Studies compared the tax with the tax on banks in 1981, to the great advantage of the latter; it was almost immediate, and it fell on profits that had been made just months before, not on profits made years before. The new alleged windfall profit, moreover, was identified only years after the event.
      4.15 pm
      It is particularly strange that the Government should justify the tax as having been expected by everyone. The Labour party was invited to contribute to the Railtrack prospectus not long ago. I can find four pages in that 600-page document which were contributed by the Labour party and which describe its policies as they affect Railtrack. There is not a whisper about the possible imposition of a windfall tax on Railtrack. I should like the Minister to confirm that Railtrack will indeed fall within the general purview of the tax. The Bill certainly mentions railway companies, so we may legitimately assume that Railtrack will be included.

      209
      The Paymaster General has been a business man in the past. He must know that it is a serious matter to sign off a prospectus that is not a full and complete statement of the facts known to people at the time. Is he saying that, when Labour submitted its contribution to the prospectus, it did not know that it intended to introduce a windfall tax; in which case how could the market, the investors in these companies, or the rest of us, be supposed to know? Or did Labour keep it a secret, in defiance of company law? Who signed off the submission to the prospectus? Perhaps the Minister will tell us, so that we shall know whom to hold to account if ever legal proceedings are taken against the Government for the deceit inherent in the process.
      Mr. David Watts: When the previous Administration sold off the utilities, they undervalued them. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that was gross incompetence on the part of the Conservative Government, and that it justifies this tax? If there were any justice in the world, the Conservative Ministers involved would be facing a surcharge for losing such large amounts of taxpayers' money.
      Mr. Lilley: The difficulty that arises when selling off formerly nationalised industries is that it is hard to tell how successful they will be under privatised management compared with the appalling failures of nationalisation. If the Labour Government were proposing to levy an excess tax that related the price at sale to the profits in the four years before flotation, that might be reasonable. If they did so, they would have to hand back money to quite a few shareholders. But the profits made afterwards were unforeseen and unforeseeable; as it turned out, only the most bullish advocates of privatisation were right about them. It is a tribute to privatisation that it produced the improved profitability which, at the end of the price period, is then passed on to customers in the form of lower prices—if they are not siphoned off by extra taxation.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it not true that anyone who put his money into Railtrack doubled it in 12 months? Is that right? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a case for taxing some of it?
      Mr. Lilley: Capital gains tax is usually levied on gains that are realised. If it was so obvious that any windfall should be taxed, when invited to state its policies in the prospectus, why did not the Labour party think it worth telling the public about this great truth which the hon. Gentleman holds to be self-evident?
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I bet some Tory Members doubled their money, too.
      Mr. Lilley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I did not. As Ministers, we were never allowed to participate in the privatisation of those companies—or to hold millions of pounds' worth of shares in them, I might add.
      During debates on clause 1 and subsequent clauses relating to the windfall tax, we shall want to focus on the Government's failure to understand how privatisation works. We shall want to concentrate on their failure to pass on the benefits of that privatisation in lower charges to customers and their desire to increase charges to customers and families by imposing the tax. We shall
      210
      want to focus on the need for protection from that higher cost, just as we protected pensioners and others from other cost increases that were affecting their household bills. We shall want to focus on the importance of preventing the tax from becoming a permanent and continuing levy.
      The Paymaster General justified the tax as a means of financing the welfare-to-work programme. We are not here to debate the merits of that programme. I previously said that I wish it well, but I doubt whether it will be successful. One thing we know from experience of such programmes around the world is that they continue to cost money for as long as they exist. How can the Government justify the existence of a temporary tax by a permanent programme that will need permanent taxation to finance it? Can the Government give an assurance to the House that the tax will not become a permanent burden on household bills?
      Liz Blackman: During last week's oral questions, in an almost throwaway remark, the shadow Chancellor said that the programme was temporary. Does he not concede that good-quality skills and employability are transportable? Behind employability lies behaviour that many young people in this country have not learnt, such as getting up early in the morning, getting themselves to work on time, following the rules once they are there, supporting their colleagues and generally taking on responsibility that they have not had to bear in the past. Does not the right hon. Gentleman concede that such behaviour has an air of permanence about it?
      Mr. Lilley: I was saying that it is a permanent programme, but the tax is allegedly temporary. According to the hon. Lady's analysis, as each cohort of young people comes through, there will be a permanent need to fund the programme. We are not here to dispute the arguments that she has advanced—for the sake of argument, I shall accept them—but according to her analysis, the tax will have to be permanent.
      We want an assurance from the Government that this will not be a permanent levy on the gas, electricity, water and telephone bills of every person in the country, particularly pensioners. I shall be urging my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the clause.
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I, too, wish to probe and oppose the clause. Although many of the arguments have been rehearsed and the Government have a mandate to implement the tax—we all know that the measure will be voted through with a comfortable majority—it is important that genuine concerns are put on the record and that the measure is tested against practical experience.
      Those of us who oppose the windfall tax readily acknowledge that the first problem is that it is superficially popular. It appears to have no victims; the money will be spent on many good causes; many people made a lot of money, so why should there not be some consequences? However, there are good examples to show that that is a superficial argument. The tax is superficially attractive, but it is basically dishonest.
      It is dishonest, first, because it is a retrospective tax. Most of the people who made the excess profits have pocketed them and gone; they will not be paying the tax. If the Labour party had been as concerned about the matter as it claimed, it might have done something about

      211
      the tax rates of high earners, such as those earning more than £100,000 a year. It would then have ensured that some of the people earning that sort of money made a slightly greater contribution to the general welfare. But that is not the central thrust of the debate on the clause.
      I suspect that most people will think, "This is fine; I do not have to pay the tax and I shall receive benefits from it in training, employment and so on for my children or for me." The welfare-to-work programme is not part of this debate; whether we support it is a separate issue. We have expressed support for many of the Government's proposals, which we accept have some good features, and we have come up with some alternative proposals.
      However, the way in which one spends the proceeds of a tax is separate from the merits of the tax; spending the proceeds of a tax on good causes does not in itself turn it into a good tax if its impact is fundamentally wrong. As has been said, it is not a victimless tax and it is not a tax that ordinary people will not pay; over time, they will pay it in one way or another.
      The shadow Chancellor was right to say, in response to an intervention, that if, in calculating the price formula for a utility, a regulator takes into account the impact of the windfall tax, the regulator will basically be determining what prices should be after a significant amount of money has been taken out of the company's budget.
      That proves a basic point—billions of pounds cannot be taken out of the utilities and have no impact on the basic economics of those organisations. If they do not have that money, they cannot invest it. If their investment programme is to be maintained without that money, they must borrow more than they would otherwise have borrowed. If they are forced to borrow, they have to pay a return on the money.
      As was also said, consequently prices are likely to be higher than they would have been. If that happens against a background of falling prices, it may not be detected and the Government may eventually get away scot free, inasmuch as people will not appreciate that they have paid for the tax, but they will have paid for it just the same.
      Mr. Denis MacShane: May I report to the hon. Gentleman a conversation which I had nearly two years ago with, I think, the managing director of Yorkshire Electricity? The managing director said to me, "Please pass on the thanks of our finance director to Gordon Brown, because never has a tax been so flagged up and so much notice given to enable us to make appropriate arrangements." Hon. Members are expressing synthetic indignation about the mistaken idea that the tax is a surprise and that companies have not prepared for it, discounted it and accommodated themselves for it.
      Mr. Bruce: I am grateful for that intervention, but it is beside the point. The tax may well have been well advertised and management may well have been able to make contingencies. Many of those fat cats may well have been delighted that there was hype about a tax that people thought would hit them, when in fact they were pocketing the money and salting it away in overseas accounts. On that basis, yes, they had plenty of notice to ensure that they did not pay a penny of what many people considered to be their ill-gotten gains.
      212
      The people who will ultimately pay are shareholders and consumers, because the regulator will take into account the arrangements that companies have made. People may not notice that they have had to pay the tax, but they will have paid it in the end.
      The clause is open to interpretation, because it reads:
      "Every company which, on 2nd July 1997, was benefitting from a windfall".
      Who decides, and how, that a company is benefiting on 2 July 1997? In fact, the formula does not refer to 2 July 1997; it goes back to the first four years post-privatisation.
      Therein, I suggest, lies an inherent contradiction in the Bill. No doubt the Minister will respond on that point at the end of this short debate. On the basis of the wording, it seems that it would be perfectly possible for a company to say, "We may have done very well in the first four years, but circumstances have changed beyond recognition and we are no longer benefiting, so we should not be liable to the tax."
      On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) made the pertinent point that several companies behaved in a fairly profligate manner soon after they were privatised. They sought to diversify out of their original functions and became involved in relatively expensive and not especially profitable ventures, on which they lost money. They could write such money off, and therefore not make windfall gains of the size that would otherwise have been made, so they will pay less substantial taxes than other companies that prudently concentrated on their core business and on building up their strength there. Companies that did not waste the money will pay more tax, which seems to be a penalty for prudence and well-directed strategy. In a sense, it rewards those who have taken more risks.
      I have said for a long while that I am concerned about certain aspects of the post-privatisation environment. The Liberal Democrat party argued not against the principle of privatisation but against the way in which it was done. We said that there was a need to ensure both effective regulation and effective competition in the post-privatisation phase. The Labour party criticised the previous Government for selling the family silver at knockdown prices. I accept the shadow Chancellor's comment that it is difficult to determine the value of a privatised asset, and it would have been extremely embarrassing if the flotations had been set at a level that discouraged full take-up. Almost by definition, therefore, the Government were driven to float those companies below their value to provide an incentive for people to invest in them and make the whole exercise appear more attractive.
      4.30 pm
      Some people may say that it is typical of a Liberal Democrat to comment that those are the opposite sides of the Labour and Conservative coins: the Tories privatise at a discount to give people a windfall, which the Labour party then taxes to put the money back into schemes that meet its set of priorities. It is money moving around the same group of organisations, but there are more open and honest ways to raise money and fund programmes. The methods of doing so should be sustainable and understood.
      The assurance which we all need is that this will not be the beginning of a continuing process. The Government have argued that they did not invent the windfall tax idea

      213
      but that it was created by the Conservatives when they imposed a windfall tax on the banks. Two wrongs do not make a right, although it is arguable that the windfall tax on the banks was at least applied at the time the windfall was made, rather than a considerable time afterwards. However, the principle is just as wrong.
      A range of privatised companies are now subjected to a windfall tax and continue to be subjected to regulation. The question then arises: at what point will it be determined that those companies are finally free of their history and able to operate in the marketplace, making their own commercial decisions within a realistic framework? Even at arm's length, regulation empowers the Government to influence those companies' policies substantially. I suspect that many of them will take the view that they would rather pay a windfall tax than have excessive regulation, which might interfere with the day-to-day management of their organisation.
      It is interesting to note that the regulators' attitudes vary considerably. Regulation is a specific feature of the definition of a company liable to the windfall tax. I therefore distinguish between, for example, the electricity regulator and the gas regulator.
      I remember an exchange that I had in the Trade and Industry Select Committee with Professor Littlechild—I am glad to say that his attitude changed a little afterwards—when he said that his job was to tell us what went wrong afterwards, not to interfere at the time, which was not why most of us thought he was appointed as regulator.
      The current Director General of Gas Supply, on the other hand, said that she did not believe that it was the regulator's job to intervene to encourage gas companies to promote energy efficiency, despite all the agencies involved agreeing that it should be an effective part of the regulatory process. Because she has refused to intervene, that process has not happened.
      I mention that to show that the impact of regulation on companies can differ substantially. As the Minister pointed out in interventions, regulation can modify abuses of both pricing and investment policy. There is potential for great argument about which company has been most affected by the impact of the regulator, and whether the assessment of the tax liability should be varied according to the degree of regulation and the conduct of the particular regulator.
      I wonder whether the Government have given the companies any private assurances—if so, those should be made public—that, if they come quietly, there will be no further repercussions and in future there will be a reasonable climate for them to operate in. Management cannot be relaxed about the proposal unless assurances have been given that the tax will not be imposed again and that in future the companies will not be subjected to heavy-handed regulation, which could seriously affect their profitability.
      Aspects of the tax are profoundly wrong in principle. It will ultimately fall on ordinary consumers, pensioners and shareholders to meet the cost, whether they are aware of it or not. The tax has implications for the continuing relationship between Government and the utilities. Some might argue that it could be a lever for a form of back-door nationalisation. It sets a precedent which would be extremely alarming if it were used by the Government to justify intervening in other sectors of the economy where they deemed that windfall earnings had accrued.
      214
      That is where the tax is most fundamentally wrong in principle. It is an irony that a new Labour Government have at the core of their manifesto commitment a very old Labour concept, which could set a bad precedent. I am grateful that Ministers have said that the tax is a one-off and will not be repeated. We will certainly hold them to that, because the precedent is wrong and should not be followed in future.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I had not intended to speak in the debate until about 10 minutes ago, when I noticed that there was a shortage of speakers. I intervene briefly to raise one or two points which, when I recollect what has happened over the years, may be significant.
      I have never purchased—
      Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: No, I have not even started yet. Give me a chance.
      I have never, at any stage of my life, purchased the stock of a privatised company, nor has any member of my immediate family. I have not done so—
      Mr. Davies: On a point of order, Sir Alan. I must intervene, or the Hansard record of our proceedings might be falsified. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said that he was rising to speak only because he had noticed that there was a shortage of speakers. Those outside the Chamber would be justified in concluding from that that no other hon. Member had indicated to you that he or she wished to speak, or had tried to catch your eye. At my own count, five or six hon. Members on both sides rose on the last occasion when Members could have been called.
      The Chairman: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is trying to be helpful, but I have a pair of eyes in my head that are not so far failing that I am unaware of the situation.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Following the landslide victory, there are 160-odd Conservative Members of Parliament, but only four or five of them have bothered to turn up to oppose a Bill that they have been telling us for weeks will do great damage to the former public utilities and to the privatised companies. Obviously, they do not feel strongly about those matters.
      I was saying that I had never purchased a share in a privatised company. I have not done so on principle, because I believe that what happened in the 1980s and the early 1990s was fundamentally wrong.
      As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I saw several reports produced by the National Audit Office at that time that questioned the arrangements for the sale and flotation of shares. The Public Accounts Committee discussed those matters regularly, and—without breaching the confidentiality of the Committee—I must admit that the handling of those arrangements created divisions. I believe that we gave away large public utilities in the 1980s, and many greedy shareholders queued to purchase shares in the knowledge that they would make substantial windfall gains.

      215
      I draw attention to an article that appeared in one of the more sensible press publications last year. It referred to a conversation about the windfall tax that allegedly took place in the former Conservative Cabinet. If I remember correctly—the article seemed very well informed—Cabinet members argued in favour of a windfall tax. Even the former Chancellor of the Exchequer allegedly expressed the view that a one-off dollop—if I may use that word—of cash from the privatised companies could help the then Government to secure their public expenditure targets. I shall say no more about that matter—perhaps the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), will refer to it during the debate.
      I welcome the windfall tax. I think that it is a brilliant idea, and I congratulate those who were responsible for dreaming it up. I congratulate the researchers, academics and whoever else enunciated the principle that we are now transforming into legislation.
      I believe that it will have a major impact in my constituency. Many of my constituents aged 18 to 25 or 25 years and over are long-term unemployed people, and their condition worries me. Many of them have grown up in families with no one in work. Lack of employment opportunities is creating a culture of unemployment in some parts of the country. Unless we tackle the problems today, that culture will undermine the social fabric of our society and have all sorts of social and economic consequences. The Government are trying to address those issues through this very important tax and the Finance Bill.
      If all we do in the next few years is give young people hope, involve them in economic activity, give them a purpose in life and restore their faith—or induce some faith—in society by showing them that we are interested in their future, we will succeed. Through the gateway concept, as outlined in the new deal proposals, we hope to give young people education and employment opportunities that will stand them in good stead for the rest of their lives. We may not be thanked for our achievements, but that does not matter. We must take a decision today that will enable many hundreds of thousands of young people to enjoy the experience of stable work—which is a common experience for most people in my age group.
      I turn now to the legislation and to the reasons why it is important. I readily confess that I have been converted to the principles of privatisation, which I opposed in the late 1970s and early 1980s. I voted in Divisions against privatisations—I am quite open about that; it is on the public record—in most areas, although I was discreetly in favour of selling council houses because I envisaged great social benefits.
      In the same way, many Tories have been converted to the idea of the national health service. They voted against our proposals in the mid-1940s, believing that private health was the only solution. Today, many Conservative Members believe in the national health service. They may do things to which we object—a core of Tories would like to privatise the whole process—but the Conservatives were converts just like us.
      Once converted, we were forced to address the question of how to achieve the objectives delivered by nationalisation through the privatisation process, so we
      216
      became regulators. I think that the Labour debate in the next few years will be about the extent to which we can advance arguments about regulation without interfering in the workings of the market. We must strike a balance—and I believe that the previous Government got it wrong.
      We have become greater regulators, and we are seeking to develop the principles of privatisation—we shall probably be more successful than the Tories ever dreamed. However, a residual issue remains: although we recognise that the changes will ultimately be beneficial, we must address the fact that many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people made huge windfall gains when they purchased shares in the privatised utilities. We should remember that many of those people still hold those shares today—as the former Government reminded us repeatedly when they published their figures on the state of share ownership in the United Kingdom.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Quentin Davies: I must correct the hon. Gentleman's perception of history. The national health service was suggested to the House in a White Paper that was produced by the coalition Government in 1944 and presented by a Conservative Minister of Health. The Conservative party supported the principle of the national health service from the outset. The only difference between the parties during debate on the 1948 legislation was whether hospitals should be nationalised or should remain independent, often charitable, foundations. The principle of free health care at the point of use was common to the major parties—including the Liberals—and, as such, it was enshrined in the 1944 White Paper.
      I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not mind my correcting that point. It is not directly germane to this debate, but, as the hon. Gentleman raised it, it is important to ensure that an untruth does not gain credibility by being repeated without challenge in this place.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I do not intend to withdraw my remarks. The hon. Gentleman is rewriting history. When I came to this place in 1979, I met some very interesting old characters who had been Members of Parliament since 1945. We would sit in the Dining Room at night and they would tell us fascinating stories about parliamentary events in the 1940s. Their tales about Conservative Members' resistance to the socialisation of medicine in the 1940s were legion. They were very interesting stories, but I shall speak privately to the hon. Gentleman about them.
      A residual issue remains: the huge gains made by many greedy people. We cannot turn back the clock and eliminate those gains. However, we can at least seek to redress the problems that have arisen as a result of the lost revenue that would have accrued to the taxpayers if the industries had remained publicly owned and begun to operate efficiently and effectively.
      Mr. John Townend: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). The hon. Gentleman and others have the idea that those who invest in shares and make profits are greedy. They think that they should not receive profits and believe that they do not pay tax. Those who take that view are not living in the real world. We are told that those who have made profits should now pay tax, the

      217
      implication being that they have not made any contribution from their profits. But they have: they have paid 40 per cent. capital gains tax. The hon. Member for Workington and others now want to levy a super-tax.
      The hon. Gentleman says that he has been converted to privatisation. Could it be that one reason why privatised companies have been so profitable and successful is that, at the time of privatisation, no one realised the true level of the inefficiencies and bad management of the industries concerned? That is borne out by the fact that the hon. Gentleman says that he is now a convert to privatisation.
      The windfall tax is not a fair tax, because it is a tax on success. I should like to hear the Minister's comments about two electricity companies, East Midlands Electricity and Yorkshire Electricity, which are of similar size. After the first year of privatisation, East Midlands Electricity made £109 million while Yorkshire Electricity made £100 million. East Midlands Electricity had a market capitalisation on flotation of £523 million while Yorkshire Electricity's was £497 million.
      In the last of the first four years of privatisation, 1994–95, the two electricity companies were roughly the same size. East Midlands Electricity made a profit of —164 million and Yorkshire Electricity £161 million. One would think that they would pay roughly the same amount in windfall tax, but that is not so. Yorkshire Electricity is paying 40 per cent. more—£39 million-worth. One of the principal reasons is that, in 1993–94, East Midlands Electricity had a bad year. It made some bad investments, its management took its eye off the ball, and profits fell from £116 million to £27 million. As a result of that inefficiency, the company will pay less windfall tax than Yorkshire Electricity.
      Yorkshire Electricity was more successful than East Midlands Electricity in its diversification. It made £18 million from an investment in Sweden. That has nothing to do, of course, with the price at which the privatised companies were put to the market, yet Yorkshire Electricity is having to pay windfall tax on its profit of £18 million. As I have said, we are not dealing with a fair tax. There are many anomalies, and the outcome is a tax on success. Those companies that have been successful will pay much more than those that have been failures.
      The hon. Member for Workington told the Committee how pleased young people in his constituency would be about the windfall tax. I represent an area in which there is a high percentage of pensioners, and they are rapidly beginning to realise that the windfall tax is not a good tax for them.
      It is significant that, during the Budget statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear to the House of Commons that there would be no increases in prices. The regulator, however, has said that he is taking the windfall into account, so prices will be affected. We were told that there would be no decrease in investment and no decrease in service. So from where does the money come? There is only one place from which the money can come, and that is from the funds that are available for distribution in the form of dividends. Who are the largest shareholders in the utility companies? The large financial institutions, especially pension funds. That is one part of the triple whammy that the Budget has introduced against pension funds.
      218
      It is not the fat cats who will be taxed but future pensioners; they will probably be taxed more than today's pensioners. That is why we are dealing with an iniquitous tax. It is a means of taxing by stealth. The burden of the windfall tax will be felt not by the ordinary man in the street today but by future pensioners. It is a retrospective, unfair and bad tax, and I shall vote against it.
      Mr. Derek Twigg: The Conservatives have opted for their usual scare tactics. I recall that the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), sent out letters to perhaps millions of shareholders before the general election. Indeed, my father received one. As far as I know, he has never had a share in any of the utilities. That being so, I am not sure why he received the letter. However, it set out how much the windfall tax would cost the people of this country. The message was that they should not vote Labour. That approach did not work then and it will not work now. The Conservatives lost the mood of the country—that became clear on 1 May—and they have lost it again.
      The windfall tax has been warmly welcomed in my constituency. When I was campaigning during the election campaign, many people said that they considered it to be a good idea. They were supportive because of the reasons for such a tax. They understood that it would create jobs and other opportunities for young people and the long-term unemployed.
      Conservative Members have talked about the utilities—North West Water is an example. There is talk also about the utilities being sold off cheaply and the result being excessive profits, fat cats and price rises. All these issues come to mind. They were mentioned to me on the doorstep by those who are now my constituents. The shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer did not say that prices had doubled in the water industry. It is not all roses in the garden.
      Basically, the windfall tax is seen as a fair tax.
      Mr. Peter L. Pike: My hon. Friend referred to North West Water, which came on the market at a knock-down price. People who live in the north-west—I am one of them—can be supplied with water by only one company. Similarly, sewage treatment can be undertaken by only one company. That being so, the company cannot fail to make a profit. That is why the windfall tax is fully justified.
      Mr. Twigg: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He will be aware that the number of complaints about North West Water has increased significantly over the past few years.
      It is said that the windfall tax is a temporary measure but will result in permanent benefits, which will be important to my constituency. That is why the measure is so warmly welcomed. In my constituency, 44 per cent. of young people do not have a job and are not in training or at college. That is a major problem. The windfall tax will bring about improvements, and the problem in my constituency will become less severe.
      There are social problems when young people have not been in employment since leaving school. They may have moved from one temporary job to another. In many families, two generations have not been employed. Young people were shabbily treated by the previous Government and the windfall tax is a means of addressing the problem.

      219
      The largest employer in my constituency is the chemical industry. The number of people employed in it has been drastically reduced during the past 10 or 15 years. Middle-aged men, especially, have lost jobs and are unable to find new ones. They are having a great struggle. They must acquire new skills, and that means retraining. Many people telephoned me to speak about these matters shortly before the election. They were keen to obtain more information, and keen for Labour, when in government, to take the issue forward.
      The windfall tax is about bringing hope and benefits to people in constituencies such as Halton and, indeed, generally. The tax is warmly supported in my constituency and its introduction will be welcomed. The sooner it is implemented, the better.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: The windfall tax, by its very definition—I do not think that Labour Members will be able to quibble with this—is arbitrary, discriminatory as only some companies will pay it, and retrospective. It is—[Interruption.] I shall happily give way to any Labour Member who wants to quarrel with the three simple propositions that I have put before the Committee. Does the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) wish to take issue with me? He is shaking his head, but it is in the nature of a windfall tax that it should be retrospective, arbitrary and discriminatory. It is quite right that we should give the Government a hard time on this: it is scandalous. They should be made to face the essential aspects of the windfall tax they have introduced.
      Irrespective of whether we lose the Division later this evening, it is right and important that the Committee should lay down a marker that the windfall tax cannot be got through the House with impunity; otherwise, Governments in the future—no doubt this Government, as I know they have four or five years to run—will regularly resort to discriminatory, arbitrary and retrospective taxes. A very worrying precedent will be created if the tax gets through the Committee this evening.
      5 pm
      Why does it matter? I shall deal with the point about the tax being retrospective. When the public, individuals, little old ladies, business men with some money to put aside, people providing for their pensions, institutions that manage the pension funds of millions of people, and foreign investors, who, traditionally, take a favourable view about investing in this country—all sorts of institutions and individuals—applied for shares when the utilities were privatised, they read the prospectuses, which were thoroughly and professionally drafted and written. As far as I know, my old firm had nothing to do with the initial privatisation issues. I can say that without fear of any conflict of interest.
      People who subscribed to the shares believed that the essential facts relating to their investment—so far as they could be predicted at the time—and above all the regulatory and political regime within which those companies would exist, had been fairly, adequately, indeed definitively, described in the prospectuses. We now find that that is not true, because another Government have been elected and have said, "No, we are going to change the framework of understanding against which
      220
      people took the decision to invest in shares,"—whether it was a widow investing £200 or a pension fund investing tens of millions of pounds. "We are now going to change those rules."
      This is a very serious matter. It is not something that can be done with impunity. It means that, the next time a Government, of whatever political complexion, offers shares to the public, or for that matter a debt issue, a gilt issue, which Governments do all the time—it is terribly important that the interests of the whole country, of every citizen and taxpayer, irrespective of his or her political views, are considered—the offer of shares or stock will be received by the market on the basis that the political risk attached to subscribing to shares is now much higher in Britain. That is regrettable, because this country always had a favourable, stable climate of investment. Traditionally, it had integrity in these matters because our Governments have had a reputation for straight dealing, not retrospective dealing. That reputation will be damaged today.
      The country's interests will be seriously damaged if the windfall tax is passed by the House. For ever more it will be said that the British Government may come forward with a prospectus and say, "The following are the particular terms on which we are prepared to sell shares, and the following is the regulatory and tax climate in which companies will continue to operate in the United Kingdom," but, in practice, a year or two later, another Government may come into office and decide to change retrospectively the rules of the game.
      That is happening now. Such an act leads to the de-rating of a country's credit rating. Every issue made by a Government who develop such a reputation, or by a country with Governments who act in such a way, suffers a discount. The price in the form of interest rate that they have to pay when they wish to raise debt is correspondingly higher; the price at which they can sell shares is correspondingly lower. The whole country pays a long-term price for the loss of that credibility and for investor confidence being damaged in that way.
      There are hon. Members on both sides of the House with experience of development economics who have been involved with third-world countries, many of which are trying to extract themselves from appalling structural poverty. They will have looked at the various controversies in the academic and political worlds about what characteristics are right for a country to try to develop to help its way out of poverty and what framework is needed to generate wealth.
      Everybody who has looked at these matters and at the experience of countries in the third world will recognise that there is an enormous premium to security of investment, to integrity, in generating investor confidence. There is an enormous discount for countries that have in some way damaged their credit standing, that have damaged investor confidence, that have damaged the propensity of overseas investors to invest because they have developed a reputation for retrospective taxation or for placing retrospective burdens on investors.
      A retrospective tax is very damaging. It cannot be imposed with impunity. It will not be done with impunity in this country. It is deeply damaging to many of our principles of equity. It is also deeply damaging in a quantifiably economic sense. That is the first thing that I have against the windfall tax. It is the reason the

      221
      Committee should think very carefully before we let it through. If we let it through, a precedent will be created and the Government will no doubt consider it an easy way to raise money.
      Many of us feel, on the basis of two months' experience, that we have a very irresponsible Government—a Government who brought forward a Budget that directly contradicts the diagnosis of the country's economy in the Red Book. A country run by such a Government obviously has some difficult moments ahead, and there is no doubt whatever that the Government will run into severe budgetary and economic problems.
      If the Government feel that they can get away with the easy way out, embarking on some retrospective, arbitrary new tax—they will if we let the tax through this afternoon without maximum protest—further damage will be done to this country, to the investment climate and to the propensity of domestic savers to place their money in privatisation issues, debt issues or any other issue of the British Government. Further damage will be done to the willingness and propensity of overseas investors to come to this country. It is a very serious matter indeed.
      I can see that the hon. Member for Workington is trying to intervene. I would be delighted to give way to him.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I was not seeking to intervene, but the hon. Gentleman invites me.
      The hon. Gentleman used the term "precedent". Was not the precedent set in the early 1980s with the banks?
      Mr. Davies: We had a very interesting debate yesterday about whether it is a good idea to try to railroad a Finance Bill through the House without giving people outside time to read and digest the text of the Bill, and without giving hon. Members time to consult outsiders—or, indeed, simply to think about the matter themselves and consult their research assistants. We debated whether that was a sensible way in which a modern, sophisticated democracy should allow complex and economically important legislation to be pushed through the House. (Interruption.] I am coming to the hon. Gentleman's point; I shall not forget him.
      When Conservative Members discussed this matter yesterday, Labour spokesmen could not think of a way to address our serious criticisms on their merits. All they could say was that past Conservative Governments had sometimes guillotined Bills. As a result of yesterday's debate, it became quite clear that in fact there were no exact precedents, and no Conservative Government had railroaded a Finance Bill through the House so rapidly and with so little excuse.
      Nevertheless, I accepted then, and do so again now, that it was unfortunate that some Conservative Governments, possibly without waiting to see what would happen when we got into detailed discussion of a complex Bill—for example, a Finance Bill—in Committee, had by way of anticipation introduced a timetable motion. I said that that was a mistake. It was a mistake in itself and it was a mistake because it created a bad precedent. Here we have the Government taking that bad precedent further.
      I make no apology for the tax on banks to which the hon. Member for Workington referred. I was not in the House at the time. Had I been, I am not at all sure whether I would have supported it. As I was not, it would
      222
      be hypocritical to say whether I would or would not because we do not know what I would have done. However, for years before I came into the House I have held to the strong belief that retrospective legislation is obnoxious and that retrospective taxation is particularly obnoxious and damaging.
      It is an extraordinary indictment of the moral confidence of the new Labour Government, elected with this enormous majority, that the best way in which they can justify their actions is to say that the Tories did almost as badly, because none of the precedents is quite up to the measure of what they now propose.
      If the Government were confident of their mission to bring some good to Britain which previous Administrations had failed to do, they would be the last to mention Conservative precedents, except, possibly, as an example of something on which they wished to improve. Instead, the Labour Government are incapable of justifying on their merits the serious measures that they are introducing—yesterday, guillotining the Finance Bill before it had even started, treating the House of Commons and its procedures with considerable contempt, and today introducing a windfall tax with all those elements of retrospectivity and arbitrariness to which I have already referred.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am fascinated by the way in which the hon. Gentleman dissociates himself from Conservative history. Was not there a levy on the gas companies in the mid-1980s? Do not I remember some Budget measure to do with some levy being imposed on the gas industry?
      Mr. Davies: I have no memory of any such thing, and I do not believe that any such thing took place during my time in the House. I know the hon. Gentleman well and I have a high regard for him as a parliamentarian, but I have much less regard for him as a historian as a result of the clanger that he dropped earlier, to which I drew attention at the time in an intervention which he graciously allowed me to make during his speech.
      Therefore, I have little confidence that that suggested levy is anything other than a figment of his imagination—a hard-pressed imagination, I suspect, because I sense the embarrassment among Labour Members as I say, frankly, that it is not good enough to come before the House and justify otherwise unjustifiable measures on the basis that one's opponents did almost as badly in the past. A Government who had any kind of self-respect would wish to justify their measures on their merits, and that they have spectacularly failed to do.
      I now return to some of the important aspects of clause 1 on which I touched earlier—its arbitrariness and unfairness. The windfall tax will impact on the current generation of shareholders, not on the generation of shareholders who supposedly—supposedly—enjoyed the putative windfall gains described in the Bill.
      That point has been commented on already. It is clear that anyone who bought into the companies subsequently, without realising that the Labour party planned a windfall levy, will have suffered considerably, and those shareholders who sold out before the imposition of the windfall tax, or before the markets began to discount its likely imposition, will not have suffered at all.

      223
      5.15 pm
      Let us consider the specific human reality behind this. Who are the shareholders who, for the most part, have been the most loyal and longest-term shareholders? I should say straight away for the avoidance of any doubt that to a small degree I am one of them. I applied in my name and those of my children for a number of these privatisation issues. I thoroughly disagree with the hon. Member for Workington: the privatisation of those companies was a brilliant idea. The great success of those companies since privatisation and their emergence in many cases as multinationals with an international position in their sectors, thoroughly justifies that.
      The statistics produced by the stock exchange bear out my experience that the shareholders who have been most loyal to those companies, the longest-term shareholders, have been the small shareholders, many on small and below average incomes, who applied for a few hundred pounds worth of shares way back in the late 1980s or early 1990s when the companies were privatised. They are the shareholders who tended to hold on to their shares and they will now suffer from the retrospective levy. They will be the losers from the windfall tax.
      It is fair comment, on the basis of anyone's experience of the financial markets, that on the whole the smaller the holding, and probably the less sophisticated the investor, the lower the rate of turnover in the portfolio. In many cases, small shareholders do not have a portfolio. They have one or two shareholdings to which they stick. They do not churn their portfolios every week or month. They do not get up in the morning and look at their Reuters screen or their Topic screen and decide to buy or sell such and such a share, switch between deutschmark and yen or hedge their position by selling the index, or something of that kind. It is the sophisticated shareholders who do that. It is unlikely that they would have a single shareholding in their portfolios for six, seven or eight years. Such shareholders have most probably sold out. Few of them will have exactly the same shares that they bought at an initial flotation.
      The extraordinary effect of this most unpleasant levy—unpleasant because it is retrospective and arbitrary—has been to impact on the small shareholder. We all have in our constituencies small shareholders, often people who have been investing for their retirement or retired people, pensioners with just a few hundred pounds in privatisation shares, who have held the shares from the beginning who now find that they are suffering. In contrast, the sophisticated professional investor got out a long time ago and can wave goodbye to the windfall tax. That is a pretty perverse and unpleasant consequence of the tax. It may not have occurred to the Labour Government, but if it has I hope that it is a consideration that will stick in their gullets.
      My hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend) referred to another perverse aspect of the windfall tax: the discriminatory effect not just between one class of shareholder and another but between one company and another. I listened with great attention to my hon. Friend's speech. He had obviously done a lot of homework, because he quoted facts and figures about the sales and profits and market capitalisations of Yorkshire Electricity and East Midlands Electricity during the relevant period.
      224
      Anyone with even a passing acquaintance with those companies knows that there was a considerable contrast, in that East Midlands Electricity engaged in a diversification programme, going into activities that were not regulated, not in any sense monopolistic activities or activities which could possibly be justified as being targeted by a windfall levy, and it got it wrong, while Yorkshire Electricity on the whole got it right. That is an extraordinary state of affairs, because we now find that the tax will penalise those who got it right, and will let off, in relative terms, much more lightly those who got it wrong.
      Here we are back to the old socialist principles that have been around ever since the Labour party existed—clobber success and reward failure. What kind of a principle is that? It is a principle, in the name of redistribution or in the name of God knows what, which can lead only to the progressive decline of the economy. People will be deterred from making a higher risk, higher reward investment, because if they get it right they will lose the proceeds through a discriminatory and retrospective tax—which the windfall levy undoubtedly is—and if they get it wrong they will lose their money anyway. So why invest, and why take any risk?
      Any economy that applies that appalling principle will pay a high price. We paid a high price when the Labour party was previously in power. The Labour party in the 1970s ran the economy on the principle that the successful should be penalised and punished and the weak should subsidised. We recall those dreadful subsidies for loss-making nationalised industries. That formula produced, in aggregate, an increasingly weak British economy across the board. We paid a high price then, and that principle is again being applied in the proposed windfall tax. That tax will be a severe impediment to companies that have done an extraordinarily good job for the British economy. Its economic consequences are of considerable concern.
      I make no apology for dealing with some of the human and philosophical aspects of this matter, including the precedent effect of the tax. I do not believe that man lives by bread alone: economics is not everything. It is right to consider first issues of principle and the impact on the lives of human beings. The impact on people's savings has an effect on their sense of independence and security, particularly in old age.
      Nevertheless, we must consider the economic consequences. Here is another classic illusion in Labour thinking. They seem to believe that they have discovered two invisible taxes. They are taxes in that they raise revenue, but are not taxes in that they do not do any economic damage. The Labour party believes that they do not do any political damage either. Those two measures are the abolition of dividend tax credits and the imposition of a windfall tax.
      No doubt the Government have congratulated themselves by saying, "Isn't this extremely clever of us? We have found the touchstone that turns everything to gold. We have found the holy grail. We have found a form of tax that does not damage the economy or our political standing." They are completely wrong about that. There is no such thing as a tax that does no damage to individuals or to the economy. Any Government proposing to levy any form of tax should consider carefully what damage it does and try to target it so that the damage is minimised.

      225
      We cannot accept this thoroughly dishonest attempt to pretend that some taxes do no economic damage and can be levied with impunity on the British public and on the British economy. The windfall tax will damage the British economy because it will damage the privatised utilities. They are now extremely successful companies, whereas when they were nationalised many of them had to be subsidised and almost all of them were under-invested and showed up badly in international league tables of productivity, profitability, environmental standards and consumer service.
      Sir Alan, you and I are old enough to recall the days when utilities were nationalised and the tremendous difficulties we had getting a telephone or a gas pipe repaired. Their service was bad, but they are now astonishingly successful. British Telecom has become one of the leading telecommunications companies in the world. British Gas has become a major player in the world, and our electricity generators have become major players and investors in many parts of the world.
      It is a proud record. The considerable price reductions—up to 40 per cent.—are an extraordinary example of productivity gains being passed to the consumer. That could happen only in a privatised system. In a producer-oriented, nationalised economy, productivity gains are not made available to the consumer.
      Productivity gains have been passed to the consumer, and there have been enormous improvements in service. Many companies have made enormous international investments, so they have a stream of international earnings. That is a great advantage to them, because it reduces the volatility of their earnings, and to the country, because it contributes to our overseas earnings.
      We are now singling out those companies for a windfall tax. If a company's after-tax profits are reduced, the propensity of that company to invest is also reduced. The Paymaster General, who was bold enough—perhaps thoughtless enough—to put his name to the tax and to come and defend it at the Dispatch Box, ran a distinguished British manufacturing company. He is looking askance, and does not want to look me in the eye. He knows perfectly well that, if the return from prospective investment is reduced, the propensity to invest is also reduced. If he wants to argue with that fundamental principle of economics and financial theory I should be delighted to give way to him. He is looking at his tie or at his feet. He is looking away from me, because he does not want to intervene. He knows that he cannot quarrel with that point.
      Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does my hon. Friend agree with me that the Paymaster General, who has a distinguished record in business—he is a shrewd and capable business man—would not have taken kindly to Jaguar being subject to a windfall tax?
      Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman would have been failing in his fiduciary responsibility to his company, its shareholders and employees who depended on him if he had not fought like a cat against the imposition of such an arbitrary, obnoxious and unjustifiable levy.
      Despite our provocation, the hon. Gentleman is looking into outer space and is determined not to respond to our comments. He feels guilty, so he will not take issue with us on the principles of economics or financial theory. He
      226
      will not rewrite the textbooks, because he knows perfectly well that, if the prospective after-tax profit from any investment is reduced, the propensity to invest will be reduced. To justify any investment, the prospective yield will have to increase. Less investment will be undertaken, so there will be less growth and less employment generation in those companies in the future.
      Those companies have risen like the phoenix from the ashes of the nationalised economy that we inherited in 1979. They have flown proudly like eagles around the world. They have made major strategic investments in North America, in the former Soviet Union and in the rest of the single market. That is an impressive record.
      Sooner or later, any company that is successful under this socialist regime will be penalised. The privatised utilities are to be penalised for their pains because of their disproportionate contribution to the national wealth and their contribution to the technological, environmental and productivity gains in their own sector. Their contribution should justify some reward and recognition, but it is being met with an invidious penalty in the form of a windfall tax. They will have to reduce their investment plans and their potential growth prospects will be blighted. Their capacity to generate employment in those important industries will be significantly reduced.
      We are told that the money will fund a welfare-to-work programme. Make no mistake about it: that shows that the concept of new Labour is a complete fallacy. There is no "new" about it; it is old Labour—old socialism. We had to fight it in the 1970s and, indeed, in the 1940s. We had to fight it in order to lay the basis of the successful economy that we now have, which has been so threatened by events on 1 May.
      Money is being taken. In this instance it is being taken in a particularly invidious, discriminatory and retrospective fashion from successful companies. The levy will reduce job creation in those companies; it will reduce viable, sustainable, productive employment in internationally competitive firms. The money raised—after, no doubt, a good many administrative costs have been subtracted from it—will be used to try to generate artificial jobs through subsidies elsewhere. Viable, sustainable jobs will be removed and replaced by jobs that can survive only as long as the subsidies continue. A necessary mathematical consequence of such a policy—as surely as night follows day—will be a reduction in average productivity throughout the economy.
      5.30 pm
      This is a sad day for the economy. We are not talking about small amounts of money. A significant precedent is being created—a precedent that will be regretted, not merely by those who work, aspire to work or might have hoped for attractive careers in the successful industries involved. Many of those industries are technology-intensive and many are at the frontiers of environmentally friendly business and therefore have much to offer similar sectors of activity around the world. Jobs and prospects will be removed and replaced by the prospect of subsidised jobs elsewhere in the economy. It is an extremely bad deal.

      227
      I happily give way to my hon. Friend.
      Mr. Soames: I do not wish to intervene. I am listening to my hon. Friend's speech.
      Mr. Davies: I am sorry. I must have misunderstood my hon. Friend's hand gestures.
      We have heard many interesting speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee but, during my speech and those of other Conservative Members, what has been notable is the silence of Ministers. They just sit there and listen to Conservative Members making what would, if they were not telling the truth, be deeply shocking allegations. We are saying, "Here we have a Government who are arbitrary, unfair and devoid of any sense of justice, introducing retrospective legislation and taxes that will damage the British economy." We can say all that without the slightest fear of contradiction, because Ministers clearly have no arguments to advance.
      Mr. Geraint Davies rose—
      Mr. Davies: I see a Labour Back Bencher gallantly rising to assist Ministers, but I think that my point has been made.
      This is a bad day for the House of Commons, because a Finance Bill is being railroaded through. It is a bad day for tax law, because, if the Government carry the Division at 7 pm—as I fear they will—a sad precedent will be created: a retrospective levy will be imposed on taxpayers. It is an extremely bad day for some very successful industries, which, if we had a rational, responsible Government who cared about our economic future, would receive accolades for the success that they have achieved since privatisation. All that this socialist Government can do—I use the word "socialist" advisedly, because that is exactly the character that the Government's legislation displays—is say, "Ah, someone is successful, someone is making money, so we are going to grab it and take it away."
      Mr. Ross Cranston: I am sorry that I was not present at the beginning of the debate, and especially sorry that I was not present when the shadow Chancellor opened for the Opposition. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson) and I were attending on our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. One of my hon. Friend's constituents was presenting a petition to our right hon. Friend, who, as a result, has persuaded the West Midlands police to increase the number of policemen on the beat in Dudley. We are very thankful for that.
      Let me begin by talking about the use to which the money raised from the tax will be put. It will be used primarily for the welfare-to-work programme. Some of my hon. Friends have eloquently described the justification for the tax—the new deal for young people—and the tragedy afflicting many of those young people, who have no hope and no jobs to go to. I was surprised when the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), opening for the Liberal Democrats, said that we should divorce the tax from the expenditure that might result from it. I had understood that the Liberal Democrats were keen on
      228
      hypothecation, and I see an analogy between that and our attempt to use the windfall tax to give opportunities to young people.
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Just for the record, what I said was that spending the money raised from a tax on good services did not make it a good tax if it was a bad tax to start with.
      Mr. Cranston: The hon. Gentleman still does not appreciate that the use of moneys can sometimes justify the tax from which they are raised. I shall say more about that in a moment, but I want to concentrate on the details of the windfall tax itself rather than on the use to which the money will be put.
      As the Bill makes clear, this is a one-off tax on the excessive profits of privatised utilities—although Opposition Members have raised the possibility of further one-off taxes. There is no doubt that the appalling behaviour of those at the top of some of those utilities bolstered our case for the tax, but there were three principal justifications for it.
      First, there was the undervaluation of the assets at the time of privatisation: that is why the formula referred to in the Bill mentions the price placed on the utilities at the time of sale. Secondly, many of the companies continued, and continue, to be monopolistic suppliers of essential services. That is why the Bill identifies the industries that will be subject to the tax in terms of economic regulation.
      Thirdly, the original price controls set by the Conservative party on privatisation were excessively generous. There is no doubt that the companies made excessive profits: nearly every privatisation on which the Public Accounts Committee reported was said by the PAC to have involved excessive profits—and those profits were, of course, at the expense of consumers. The Bill identifies those justifications, which provide the case for the windfall tax.
      The formula in the schedule looks to the value placed on the companies at the time of sale and then to the average annual post-tax profits for four years following privatisation. Conservative Members have said a great deal about unfairness. We have heard about the retrospective nature of the tax. As my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) correctly pointed out, the Conservative party imposed retrospective taxes. The best example is the 1981 windfall tax on the banks.
      It is said that the windfall tax is arbitrary and discriminatory. As hon. Members know, taxes are often attacked on that basis. When progressive income tax was first introduced, it was said to be arbitrary and discriminatory. Some Conservative Members may still take that view—I do not know. I am prepared to allow them to intervene if they want to justify that approach. The same was said about inheritance tax.
      Mr. Shaun Woodward: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the parallels he sees with the 1981 legislation on bank deposits?
      Mr. Cranston: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. The point that I was making was about retrospective taxes, and there is an example of the Conservative party imposing such taxes.
      Mr. Woodward: Will the hon. Gentleman explain in what way the 1981 bank deposits legislation was

      229
      retrospective, as my recollection is that it imposed a levy on the banks' very large profits at that time, based on changes that we had made to monetary policy? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to elucidate and explain his comparisons and the retrospective nature of that legislation.
      Mr. Cranston: I do not want to be diverted from my main argument by the hon. Member for Wigan.
      Mr. Woodward: Wigan?
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman will not intervene in that manner.
      Mr. Cranston: I apologise for misnaming the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The point is that that legislation was retrospective in effect.
      Conservative Members have raised various points about the unfairness of the tax. They have said that it is unfair to some utilities rather than to others. The regional electricity company in my area has put that argument to me. It has pointed out that other such companies have engaged in expensive diversifications. Money was wasted, but the effect is that the company's profits are higher than those of the companies that diversified. The Institute for Fiscal Studies made the point, which was repeated by Conservative Members, that many of the people who gained immediately after the privatisation have moved on, and that is true, but Conservative Members have to take into account that, in imposing a tax, there is a need for simplicity.
      In tax law, there is always a tension between simplicity and producing absolute fairness. The Government have rightly taken the approach of a simple formula, as set out in the schedule. Any other approach would open opportunities for avoidance. In this morning's Financial Times, the former tax adviser to the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) makes this point:
      "Successively more complex sets of rules have been created. which in turn provide opportunities for exploitation. A simpler tax system, with fewer reliefs, exemptions and discontinuities would, in the long term, frustrate most of the tax avoiders' ploys."
      The Government have taken the view that the simple formula is the right approach, and I agree.
      5.45 pm
      Having listened to the contribution of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) to the debate, one would think that the sky had fallen in. There is much hyperbole. He said that there had been a decline in the economy. I am not sure that anyone else has seen that. The fact is that the windfall tax is water under the bridge. It is a popular tax. Its imposition has been legitimised by the country as a whole. The movement in utility share prices demonstrates that the utilities accept the tax as a fact of life. Frankly, it is not as high as was expected. Most important, uncertainty—inasmuch as there was uncertainty—about its impact has been removed. As we predicted, balance sheets are strong enough to cope with the tax. Informed commentary is that it will generally not have an impact on future dividend plans.
      My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that the tax should not have an impact on prices, and that must be the case: consumers must not suffer
      230
      twice round. I made that point on Second Reading and I reiterate it. I hope that the steps taken by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will ensure that the tax does not lead to price increases for consumers.
      Conservative Members have generated much hot air. There is much hyperbole. The tax is legitimate, and I support its introduction.
      Mr. Mike Hancock: I am delighted to be given the opportunity to contribute to the debate. Like the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who has unfortunately left the Chamber, I had not intended to speak, but I was prompted to do so by some of the things that he said, particularly in relation to the way in which the windfall tax would be spent. I hope to devote some time, as he did, to the benefits that Labour says people in all the constituencies of the United Kingdom will enjoy from the windfall tax.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) spelled out the issues concerning the tax itself and why we do not support it. The way in which the tax has unleashed expectations that will never be fully realised is another issue. Over the past couple of years, I have looked on at debates in this place. Once the Labour party had confirmed the policy that it would go for a windfall tax, I was surprised by two or three major things.
      First, I was surprised that the then Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer did not grab the money with both hands in his last Budget and attempt to use it, as Tories have traditionally done, in local government at least, to buy the Tories out of a political hole just before an election. In the past, they have raided whatever balances they have had and used whatever money was at their disposal to buy votes, but he chose not to do that. That other thing that surprised me and, I am sure, many of the people I represent in Portsmouth, South, was that the money was still there. Companies had not made greater efforts to dispose of it, as most reasonable people would have imagined they would. It was there to reinvest and reduce the high charges for their services.
      The overwhelming majority of people have embraced the tax because most think that they were ripped off in the first place when the companies were sold. The companies were sold at hopelessly undervalued prices at a time when most people felt that the companies were better and safer in the hands of the public sector. The legitimacy of the tax among the general public is that they feel that they are getting back what they should have had in the first place. But most people are not privy to the debate about who is to pay.
      Mr. Tim Loughton: I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's point, because the whole point of our opposition to the tax is that there is no pot of gold in these companies. Having spoken to my local utility company, I can say that the result of the tax will not be the company writing a big cheque from its surplus cash, but that it will borrow an increasingly large amount of money. That will have an impact on the regulatory formula, which will determine the pricing for consumers and comes up in 2000. Is the hon. Gentleman making the same mistake as Labour Members in believing that there is a pot of gold from past excess profits in the

      231
      utilities, when in fact the money has been reinvested? Does he accept that companies will have to increase their borrowings to pay this large and discriminatory tax?
      Mr. Hancock: The squeal of anguish from the privatised utility companies has been about as loud as the engine purr of a Jaguar when it is switched on for the first time—very muted indeed. There was a ready acceptance on the part of the privatised companies that the tax would be introduced and that they were able to afford it. But that does not make it right, and that is why my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon made his telling point.
      There will be claims that manifestations of great goodness will come from this tax, and that the welfare-to-work programme will deliver measures which will be welcomed by a lot of people. That relates to my point about creating expectations which cannot be achieved. I represented Portsmouth, South 10 years ago at the height of the Thatcher Government. I lost count of the number of times that the young people of Portsmouth, South and the country were offered golden opportunities to get retraining, a longer stay in education or a chance to get back to work.
      The programmes changed virtually monthly, yet few people succeeded in getting back into long-term employment. The regularity of the changes bewildered the young people concerned, and the depression which many of them felt deepened as they struggled to find a job. That depression is there today. Very few of us will not have experienced the pain and anger of a generation of young people who have left school, or are about to do so, and face a bleak future.
      Many young people have grasped enthusiastically what was said before and during the election—and in the months since—as something that will offer them salvation, and the welfare-to-work programme might, in the short term, solve the problems of that group. Some, if not all, may get the job they desperately need. But the windfall tax is not a visionary tax to fund a programme to deliver opportunities for the length of this Parliament. Such a system would mean that those young people coming on-stream in five years' time would be the beneficiaries of some of the measures.
      Most reasonable people do not believe the Chancellor's comments about where the on-going money will materialise from, and one would have to be a super-optimist to believe him. He believes that people who are currently unemployed will be retrained, gain employment, generate tax and come off benefits to clear a path for the next generation. But the figures do not add up. The rhetoric is similar to that of the 1980s about promises of good things to come.
      I was heartened by the contribution of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to yesterday's debate, and I am disappointed that he is not here now. He made a gallant attempt to put the socialist view. It was like "The Agony and The Ecstasy". The shadow Leader of the House said how outraged she was and how nervous her Tory colleagues were at the thought that there would be a guillotine. The hon. Member for Bolsover rightly said that we had had guillotine after guillotine for 18 years. He reminded me of the Lone Ranger, firing silver bullets of socialism, but unfortunately none of the braves in his
      232
      tribe was ready to jump up and be his faithful Indian partner, Tonto. He made enough offers, but they distanced themselves from him.
      The hon. Member for Bolsover referred to people's expectations, and what had happened in the past. We must be careful not to believe that the windfall tax is the solution to the problems of many people, particularly young people. In their hearts of hearts, most young people do not believe that. They have an in-built cynicism, created by years and years of broken promises by successive Tory Ministers. I hope that they are proved wrong in that respect and that there is long-term substance to the proposal.
      Mr. Christopher Leslie: Does the hon. Gentleman support welfare to work as a principle? If so, does he believe that it should be paid for by his party's stretched-out 1p on tax?
      Mr. Hancock: I support welfare to work enthusiastically and wholeheartedly in the hope that hon. Members who vote for it for one year will share my conviction that it should be a five, 10 or 15-year programme. Welfare to work must have the consistency that far exceeds the expectations of the windfall tax. It must be deliverable to the next generation of young people, but, sadly, that does not seem to be the case.
      I wish to talk briefly about the companies themselves. I feel that people will be paying twice. They paid first when the public assets were undersold, when people were deprived of a public asset on the cheap. The tax is seen to be a way of getting back at those who got rich quick on the back of privatisation. But my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and others have explained that it will not be the fat cats earning £350,000 a year who will pay, but those who pay for the services provided by the companies and the pension funds which derive their incomes and their ability to pay enhanced pensions from the companies. The people we represent will pay twice.
      There is a suggestion that everything in the private companies is wonderful and that there is no complaint about them. That is not right. Most of us receive complaints weekly, if not daily, about the various companies which make up the group to be taxed—gas, electricity, telephone and water companies. All of them materialise in reality for the people we represent as major obstacles to a decent life. They have problems with all of them. Many of the problems are associated with paying the high cost of using the service. The cost could and should have been greatly reduced if the amounts of money that are being talked about were genuinely available.
      The windfall tax is a gimmick.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is £5 billion a gimmick?
      Mr. Hancock: It is a very nice gimmick. If one is going to introduce a gimmick, one may as well introduce one that brings in £5 billion and use the money, rightly, for things that will do some good. However, we believe that the Government should have taxed in a way that offered opportunity for the long term rather than grasping something that would provide short-term gain and hoodwinking people into believing that a long-term solution was being offered.
      6 pm
      Mr. Stevenson: Like the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), I did not intend to speak in this debate. I have been goaded into speaking by a speech from the do-nothing Liberals. I heard justification of the windfall tax, and, from the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South, references to benefits and to the failures of previous training and work schemes. We all share the criticisms of such schemes, but I did not hear anything positive from the hon. Gentleman as to what we should do.
      It is perfectly legitimate for any right hon. or hon. Member to disagree with another, but to criticise the windfall tax simply out of concern about the previous Government's schemes and to say that, by some magical formula, it is unfair, is to miss the point altogether.
      I asked the Library to do some research on the difference between the proceeds from privatisation of the utilities, not including the railways, and their stock market share price the minute they were floated. I asked the Library to tot up the difference. It was almost £6 billion at the outset of privatisation and it has increased over the years. So the snapshot figure of £6 billion by which the Government undersold public assets, and therefore robbed the public, is a conservative estimate.
      The proposals of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for a windfall tax are justified by what the Government intend to do with the money, which is to put young people back to work and spend £1.3 billion extra on education. What is interesting, in view of the way in which the Liberal Democrats approached the election, is that, although I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman had to say, I did not hear any reference to the extra £1.3 billion for education.
      Mr. David Heath: The claims of the Labour party on education leave a sour taste in the mouth of my constituents in Somerset, who face this week capping proposals which will rob them of 90 teachers and increase class sizes across the county. Is that what the Labour party means by making education its priority?
      Mr. Stevenson: I am certain that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on the speech of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South and say to his constituents, who may have a sour taste in their mouths, that the do-nothing option suggested by his hon. Friend will make that sour taste even worse. That is the kernel of the argument.
      The public purse was robbed of at least £6 billion. That figure can be multiplied for the years since privatisation. I am sure that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), for whom I have the greatest respect, knows that that is the case. The figure of £6 billion is a conservative estimate of what was lost to the general public and the infrastructure of the country as a result of the obscene privatisation policy of the Conservative party. The question is, what does one do about that loss?
      I find it remarkable that the Liberals oppose the windfall tax, but that is their decision. Apparently the Conservatives and the Liberals believe that the answer is that one should do nothing. We should just let the thing go along and let the privatised utilities continue to do what they want. South Western Electricity is alleged to have transferred some of its money to the United States so that
      234
      it will not have to take account of the measure. I find such a policy, and I believe that the country will find it, a policy of despair.
      We know full well why the Conservatives oppose the windfall tax. They are ideologically opposed to it. They believe that the market should determine everything. They have swallowed hook, line and sinker the policy that says that public is bad and private is good so everything in the private sector should be maintained, even if the public at large are swindled of billions of pounds, as they have been in the past 10 years or so.
      Mr. Loughton: When the hon. Gentleman asked the Library to make a detailed analysis on the basis that the public had been robbed and swindled, did he also ask for an analysis of the compensating figures in terms of the reduction in the price of services provided by utilities that every using member of the public has enjoyed as a result of the privatisations about which the hon. Gentleman is now rather upset?
      Mr. Stevenson: That is a fair question. There have been significant price increases in many utilities, especially water. I am interested, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is, in the criticism that has at last come from Ofwat of the water industry for failing to meet its commitments on investment.
      We need to consider the principle. There is no doubt that billions of pounds of public assets have been transferred to the private sector at a very knock-down price.
      Mr. Loughton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Stevenson: I shall give way again later, but let me make some further points. The windfall tax is perfectly justified, and I shall discuss what the Government intend to do with the money from that tax.
      The Conservatives' arguments about the windfall tax are more to do with protecting the companies that have benefited from privatisation. They place little emphasis on the Government's objective of using the money to begin to put people back to work. I accept that there are risks and unknowns, but I believe that they are worth taking on if we can provide an opportunity for a quarter of a million young people under 25 years of age.
      If the Government succeed, as I believe they will, in their endeavour, it will be one of the most tremendous acts implemented by a Government for a generation; but we must be conscious of the risks. My right hon. and hon. Friends are conscious of them and determined to overcome them. They therefore deserve the Committee's support. I hope that they will get it, because of two principles: first, the tax is fair when considered overall; secondly, it will be put to a purpose that I defy any hon. Member to argue against.
      Mr. Woodward: Clause 1, like much of the Budget, is iniquitous, inefficient and—I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson)—anything but fair. The only certainty is that it will create uncertainty. It proves, first and foremost, that Labour's first instinct is always to tax, and to raise taxes again and again.
      The Government believe that the tax will be palatable to the electorate because it will hit fat-cat companies. I agree that it is an advance on Labour's former tactics

      235
      of directly soaking the rich, although at least under old Labour, we could all see what they were up to. Then, there was transparency and their policy was economically coherent even though it was wrong; now, it is still wrong but it is totally incoherent. Have no doubt, this tax will hit consumers, especially the most vulnerable, and all householders will pay for it in their bills. Some people will pay for it with their jobs when they are laid off. Undoubtedly, it will reduce the capacity of companies for investment.
      Hon. Members may wish to refer to the propaganda booklet called "The Pocket Budget" that Labour handed out with its Budget last week. It is a nice little booklet with a couple of pictures on the front. It is glossy, terribly well produced—the sort of thing that one would expect to have been produced by Walworth road, although I understand that Walworth road did not fund it. The booklet's pages are not numbered, but towards the back there is a section called, "Moving Towards a Fairer Tax System", which states:
      "We need taxes to pay for our public services. The Government believes the tax system should:
      encourage work … promote savings and investment … be fair … be seen to be fair."
      How does all that motherhood and apple pie rhetoric sit with the reality of the windfall tax? The tax will not encourage work or promote savings and investment. It is not fair and, with time, it will be seen not to be fair. The whole windfall idea is another clever piece of rhetoric from Labour's spin doctors. There is no such thing as a windfall tax or a free tax; this is a tax, pure and simple. It is a tax on success, on profits, on incentives to create wealth and, ultimately, on jobs.
      I would like to remind hon. Members of what Adam Smith had to say about taxation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Labour Members may enjoy it. They may have to consider for the first time the consequences of taxation. Adam Smith thought that taxation should be efficient, equitable, certain and convenient. The only thing that we can be sure of with Labour Members is that it will be convenient, or more appropriately, opportunist.
      If a tax is to be efficient, its goal must be to raise revenue with as little distortion of economic behaviour as possible. Labour Members may not like listening to economic literacy, which is a bit of a problem for them. I invite them to consider that proposition, because it presupposes that the windfall tax is a one-off tax. Is such a claim credible? What certainty is there that these, or other, companies will not find themselves on the end of yet another Labour windfall tax? Companies that may be privatised have cause to fear that a future Labour Government—God forbid that there should be one—may decide that the best way to raise yet more money for them to spend would be through yet another windfall tax.
      6.15 pm
      I am sorry that the Financial Secretary is not here, but yesterday she made much of the importance of certainty. She said:
      "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."—[Official Report, 14 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 26.]
      236
      Any one-off tax increases uncertainty about the tax system. If she were here, it would interesting to hear from her what certainty there can be for companies that are privatised in future. I submit that there can be none.
      Is the tax fair and equitable? No, because it falls on current shareholders, many of whom did not make excess profits having bought their shares more recently. Those who made so-called excess profits have sold their shares and so will escape Labour's punitive tax plans.
      What of certainty? For the taxpayer, certainty involves carrying out economic activity under a predictable tax regime. The only people who were able to work with certainty were the Financial Times journalists who were given information about the advance corporation tax changes the night before the Budget. The Government behave in the most arbitrary, high-handed and arrogant way. Acting arbitrarily is the hallmark of this Government and of the Labour party.
      The Financial Secretary is still not here, but I ask her to confirm what the Chancellor said on 2 July, when he stated:
      "the tax can be paid without any impact on prices, investment, or the quality of service to customers; or, in my view, on employment."—[Official Report, 2 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 314.]
      Can she guarantee that there will be no change to quality of service and no impact on prices, investment or jobs? If there is, would she be happy to accept responsibility for those changes and the implications for her job?
      The motive behind the tax is based on an old Labour instinct: the desire to tax any way that it can. When we came to power in 1979, the first question that we asked was how we could create wealth. The first question that Labour asked, which is why it is the first clause, was how it could tax wealth. Conservatives create real jobs from real wealth; Labour creates phoney jobs from taxing wealth.
      Back in 1993, Labour spotted the opportunity of the windfall tax. The Chancellor gave a speech at the Institute of Chartered Engineers proposing that privatised utilities be charged what he then called a one-off public dividend on their "excess recession profits". What a thought. It is worth noting that the electricity industry alone in the past two years has raised £4 billion in taxes. The day after his speech, The Times reported:
      "The amount raised by the windfall tax would be negotiated with the regulators and the utility companies, but would be expected to raise at least £1 billion."
      The opportunity to raise £1 billion of lucre was irresistible to a Labour Government, and so it has grown: not £1 billion, £2 billion, £3 billion or £4 billion, but £5 billion. What a bonanza, what a prize. Did the Government consider how those profits had been earned, or the efficiency gains made by the companies since privatisation? No. Did they examine the disastrous way in which the companies had been run before privatisation? No. Is it not interesting that the Labour party does not much like talking about the times when those companies were in state ownership? Who put them into state ownership?
      This Labour Government are careless, tax-driven and opportunistic, but the opportunism is highly dangerous. Those companies were privatised in good faith, yet Labour has broken that faith. Shareholders invested on the basis of market rules, but the new Labour Government are riding roughshod through any of those rules.

      237
      The state should be party to contracts with business and individuals. As the Financial Times reported in September 1995, in a leader appropriately entitled, "Windfall tax deception":
      "The windfall tax introduces uncertainty into that contract and as such abuses the power of the state."
      How right it was to predict that a future Labour Government would abuse the power of the state.
      Let us clear up some of the doubts expressed by Labour Members, who have justified the windfall tax by stating that we did the same in 1981 when we imposed the special bank tax on bank deposits. Our tight monetary policy of that time caused high interest rates, and deposits held on current accounts in 1981 with banks did not pay any interest. The banks made very high profits, as a result of the specific monetary policy then followed.
      That is why we raised a levy of 2.5 per cent. on non-interest bearing sterling deposits. That tax applied to a well-defined set of firms, according to a tax base coherently related to the reasons given for its introduction. It was introduced at the same time as when the banks were making those profits, and not years later.
      In summary, the windfall tax introduced in clause 1 is wholly iniquitous. It has no foundation and no proper precedent; it is inefficient; and it is motivated by Labour's old desire to tax rather than to create any wealth.
      Mr. Stevenson: The hon. Gentleman has referred to how much profit was made and how much tax was paid. Would he care to comment on the fact that, since privatisation, Severn Trent Water has not paid a single penny in mainstream corporation tax?
      Mr. Woodward: I would be more than happy to comment on that. One must look at the successes of the water companies since privatisation. [Interruption.] It is interesting to note that Labour Members are not interested in the opportunities created by privatisation. What is really interesting about those hon. Members is that they cannot bear to hear about success. The only thing they want to hear about is how they can tax, how they can screw money out of companies until the pips squeak. In the past, they went for individuals; now they are going for companies.
      Those hon. Members will sadly discover in the years to come that, at the end of the day, there is no such thing as hitting companies with tax. It is individuals who will be caught by that, and it is those people who will come back in a few years time to haunt the Labour Government.
      Lorna Fitzsimons: I find it absolutely amazing to hear the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) try to give us a basic lesson in economics and economic literacy. That makes me think about some young people I have spoken to about the potential offered to them by the windfall tax. The words used so passionately by the hon. Gentleman about that tax being not fair sound like those of the playground.
      The hon. Gentleman may talk about equity and sustainability, but consider the economic literacy espoused by your Government in past 18 years and the human wastage of unemployment. In my constituency, 34 per cent. of under-25-year-olds are unemployed and a hefty number of them, more than 600, are long-term
      238
      unemployed. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to come to Rochdale to give those young people a lecture about economic literacy.
      You have talked yet again very eloquently about taxation.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I should remind the hon. Lady that she should not use the term "you", which refers to the Chair.
      Lorna Fitzsimons: I beg your pardon, Mr. Martin. As a new Member, I sometimes get carried away.
      On taxation, surely the hon. Gentleman's memory is not so short-term, that he has forgotten his Government's record. In their final five years of office, they raised taxes 22 times, despite all their pledges about VAT. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I or my constituents take no lectures from Conservatives about taxation.
      As for the windfall tax, the shadow Chancellor's concern for pensioners would mean a lot more to the pensioners of Rochdale if he had not been a member of the Government who back-tracked on the imposition of VAT on fuel. If that Government cared so much about pensioners—
      Mr. Lilley: Is the hon. Lady therefore arguing that her Government should give the same extra support to pensioners to cover the cost of the windfall tax when it is fed through to their bills as we gave to help pensioners when VAT was imposed on fuel? Does she agree with the Economic Secretary that the net effect of that extra help to pensioners was to make them—and I use her words—"better off' than if there had been no VAT increase?
      Lorna Fitzsimons: I worked in the utility sector before my election to the House. I refute utterly what the right hon. Gentleman says about the impact of the windfall tax being passed directly to consumers. Anyone who has worked in the utilities is aware of the difference between the rhetoric of the election campaign and the reality. The regulators have already made it clear in their pricing reviews that that cost will not be passed on to consumers. That pledge has been echoed by the company chairmen and their boards. Our proposal was well-trailed policy, which we advertised. We were honest about it before the general election and allowed the markets to equate our policy with the studies conducted by analysts. We eventually put that proposal to the people.
      I refute utterly the claim that the cost of the windfall tax will be passed on to the consumers. The Opposition have since professed, after the election, that they care greatly for the people, but one of the principal reasons for their defeat was that, after 18 years, the people of this country realised that the Conservatives cared not a jot for them.
      Mr. David Heath: I would not dream of giving the hon. Lady a lecture on tax. Does she agree that the people who did the best out of the years of Conservative Government were those who earned the most? Would it not be slightly more equitable for her Government to agree with our policy that those who earn the most, perhaps more than £100,000 a year, should pay a little more to help those who need the most support?
      Lorna Fitzsimons: I accept that that intervention was meant well, but I do not think that the effect of Liberal

      239
      Democrats' proposal would have been as the hon. Member has described. The flat rate on the expandable penny would have been imposed across the board, albeit on income tax. The point about the windfall tax is that it is a tax on the excess profits of the utilities. It will redistribute that money to the people to whom the hon. Gentleman referred. After 18 years, and after studying the books, we should take every opportunity possible to provide young people—the very people the Conservative Government ignored and denied such opportunity—with a lifetime's chance.
      Mr. Stevenson: I am fascinated by the obvious conflict between the views of Conservatives, and possibly the Liberals, and Labour Members. If the windfall tax will be so damaging, can my hon. Friend help me by explaining why American electricity companies and French utility companies are queuing up to buy British utility companies?
      6.30 pm
      Lorna Fitzsimons: If the windfall tax were going to be as damaging as the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) suggested, people would have divested themselves of the shares and there would have been a downturn in the market. Conservative Members like to think that they are economically literate, but this pantomime debate means nothing to the people in our communities, in the City or in the companies which Conservative Members profess to care about.
      It is even more amusing to see Conservatives claiming the people we now represent for their own. The fact is that they had 18 years in which to prove that they cared about pensioners and young people; Conservatives cannot now blame the Labour party for the fact that they squandered all the receipts from oil and gas and from the privatisations.
      The Conservatives, who lay claim to economic literacy and competence, were responsible for the two worst recessions this country has ever known, yet they lecture us on the subject of economics, and they make speeches full of parliamentary gimmicks. If the windfall tax, on the other hand, were merely a gimmick, all the agencies and people at grass roots level who are so enthusiastic about it would not be so energised by the possibilities that it opens up to them—possibilities of enacting policies for which they have been lobbying and about which they have been dreaming for the past 18 years. As a result of this initiative, people are coming together in partnerships for action.
      The challenge is to create sustainable opportunities for young people. I understand the Liberal Democrats' concern to ensure that that is a sustainable opportunity, and I shall take at face value their worries about short-termism. We Members of Parliament must act as ambassadors in our constituencies, ensuring that the money is used to best effect. This one-off injection of resources for much-needed programmes must be used in a way that makes it sustainable.
      There is a lot of rhetoric about the transfer of skills; with the much-needed revenue from the windfall tax, we are in a position to give it meaning. We can prepare young people and lone mothers for the world of work. Whereas they used not to benefit from training opportunities, they
      240
      will now be given skills matched to the needs of manufacturing industry. Many manufacturers in Rochdale say that they have a skills gap, not at the bottom but in the middle posts, for which they cannot recruit the right people. The jobs exist; now we need to give young people the skills to take up those jobs and make them lasting.
      I have welcomed the windfall tax and I continue to welcome it. It is one reason why 1 May was so historic a victory. The shareholders and pensioners whom Conservative Members claim will be so damaged by the tax voted in a Labour Government, knowing full well that the windfall tax, our advertised policy, would follow. Those people want fairness, equity and sustainability in our economy. They want opportunities for the young. Pensioners feel great sorrow about the lack of opportunities for the young people of today. People with pension plans or shares in those companies can see the benefits of the windfall tax, and they welcome it.
      There is no division between pensioners and young people over this matter. Many young people have no work at all—they can hardly afford to hold shares. In constituencies like mine, there is no division over the windfall tax. On the contrary, there is a unity of aspiration. People voted for a Government who would look for solutions. Sometimes those solutions involve imaginative but hard decisions.
      I ask hon. Members of all parties to join us, after this pantomime debate is over, in the work that is to be done. [Interruption.] I call this a pantomime debate because some of the speeches made today have been pure pantomime—
      Mr. Lilley indicated dissent.
      Lorna Fitzsimons: Well, the Chamber has certainly resembled an amateur dramatics workshop at times.
      No matter which party we belong to, we all have a moral responsibility to make sure that young people are given good working opportunities. Regardless of the rhetoric used by Conservative Members in the debate, I encourage them all to go as ambassadors to their communities and to ensure that the programmes resulting from the windfall tax are sustainable and practical. Given this one-off golden chance, we are all duty bound to put it to good use in the service of those 250,000 young people.
      Mr. Lilley: This has been a brief but genuinely educational debate—educational for the Labour party, which has been informed of a few principles of economic literacy and of the real argument against this tax. It has been educational for us, too, as we have heard revealed the true motives behind the tax: Labour's desire to wreak delayed vengeance on the privatisation process and to attack success.
      Three main issues have cropped up today. The first concerns who will ultimately pay for the tax. The second concerns whether the tax is right in principle: does it set a bad precedent, and is it not wholly irrational? Thirdly, the fact remains that it constitutes a rearguard attack on privatisation.
      It has been said that to tax and be loved is given to no man, but the Chancellor clearly thought that he had found a way of doing both. Someone will have to pay in the end, though. It is deceitful to pretend otherwise. It is our—initially not terribly popular—duty to point out that

      241
      truth, and to ask again: who will pay? It was Lenin who said that the whole essence of politics concerns who will pay and who will gain. The same applies here. We expect from the Minister an explanation of who he thinks will ultimately pay. Will it be some mythical, non-existent entity? No; we know from the Minister's own advisers that individuals have to pay in the end—so he must tell us who they are. We know that, if the tax is passed on to households, the average cost will approach £300. If it hits pension funds—because it is not allowed to be passed on in higher costs—it is the pensioners of today and tomorrow who will have to pay.
      It is no good saying that the share prices have risen somewhat since the Budget. The simple fact is that share prices and dividends would be higher without the tax than they are with it.
      Secondly, there is the issue of principle. Retrospection is wrong in principle, as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) eloquently argued. The reason is that retrospective taxes cannot be planned for. If Governments come along after the event and take away money that has been earned and deployed without the knowledge that a tax was going to be imposed, planning becomes impossible.
      The only possible exception is when an unanticipated tax is applied to unanticipated profits. That, in effect, is what happened in 1981, when a tax was applied to a profit arising at that time out of the actions of the Government, before people had time to spend or deploy the profit in another way.
      Clearly, the longer the Government go back, the more damaging retrospective taxes are. The windfall tax goes back more than a decade; it is frighteningly bad in principle, and sets a dangerous precedent. The windfall tax will undoubtedly reduce the revenues from future privatisations. Anyone buying shares in future issues will think that the Government may well impose a high tax if the company from which he is buying does well, as he hopes it will.
      The process is irrational: it is a temporary tax to finance a permanent need. There will therefore be a temptation to make the tax permanent. If, as the Chancellor says, the tax will genuinely not affect customers, investment, jobs and pension funds, why are the Government proposing that it should be temporary? Why are they not proposing that it should permanently meet the costs of their continuing programmes to help young people into work, for which—as everyone who has contributed to the debate has accepted—there is bound to be a continuing need?
      Today's debate has helped to reveal the real motivation of many Labour Members: to carry out a rearguard attack on the privatisation process. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who is not currently in the Chamber, admitted that he was wrong about the benefits of privatisation, but said that he wanted to tax those who were right about them. He wanted to tax those who had invested in privatised companies in the expectation—which turned out to be correct—that privatisation would bring about a large increase in the efficiency and profitability of those companies.
      One benefit of privatisation has been the generation of extra tax revenues. Before the privatisation programme started, the nationalised companies were losing £50 million a week of taxpayers' money. Since privatisation, those companies have been paying
      242
      £60 million a week in corporation tax. The taxpayer has rightly and properly benefited from that success, and we should all welcome that. It seems irrational to suppose that they should pay a double dose of tax for that success.
      The principal argument for the tax has been that the shares were undervalued at the time of issue. I was a humble and junior Minister at the time, but I can say from my experience in the Treasury that we wanted and needed every penny that we could get of the revenues from the privatisations of those companies. We certainly did not deliberately let them go at a price significantly below their market value. We took professional advice from officials within the Treasury and we took the best professional advice that money—a lot of money—can buy in the City. There was a range of opinions: in the only privatisation in which I was involved, I argued for a higher share price than the officials advised. But to suggest that there was a difference of 100 per cent. between the real value and the price set is nonsense.
      The value could be set only on the basis of past experience. We did not know the future; we did not have perfect foresight, but had to relate the price to past profits. It would be logical to relate the relative undervaluation—if there is one—of the price at issue to some multiple of past profits, but not future profits. It is the very success of the privatisations—the fact that they exceeded our expectations—that created bigger profits.
      What about Jaguar? I cannot remember whether the Paymaster General was around at the time of its flotation. Was he around at that time? Was he involved in it? Was that flotation underpriced? Did it sell at a premium? Did the Paymaster General benefit? Should he pay us a sort of voluntary windfall? Was the price a sign that the management had deliberately undervalued the company for some extraordinary reason?
      BP was the first privatisation; it was started by the previous Labour Government at the behest of the International Monetary Fund. A majority of the shares were held by the Government, who sold some. A profit was made and the shares are now at a much higher price than they were when they were sold off by the previous Labour Government. Indeed, some Labour Ministers have holdings in the company. Based on the principle that present holdings should be taxed for the gains previously made by people who now have nothing to do with the company, presumably a large tax should be paid on those holdings. It is lucky that we know about those holdings—although we nearly did not.
      The debate has been extremely helpful in revealing that the tax is without logic or foundation. It sets a dangerous precedent, and is an appallingly long retrospective tax. We urge the Government to think again about it.
      Today's debate is not about the merits or otherwise of the welfare-to-work programme, which does not appear in the clause. We have debated the merits of that programme on previous occasions. If the programme is valid, it should be financed by proper, not retrospective taxation; it should be financed by continuing, not one-off taxes that threaten gradually to become permanent; and it should be financed by taxes that allow everyone to see who ultimately pays. We know who will pay: households and pensioners will pay the cost of Labour's windfall tax.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: This debate has been about anything but clause 1. The shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley),

      243
      must realise that he has not mentioned any aspects of clause 1. The debate has been illuminating for the right hon. Gentleman, as we have been able to explain to him the tax profit base, how it is calculated, the price-to-earnings ratio, and why we have taken the first four years. The right hon. Gentleman did not express a view on any of those matters, although he can see the logic of the tax.
      The tax is logical. We are able to define the criteria that determine which companies will be affected. We have been able to use a ratio that is well established in the financial markets. The right hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Members know from their experience in previous occupations that it is clearly not an arbitrary tax. It consistently taxes all the companies that fall under the definition and treats them consistently in every respect.
      The tax is not arbitrary, because we have focused on a period of four years and measured the excess profits over that period. That is why, throughout the debate, Conservative Members have had to re-hash the arguments that they advanced on Second Reading. We have not heard any discussion among Conservative Members about the basis of the tax. They have not attacked it on a technical, legal, or even financial level. All we hear are the same old adjectives trotted out.
      Mr. Nick Gibb: Will the Paymaster General give way?
      Mr. Robinson: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman is trying to intervene now, when just 14 minutes remain and I have many hon. Members to respond to. He was given an opportunity to contribute by you, Mr. Martin, as the last Labour Member finished speaking, but he was so hesitant and tentative that he was overlooked. I shall give him an opportunity to contribute now.
      Mr. Gibb: As the windfall tax is unlikely to be a creditable tax for United States double tax relief purposes because it is a tax on capital rather than income, and as the US is such a large investor in the United Kingdom, particularly in the utilities sector, will the Paymaster General tell us what discussions the Government have had with the US Government to ensure that the US Government do not impose a retaliatory tax on UK investors in the US?
      Mr. Robinson: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, that question is one for the US authorities; it is not for us to intervene in any decision that they reach on that matter. As the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the attitude of American companies to our utilities—a point raised by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who has just returned to the Chamber—he will be interested to know that, far from uncertainty being created in the marketplace, shares have risen, as the shadow Chancellor readily conceded. In fact, the American PacifiCorp bid for the Energy Group, which includes Eastern Electricity, has been tabled and still remains active at £3.6 billion.
      244
      That is another sign of the markets' confidence in the Labour Government. We have taken steps across the board to ensure that, unlike the previous Government, we are not side-tracked by short-termism. Everything that we have done since taking office—
      Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Robinson: I shall in a moment, but I am speaking about some of the points that the hon. Gentleman made. That bid is there. There could be no better sign of a continuing confident commitment by American companies to the British utilities market than that. Perhaps—
      Mr. Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Robinson: I shall give way in a moment. When the hon. Gentleman intervenes, perhaps he will tell us how that betrays a lack of confidence.
      What we have done with the Bank of England, what we have done to set up a single regulatory authority, our moves on corporation tax and our action on ACT were all carried out with one aim in mind—to create a medium to long-term climate for growth and success.
      Mr. Davies: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that, had it not been for the windfall tax, utility companies would be worth more, so the size of the investment that would have been made in that takeover would have been correspondingly higher?
      Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman may have set his sights very high. A 7 per cent. increase in share values since 2 July is good enough for me, and long may it continue. I know that all the companies that find themselves subject to the tax are anxious to get the tax behind them, so that they may get on with running their business.
      Mr. Peter Brooke: In the months leading up the Budget, the Government took ready credit for the fact that the markets were discounting the effect of the tax, and now they take credit for the fact that the markets have risen since the tax was announced. Is it reasonable to take credit for both?
      Mr. Robinson: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall take credit wherever we can—and do our best to take it even if we should not.
      I have long ago given up trying to read markets with any reliability. They are irrational—much more irrational than this tax. However, we were told by many market commentators, and by Conservative Members, that share prices would collapse after the Budget: that they would collapse in the utilities sector because of the windfall tax and that they would collapse in the entire market because of the decisions taken on tax dividends and ACT. Neither happened, and I am sure that all hon. Members are pleased at the continuing vote of confidence in the Government and the future by the stock market and the financial institutions.
      When the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) reflects on the date problem, he will realise that it is not really a problem. One must select a point at which the benefits are

      245
      defined and use that as a cut-off. That is a pure piece of parliamentary draftsmanship. I assure him that there is no substantive point there.
      The hon. Gentleman also sought two assurances, which I am pleased to give him. One concerns the age-old point, which we have heard at every Question Time and throughout the Second Reading debate and which we continue to hear, presumably because Opposition Members have nothing else to say. Yes, it is a one-off tax, as has been said repeatedly.
      The hon. Gentleman was also anxious that we might have given any of the companies that might be subject to the tax assurances that have not been made public. That could not have arisen, because Ministers did not meet the companies. I personally met the regulators and that subject did not come into our discussions, although, as I shall repeat shortly, they were very clear in their minds about what they had to say, and it was on their advice that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made the statements he did, which I reiterate today. Ministers had no meetings with the companies, so that point does not arise. Representatives of the companies were seen by officials, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that no such commitment would have been made by any official, either.
      Many other Labour Members contributed to the debate very effectively, but the Opposition said nothing new. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) spoke movingly about the prospects for his constituency. We know that in Workington there is an especially severe problem of second and perhaps third-generation households without a wage earner, so we have the prospect of successive generations of unemployment in single families. My hon. Friend had the honesty to say that he had been converted to the principles of privatisation, but—I share this with him—he said that he had not been convinced of, or converted to, the principles of undervaluing and underselling our national assets.
      If we are to restore people's respect for privatisation, it is essential that the tax proceeds. It was clearly stated in our manifesto that we would introduce such a tax; indeed, it was clearly stated four years ago. Shareholders have had every opportunity since then to decide whether to keep the shares. In that time, the profile of independent investing companies will have changed, as a result of their decision to sell, as a result of takeovers or for any other reason. We are well aware that today's shareholders are different from the shareholders soon after privatisation, but that fact does not enter the argument.
      The hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend), who is not with us now, referred to East Midlands Electricity and Yorkshire Electricity. We are not trying to favour one company against another. It is not a question of trying to be fair to some and unfair to others. Profits that were made in those four years and profits that were made against the price at which the companies were floated, represent what we judge to be excess profit, and if that is higher for East Midlands than for Yorkshire, I am afraid that that is how it is. The shareholders of the
      246
      company that has done better will have shared in that success. We are now rightly trying to get back some of that success for all taxpayers, who have not benefited from it.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Cranston) concisely and accurately described how the tax is intended to work and why it will work on that basis. The problem with the Liberal Democrats, on the other hand—this applies as much to the hon. Member for Gordon as to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock)—is that they cannot make up their minds. They will the end, but they cannot bring themselves to will the means. That is the problem. Nothing in their manifesto would come near to raising sums of the magnitude of those that this tax—presented to and voted for by the electorate—will raise. The Liberal Democrats cannot say yes to the programmes but no to the tax. That is their usual position—standing on their heads.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) accurately calculated the likely excess profits to be about £6 billion, which he said had been calculated on a modest basis. I have already explained to the Committee that the basis of the tax—setting the price-to-earnings ratio at nine, slightly below the lowest sectoral average—shows a Government who are trying to be reasonable and fair in all respects.
      The question of unfairness and uncertainty was brought up again by the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward), and it seems ironic that unfairness and uncertainty can be brought to bear when the clearest possible criteria and the clearest possible objective basis for the tax have been established, have been unchallenged by the Opposition and have been applied impartially to the companies that meet the criteria that we have established.
      I regret to say that, as the first debate in a massive assault on our flagship programme, this debate has been a weak re-hash of arguments previously made by the Opposition. There have been no reasoned amendments. Opposition Members have said nothing today that they have not said to even less effect previously.
      In the Government's view, this is a major piece of legislation. It is a major tax, it is a one-off tax and we have a mandate for it. It was in our manifesto and the electorate voted for it.
      This Government will keep their promise to the young and the long-term unemployed. We shall keep our promise to rebuild schools. Unlike the previous Government, we shall not break our promises. I therefore urge the Committee to accept clause 1.
      Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 338, Noes 188.

      Division No. 56]

      [6.58 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Austin, John

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Banks, Tony

      Ainger, Nick

      Barnes, Harry

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Barron, Kevin

      Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)

      Battle, John

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Beard, Nigel

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Ashton, Joe

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      247

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Drew, David

      Benton, Joe

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Best, Harold

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Blackman, Liz

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Efford, Clive

      Boateng, Paul

      Ellman, Ms Louise

      Borrow, David

      Ennis, Jeff

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Etherington, Bill

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Fatchett, Derek

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Fisher, Mark

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)

      Flynn, Paul

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Follett, Barbara

      Burden, Richard

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Burgon, Colin

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Butler, Christine

      Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

      Byers, Stephen

      Foulkes, George

      Caborn, Richard

      Fyfe, Maria

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Galloway, George

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Gapes, Mike

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Gardiner, Barry

      Canavan, Dennis

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Cann, Jamie

      Gerrard, Neil

      Caplin, Ivor

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Casale, Roger

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Caton, Martin

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Cawsey, Ian

      Godsiff, Roger

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Goggins, Paul

      Chaytor, David

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Clapham, Michael

      Graham, Thomas

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Grogan, John

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Gunnell, John

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hain, Peter

      Clelland, David

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Cohen, Harry

      Hanson, David

      Colman, Tony (Putney)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Healey, John

      Cooper, Yvette

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Corbett, Robin

      Heppell, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hesford, Stephen

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Cousins, Jim

      Hill, Keith

      Cox, Tom

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cranston, Ross

      Hoey, Kate

      Crausby, David

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hope, Phil

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Dafis, Cynog

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Darvill, Keith

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Hurst, Alan

      Davidson, Ian

      Hutton, John

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Illsley, Eric

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Ingram, Adam

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jamieson, David

      Denham, John

      Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Doran, Frank

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Dowd, Jim

      248

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Plaskitt, James

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Pollard, Kerry

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Pond, Chris

      Keen, Alan (Feltham &Heston)

      Pope, Greg

      Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

      Pound, Stephen

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Khabra, Piara S

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Kidney, David

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Primarolo, Dawn

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Purchase, Ken

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Quinn, Lawrie (Scarborough)

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Radice, Giles

      Laxton, Bob

      Rapson, Syd

      Lepper, David

      Raynsford, Nick

      Leslie, Christopher

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Levitt, Tom

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Rogers, Allan

      Linton, Martin

      Rooker, Jeff

      Livingstone, Ken

      Rooney, Terry

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Lock, David

      Rowlands, Ted

      Love, Andrew

      Roy, Frank

      McAllion, John

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Sawford, Phil

      Macdonald, Calum

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McDonnell, John

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McIsaac, Shona

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McNamara, Kevin

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McNulty, Tony

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      MacShane, Denis

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Singh, Marsha

      McWalter, Tony

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Mandelson, Peter

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Marek, Dr John

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Maxton, John

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Meale, Alan

      Snape, Peter

      Michael, Alun

      Soley, Clive

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Milburn, Alan

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Miller, Andrew

      Stevenson, George

      Mitchell, Austin

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Stott, Roger

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Morley, Elliot

      Stringer, Graham

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela (Edgbaston)

      Mountford, Kali

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Mudie, George

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Mullin, Chris

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Norris, Dan

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Timms, Stephen

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Tipping, Paddy

      O'Hara, Edward

      Todd, Mark

      Olner, Bill

      Touhig, Don

      O'Neill, Martin

      Trickett, Jon

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Truswell, Paul

      Osborne, Mrs Sandra

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Pearson, Ian

      Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

      Pendry, Tom

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Vaz, Keith

      Pike, Peter L

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      249

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Wilson, Brian

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Winnick, David

      Watts, David

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      White, Brian

      Wise, Audrey

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Wray James

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Wright, Tony D (Gt Yamouth)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

      Wills, Michael

      Mr. Clive Betts.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Amess, David

      Fraser, Christopher

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Gale, Roger

      Arbuthnot, James

      Garnier, Edward

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Gibb, Nick

      Baker, Norman

      Gill, Christopher

      Baldry, Tony

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Bercow, John

      Gorrie, Donald

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Gray, James

      Blunt, Crispin

      Green, Damian

      Body, Sir Richard

      Greenway, John

      Boswell, Tim

      Grieve, Dominic

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Brady, Graham

      Hancock, Mike

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Brazier, Julian

      Harvey, Nick

      Breed, Colin

      Hawkins, Nick

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Heald, Oliver

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Heath, David (Somerton &Frome)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Burns, Simon

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Butterfill, John

      Horam, John

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Cash, William

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)

      Chidgey, David

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Chope, Christopher

      Clappison, James

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Keetch, Paul

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Key, Robert

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Collins, Tim

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Colvin, Michael

      Leigh, Edward

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Letwin, Oliver

      Cotter, Brian

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Cran, James

      Lidington, David

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Livsey, Richard

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Day, Stephen

      Loughton, Tim

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Luff, Peter

      Duncan, Alan

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      MacKay, Andrew

      Evans, Nigel

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Faber, David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Fabricant, Michael

      Madel, Sir David

      Fallon, Michael

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Malins, Humfrey

      Flight, Howard

      Maples, John

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      250

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Stunell, Andrew

      Merchant, Piers

      Swayne, Desmond

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Syms, Robert

      Moore, Michael

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Moss, Malcolm

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Norman, Archie

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Oaten, Mark

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Öpik, Lembit

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Page, Richard

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Paice, James

      Townend, John

      Paterson, Owen

      Tredinnick, David

      Prior, David

      Trend, Michael

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Tyler, Paul

      Rendel, David

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Robathan, Andrew

      Viggers, Peter

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Wallace, James

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Walter, Robert

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Wardle, Charles

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Ruffley, David

      Webb, Professor Steve

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Wells, Bowen

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Sanders, Adrian

      Whittingdale, John

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Willetts, David

      Wills, Phil

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Wilshire, David

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Yeo, Tim

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Spring, Richard

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Steen, Anthony

      Mr. Richard Ottaway and

      Streeter, Gary

      Sir David Madel.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause I ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 15

      MORTGAGE INTEREST PAYMENTS
      Mr. Tim Boswell: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 10, line 15, at end insert—
      '(4) This section shall not come into effect until the average mortgage rate is at or below the rate prevailing on 1st May 1997.'
      The effect of the amendment is relatively simple. It would prevent the Chancellor's intended reduction in mortgage interest tax relief until the general tenor of interest rates returned to the level applicable on 1 May 1997—a date which, I imagine, is etched on the hearts of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
      I shall return to the amendment, but first it may be helpful for the Committee if I give a little historical context to the issue of mortgage interest tax relief.
      I suspect that, when discussing the subject, many of us are a little eclectic in our use of terms. I am trying to use the stricter term "mortgage interest tax relief', if only to remind the Committee that it is a tax relief given against taxable income on account of mortgage interest, although even that is not a perfect concept now. It is often described as MIRAS, no doubt because the acronym slips more easily off the tongue. That stands for mortgage interest relief at source, which was introduced some years ago. It is the same thing, but reflects the way in which the relief is now payable.
      Subject to the indulgence that we may flit from one term to the other, even inadvertently, I shall say a word or two about the concept, how we got to where we are today and what we should do about that.

      251
      The original concept, like most things in the income tax system, almost all the way back to Pitt, was a logical one. Income was calculated taking into account all items that were taxable under various schedules, including at that time an implied rental equivalent for any house occupied by an owner-occupier under schedule A. Against that taxable income, the taxpayer was entitled to set off all relevant outgoings. From time immemorial, one of those outgoings was the deduction of interest on account of loans—not specifically tied to house purchase, at that stage.
      7.15 pm
      Those of us with fairly long memories—in my teenage years, I used to hear these concepts bandied about, even if I did not fully understand them—will remember the sustained pressure in the 1950s for the abolition of schedule A as it affected the owner-occupier. That provision was abolished by a Conservative Government, I think under Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, as a move explicitly favouring home owners. Ever since then, a person who has a discretionary option to invest, say, £200,000 of his money in a house to live in, as against renting a house, or to put the money into shares, bonds or other securities to generate an income with which to pay that rent, is usually favoured in tax terms by being an owner-occupier.
      That change came about after a sustained campaign with a great deal of public feeling. It was, I believe, a reflection of the good intentions of the Conservative Government of the day to support owner-occupiers. It was the right thing to do, but it broke the tax symmetry, as it were.
      Characteristically, on the other side of the argument for the taxpayer, the succeeding Labour Government in the late 1960s cut off interest on loans—not on house purchase, but on all loans other than for housing. We had moved from a perfect and tidy concept to one that favoured home owners and disfavoured other kinds of borrowing.
      Thereafter, the regime was more stable, although along the way a restriction was imposed on the total amount of borrowing eligible for mortgage interest tax relief. Probably as a reflection of the relative stability of that period in the 1970s and 1980s, the importance of mortgage interest tax relief grew. The total cost to the taxpayer, or tax expenditure, rose. In 1991, it peaked at £8.9 billion per annum, which was a substantial cost.
      That cost was achieved even though the eligible loans were restricted to £30,000 from 1984 onwards. That has not changed, and will be the subject of a clause to be debated in Standing Committee. I will not talk at length, except indirectly or incidentally, about the limit.
      Since 1990–91—the peak of tax expenditure—interest rates in the United Kingdom have fallen sharply. At 1 May 1997, they were at their lowest historic level for more than 30 years. That was an appropriate time for a Conservative Chancellor—who, like all Chancellors, had to set tax priorities—to introduce a number of stepped changes which reduced the level of the relief, alongside the automatic reduction that was taking place on account of the reduction in interest rates. The changes involved the removal of higher rate relief from 1991–92 and the restriction of relief to 20 per cent., and subsequently to 15 per cent.
      252
      Anticipating the Financial Secretary's speech, I am sure that she and those on the Treasury Bench will try to justify the Government's changes by implying that they are a continuation and flow from other recent changes. However, in view of the somewhat overblown claims made about the Budget—
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: When the Conservative Government took a similar decision some years ago, did they have interest rates in mind? Is not the policy they pursued then exactly the reverse of that which the Conservatives are pushing in the amendment?
      Mr. Boswell: There is a huge distinction, to which I was about to refer. The difference is that interest rates were on their way down when the Conservative Government took that decision. Sadly, they are now on their way up. That is one reason why we are seeking to impose on the Government the restrictions that are set out in the amendment. If, as the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary have suggested, this is a people's Budget, we must ask why the people will pay for it.
      I started my speech from an historical perspective, to which I shall now return. I cannot better the conclusion reached by the Council of Mortgage Lenders in its recent comprehensive briefing. It said that it is clear that mortgage interest tax relief has moved from being
      "a highly regressive form of relief which benefited high income home owners most to being a relatively progressive form of relief giving most assistance to home owners with a relatively small mortgage and on lower incomes."
      I point out that a series of Conservative Chancellors introduced changes and continued to maintain the £30,000 restriction which, together with other measures such as the right to buy, brought about that social revolution. The Conservatives can reasonably claim to have pioneered the encouragement of home ownership from the 1960s.
      The Council of Mortgage Lenders gives a further analysis of the pattern of mortgage lending now—and not as it would have been in the 197,0s under Governments of both colours. It examines the size of income of the mortgagor—the person who borrows; as I am not a lawyer, I tend to get it wrong if I do not think about it—and the average size of the mortgage based on the latest convenient revenue figures for 1994–95.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have checked the statistics. The hon. Gentleman said that, when the Conservative Government introduced the measure in 1995, interest rates were going down. According to Library research paper 9784, interest rates were increasing at that time. How does that information fit with the hon. Gentleman's amendment?
      Mr. Boswell: If he were to take one month with another, the hon. Gentleman would find that interest rates tended to be down dramatically during that period. I am sure that he would agree that the solution figure achieved on 1 May 1997 was the lowest historic rate for more than 30 years.
      Returning to mortgage distribution under the recent arrangements, it is interesting to note that, once people reach an income level of about £10,000 a year—
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I must press the hon. Gentleman on this important point. The Conservative

      253
      Government announced the change in 1993, when, according to the Library, interest rates were 5.5 per cent. When the measure was introduced in 1995, interest rates were 6.75 per cent. In other words, the measure was introduced when interest rates were increasing, yet the hon. Gentleman pleads that we defer until interest rates go down.
      Mr. Boswell: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact—I invite him to check the figures for himself in the Library—that interest rates reached an historic peak on 15 September 1992. That date may be in the hon. Gentleman's mind. The tendency thereafter was for the rates to be reduced, which has produced conclusively the lowest historic rate for more than 30 years. Interest rates were down during that period. 1 strongly advise the hon. Gentleman—to whom I have given way three times on this point—to consider the distribution of incomes and mortgages.
      The broad and level pattern of mortgages is established roughly at an income level of £10,000 per annum. It is well to remind the House that there are about 1.5 million beneficiaries of mortgage interest relief below that level, 1 million of whom are not taxpayers. Above the £10,000 figure, the curve rises relatively smoothly to a lower income limit of about £40,000 a year. The curve for the size of mortgage is broadly stable along that line. Therefore, given that there is a £30,000 limit, the amount of relief is very stable.
      Another way of putting it is that, of 10.4 million home buyers, 45 per cent. had household income not exceeding £20,000 a year, yet they received 39 per cent. of the value of the mortgage interest tax relief; so the situation is pretty balanced. This analysis, suggesting an even distribution of the benefits of mortgage interest tax relief to home owners, is broadly confirmed by the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
      It is worth adding that benefit relief is evenly spread regionally. In Wales, where house prices are lower, two thirds of the relief and 40 per cent. of the relief in Scotland go to those with mortgages under £30,000. The broad pattern of relief according to incomes and population is fairly stable across the country. Therefore, in its current form, the benefit is not a fat cats' or a home counties' benefit. Although the figures diverge in the south-east of England, that reflects the high cost of housing as a percentage of total disposable income. Any change in the level of tax relief makes the least proportionate difference to people in the south of England because they pay more anyway.
      The scene, therefore, is of a widely spread benefit which is available to 10 million households all over the country and spread evenly among all income groups and regions. So what has happened since 1 May? This matter obviously concerns the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). First and foremost, there have been three successive quarter point rises in interest rates—the last occurred only last week. Now that the Chancellor has remitted control of monetary policy to the Bank of England, there may be more increases to come.
      Home owners need interest rate increases like a hole in the head. The cost of those interest rate rises alone—remembering that they are paid for by the great bulk of the 10 million householders—is £21.85 a month on average. We might object if the Chancellor tried to portray that increase as a law of nature. Nevertheless, it is created by the operation of interest rates.
      254
      What does the Chancellor do? He makes matters worse by imposing a staged cut in tax relief, which takes out another £8.95 a month for those mortgage holders who benefit from the full £30,000 relief. That makes a total loss to the individual householder of about £30 a month as a result of Labour's double whammy. There is the whammy of mortgage rate changes and that of the withdrawal, or partial withdrawal, of mortgage interest benefit.
      The Labour Government claim that they are concerned to listen to others. That being so, surely they should have listened to those like the deputy director general of the Council of Mortgage Lenders, Peter Williams, who, commenting on the issue of retaining mortgage interest relief, said:
      "The Government should understand that further cuts in mortgage interest tax relief do not represent a zero-cost option. I11-considered actions on MITR, based on the short-term expediency of releasing funds for other programme priorities, are likely to damage home owners and the housing market indiscriminately, and to call into question Labour's commitment to sustainable home ownership."
      Mr. Williams added:
      "The CML is keen to work with the Government on a range of issues affecting the housing and mortgage markets, and is prepared to have discussions on the future of mortgage interest tax relief."
      It is clear, however, that the Chancellor's proposals are entirely within the framework of the policies that I have explained to the Committee, with the consequences that I have set out.
      7.30 pm
      I pause on three points of my own in the analysis. First—in this instance, the Chancellor and his Treasury team have been entirely consistent—a move has been slipped into the Budget that is completely in accord with the message of the Budget, which is, "Clap today and pay tomorrow." It is inevitable that the costs of the proposals have not yet fully sunk in, and that is because most people receive an annual statement of their mortgage liability in the spring. Their repayment period is adjusted accordingly. That does not apply to every mortgage, but there are many people who do not yet know what has hit them.
      Secondly, Labour is claiming, and the Chancellor is calculating and betting on, a benefit of £950 million in a full year. The Chancellor should reflect on the implications of the three hikes in interest rates on the cost of MIRAS itself. By increasing the interest rate three times, there has been a rise in the cost of MIRAS. My personal calculation is that it has amounted to a loss of £225 million to the Exchequer. The Chancellor has already given away about a quarter of the benefit that he is claiming.
      Thirdly, we have not taken into account all the changes that will bear on the ordinary person or ordinary householder, to use the Government's terms. In addition, there is the indirect impact of the changes in advance corporation tax on pensions and the need to contribute to pensions. There is also an indirect impact on local authorities and council tax. In some instances, there will be an impact on stamp duty. There are other changes that will take place indirectly in the second round.
      Mr. Ivor Caplin: I apologise for missing the start of your speech. You raised on three occasions,

      255
      I think, since I have been in my place, the question of three interest rate rises since 1 May. Would you not accept—
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. "You" and "your" are not words that the hon. Gentleman may use, because they refer to the Chair. The Chair is not involved in these matters.
      Mr. Caplin: I am sorry, Mr. Lord.
      The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) has said on a number of occasions that there have been three interest rate rises since 1 May. Perhaps he will reflect on why there was no interest rate rise in the first part of the year, which every economic forecaster said there should be so as to control the economy generally and specifically in terms of house purchase.
      Mr. Boswell: It is interesting that, after the election result was known, it became clear from the price series for April that the outgoing Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), hit his inflation target precisely in April. We were accused during the general election campaign of not having hit that target. It seemed that inflation would be 2.6 per cent., but we reduced it to 2.5 per cent. It has now risen to 2.9 per cent. because of the direct impact of the Budget.
      As for monetary policy at that time, I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe is to be commended on making his own judgment. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) appears to concur with the view of the Bank of England in the second half of last year, when it demanded an interest rate rise. My right hon. and learned Friend resisted that demand, and I believe that he was right to do so. These are now matters of history, and it is plain that some of the difficulties imposed by the Chancellor are that he has increased taxes and spending in the Budget as well as indicating a relaxation of the inflation target, which is an extremely bad signal to send.
      We have a focused tax relief which is intended to give practical help to all sorts of home owners. It is neither regressive nor regionally skewed. It costs £2.3 billion annually, which in cash terms was very much what it was about 25 years ago. It is not very far out of the ball park of about 1 p on income tax. Our complaint is that the Government are aggravating the effects of their hits on higher interest rates on the householder with a tax hit that is entirely of their own making.
      The Government's action is likely to have little effect in cooling any alleged boom in house prices, which is by no means universal. The conclusion of the Halifax building society in its latest house price index is that there is no need for any specific Budget measures aimed at curbing an allegedly "booming" housing market. I know, of course, that that must be a matter of judgment.
      In fairness to the Government, I do not think that they have made their proposals on that basis. We on the Opposition Benches want to protect the home owner by providing, through the amendment, for no cut in mortgage
      256
      interest tax relief to take effect unless and until interest rates are reduced to the historic low levels enjoyed by borrowers on 1 May.
      I agree that present signs suggest that it might be rather a long wait before we reach that happy state again. It will be a long wait, because already the Chancellor has shown a readiness to relax his inflation target and a propensity in various ways to favour increased taxation. In my judgment, he is preparing the way for higher spending. Faced with that somewhat bleak picture, we owe it to home owners to offer them some protection, as afforded by the amendment.
      To quote the Government, all that we are discussing amounts to a matter of trust. I have changed my spectacles recently, a move that has been of great benefit to my performance at the Opposition Dispatch Box, but I still see nothing in the Labour party's manifesto, with either old or new spectacles, that amounts to a pledge to increase taxes that are paid by home owners.
      I have recently shared with the House of Commons a letter from one of my constituents, a Mr. Morrison, and I shall now share it with the Committee. He confirmed my apparent myopia when recently he wrote:
      "I phoned Mr. Brown prior to the election concerning future fiscal policies. He informed me that no planned reduction in MIRAS would take place and I should look at the Labour Party manifesto, which did not include such measures."
      I am afraid that I have still not had any explanation from those on the Treasury Bench about those assertions. It could be that Mr. Morrison got through on a bad line and was misheard. It could even be that someone got into the headquarters or office of the Chancellor and decided to impersonate him. Or, of course, it might not have been a planned hit on mortgage rates at all: it could have been a panic cut imposed at a later date when interest rates were already humming on their upward path.
      There has been, therefore—I regret to have to tell the Financial Secretary—a material breach of trust. I invite Ministers on the Treasury Bench to absolve themselves and their colleague by giving some belated explanation of what took place. Tonight, I also invite them to repair the damage that they have caused by at least committing themselves—I hope that the Financial Secretary is listening—to no further reduction in mortgage interest tax relief. Better and more immediately, I invite them to accept our amendment on behalf of the home owners whom, sadly, they have set out to damage.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I shall be brief, as I had not intended to speak, but having been provoked by the Minister five minutes ago, when he failed to answer my perfectly reasonable question, I feel compelled to do so.
      The whole debate begs a question that no Opposition spokesman has answered from the Dispatch Box. I pressed the shadow Chancellor several times to answer a very simple question. He refuses point blank to do so. What would the Conservatives have done if they were in government? Would they have raised interest rates? Would they have raised taxes? Would they have done a little of both? Or would they have done nothing at all?
      I asked the other day whether the Conservatives accept that the economy is overheating. Everyone tells me, tells us, tells the Government, that the economy is overheating. The only people who have trouble mouthing those words are Opposition spokesmen. The reason, of course, is that

      257
      if they were to do so, it would mean that they, were admitting that the economy was not in a particularly balanced state at the time of the general election.
      The reality is that we faced up to our responsibilities the moment we knew what the problems were. I believe that there was almost a conspiracy of silence during the general election campaign, from all sides in the political debate, about what would happen post-Budget. Indeed, the Tory party was part of that conspiracy. I do not remember the Tories telling us at any stage during the election campaign what they intended to do about MIRAS after the election. We all knew that they would remove it.
      I challenge any Opposition spokesman to come to the Dispatch Box today and tell us in all honesty that it was not the Conservative party's intention to interfere with MIRAS after the general election. Perhaps it would be better if a member of the then Cabinet were to do so, because I understand that the Cabinet of that time considered the issue of MIRAS. I give way to the hon. Gentleman—
      Mr. Boswell rose—
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Not him, he was not in the Cabinet—I am asking the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who was a member of the Cabinet at that time, whether the issue was discussed in the Cabinet sub-committee.
      Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman purports to know what goes on in Cabinet sub-committees. I can assert, from my knowledge, that he is wrong on both counts.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am very surprised indeed, because we were being—
      Mr. Boswellrose—
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I now give way to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Boswell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. While he is speculating about what may or may not have taken place in the Cabinet, of which I would not, of course, have direct knowledge, does he nevertheless agree that the words that I quoted from my constituent suggest that it was reasonable for my constituent to decide, in placing his vote on 1 May—the date which is the subject of the amendment—that there was no proposal from the Labour party for a change in MIRAS? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that was the import of that telephone conversation, or is there some other explanation?
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I think that to some extent there is an element of truth in what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but the reality is that everyone knew that surgery would be required after the general election. All the public opinion polling about what the public considered would be the position after the general election showed that they believed that, whatever Government were in power, there would be increases in taxation. That is a reality.
      The polls before the general election showed that the British people expected taxes to rise, and they were correct. We believed that they would rise. Conservative
      258
      Members knew that they would rise. The Liberal Democrats believed that they would rise, because they advocated openly in their campaign that they should. Economic commentators knew that they would rise. If I understand it correctly, the Governor of the Bank of England was advocating in private that taxes should rise to take pressure off interest rates and in the decisions in which he was involved at that time with the then Chancellor of the Exchequer.
      7.45 pm
      In many ways, I am arguing is that this is a totally false debate. The reality is that everyone knew that something was going to happen, and now the Opposition lecture us that somehow it is all our fault, when they know that we are dealing only with reality. We are dealing with the inevitable consequences of the underlying weak economy that we inherited.
      I believe that the reason why we have to raise interest rates in this country, and why we have the problem with the exchange rate, is because this country is economically weak. Over the past 17 years, we have seen the economy's industrial base shattered. As a result, we cannot withstand the pressure of increased consumption without forcing up interest rates to block it off, for fear of provoking inflation.
      If proof is needed, just look across the world. How can the Japanese have such low interest rates? How can Japan allow its consumption to rise without provoking heavy increases in interest rates? Why do we in the United Kingdom generally have a higher interest rate regime? It is because the British economy is fundamentally weak and was immeasurably damaged over those 17 years
      I am prepared to concede that many parts of the British economy are now leaner, more efficient and more effective in the way in which they use resources, and that their management is better. Some policies introduced during the years of Thatcherism had that effect, but I am complaining that, in securing those objectives, a major part of the British economy was destroyed and, in the process, an interminable number of people were placed on the unemployment queue. That is the problem. How are we to strengthen the underlying economy of the United Kingdom, particularly the manufacturing sector, without provoking massive inflation in the United Kingdom? In many ways that will be the test for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
      I shall move on to a comment that was made about the impact of the tax change on the property market. The impact on the top end of the market will be zero. There will be no impact at all. It will have no effect on properties costing hundreds of thousands of pounds, which in effect means most of the property in the London stock. Indeed, the inexorable trend towards higher and higher prices will continue in London, it being the part of the country that is leading the nation.
      Because, historically, prices in the regions follow prices in London—whatever happens to the national economy—we await greater rises in the provinces than we are currently seeing, because of the delayed effect. That delayed effect will, to some extent, mitigate any damage that might arise from lower-priced properties. I believe that, at the last general election, in deciding what property to buy, people discounted the fact that they would have to pay more taxes. Therefore, on lower-priced properties, these measures will have little effect.

      259
      I come finally to some interesting statistics that I am having trouble understanding. Every week I follow a sample of building society lending rates, published by the Sunday Times—in particular the variable fixed and capped rate mortgages. They provide some interesting reading. I am unable to understand—hon. Members may be able to explain it to my simple soul and perhaps simpler mind—why it is that, in times of rising interest rates, capped rates are now lower than they have ever been, and fixed rates are now as low as they have ever been.
      It is interesting to note that the Skipton building society's capped rate is now 7.49 per cent. Some six to nine months ago it was 0.5 per cent. higher. With regard to the five-year fixed rates—anything less than a five-year term is not a particularly meaningful statistic—a number of building societies offer between 7.5 per cent. and 7.95 per cent., which is less than the variable rate, certainly for the privatised mutuals, but the equivalent of many mutual variable rates.
      There must be a message in all that. Perhaps it is that the markets believe that interest rates will fall and that at the moment we are simply experiencing an interest rate blip.
      Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said that he had not intended to make a speech at all, but felt provoked to do so. I noticed, however, that he had sheafs of notes to call to his aid. I, too, am minded to say that I had not intended to speak but was suddenly provoked by the hon. Gentleman and I, too, have the benefit of being able to produce spontaneous notes.
      I want to follow on from what the hon. Gentleman said in a completely spontaneous way, because it just happens to fit in with what I might have said had I intended to speak in the first place. However, I want to say a word first about the context in which the debate is taking place.
      We are here today because of the way in which the Bill has been guillotined. I am old-fashioned enough to remember a time when Bills were guillotined because of filibustering or, at the very least, because debates had been going on for so long that it was only right that the Government should be entitled to draw things to an end. That clearly is not the position in this case
      We have some three hours to talk about MIRAS and what has been done to it, but it might have been appropriate had we debated it in Committee Upstairs where the measure could have been examined at far greater length and where we could have tabled a series of amendments in order not only to find out exactly what the Government had in mind but to suggest ways in which the measure might have been adjusted, which might even have appealed to Labour Members.
      Sadly, when the Committee stage is taken on the Floor of the House, the debate has to be far more general and it is not possible to have such a specific debate. One of the consequences is that it is not so easy for Labour Members to make the sort of contributions that I am sure they would have wanted to make had the matter been dealt with in Standing Committee. Such an opportunity would have
      260
      given Labour Members the chance to show that they can think and speak, a talent which many will find particularly useful after the next election.
      The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dawn Primarolo): I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman's brief says that the reason we are discussing MIRAS on the Floor of the House is because his Front Bench chose to do so, and we were as surprised as he says he is that it is being debated here rather than in Standing Committee.
      Mr. Nicholls: One does find with Finance Bills that the Opposition find certain parts that they do not like, so they table amendments in order to debate them. That is not particularly revolutionary. I am not in the slightest bit surprised that my right hon. and hon. Friends thought that it would be a good idea to debate MIRAS. Such a debate is a good idea.
      Mr. Boswell: Is it not also in my hon. Friend's mind that this is the biggest single imposition of direct taxation on the ordinary citizen in the Budget? Some much bigger hits on the ordinary household budget come indirectly through the windfall tax and advance corporation tax, but this is the biggest single identifiable measure which strikes at the householder.
      Mr. Nicholls: I am sure that that is right.
      The hon. Member for Workington, in his spontaneous contribution, was generous enough, as he so often is in these debates, to say that there might be an element of truth in the fact that, if a constituent telephones the shadow Chancellor to ask whether he intends to do something and he says that he does not and then changes his mind and does it, the constituent might feel that he had been misled. A more straightforward way of summarising what the hon. Gentleman said would be to say, "Yes, the man was completely misled."
      It was part of the hon. Gentleman's argument that in some way everyone knew that taxes would go up. It is strange for the hon. Gentleman to be cynical, but he was saying, in a rather cynical way, "Well, it doesn't matter if my Government put taxes up. Everybody knew they would. If someone was daft enough to believe my right hon. Friend the then shadow Chancellor when he said that he would not put taxes up, well, he has got it coming to him." I do not find that a particularly attractive argument, even if the hon. Gentleman does.
      The fact is that even the hon. Gentleman does not believe it. He is simply making the best of a bad job. The hon. Gentleman is very much a party loyalist. He is one of those who is always prepared to sing in concert with his Front Bench. He is a man who manages to take a lead. He is a man for whom the cry "Give him a job" makes him light up because he knows that one day, because of his loyalty to the party line, it might come to him.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Say that again.
      Mr. Nicholls: I might do so one day.

      261
      When the hon. Gentleman tries to pretend that everyone accepted—
      Mr. Campbell-Savoursrose—
      Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman feels an intervention coming over him.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am the last person on earth who would either be offered or would accept a job.
      Mr. Nicholls: It has been my experience that one can never make that assumption with complete confidence.
      The hon. Gentleman might say that everyone knew that taxes would go up, but that view was not universally shared. It was not shared by the Prime Minister. In an article in the Financial Times on 21 September 1996 he said:
      "I have to say"—
      that is how he puts it—
      "that we have no plans to increase tax at all."
      He actually used the phrase "at all" to reassure people.
      It was not just the Prime Minister who said that. As recently as 8 April 1997, at the beginning of the election campaign, the Chancellor said:
      "There is no black hole for the Labour party because we have got no public spending commitments that require extra taxes."
      One man's black hole leads to someone else's black death, because it is pretty obvious now that there has been a huge amount of extra taxes. It is clear that some people knew that taxes would go up, and those people were the Opposition if they came into government.
      It is worth placing MIRAS in the context of 17 tax rises from people who were saying days before the general election that there would be no increase in taxation. I will not go through all of them, but there are some that might be thought to be directly relevant.
      MIRAS itself means that taxpayers will pay an extra £950 million. Stamp duty will cost them £540 million; the abolition of tax credits for pensions, £5.4 billion; the windfall tax, £5.2 billion; the limitation on the carrying back of trading losses, £250 million; the abolition of relief for medical insurance, £135 million; corporation tax, block leakage £190 million, finance leasing £300 million, more finance leasing for sale and lease-back £40 million, company purchase schemes £100 million; trade debt schemes £10 million; VAT cash accounting £15 million.
      8 pm
      By my rough and ready calculations, the Budget raised tax by £13 billion. Only a few short days before the election, the Government said that there would be no need to increase taxation. The hon. Member for Workington argued with a straight face—he cannot keep a straight face now—that everyone knew that taxes would increase and that it is only £13 billion, so who cares. That will not wash. If he wants to know a little more about it, he should ask the Prime Minister and the Chancellor why they said that there would be no need to increase taxation when, according to his analysis, they knew that that was not true.
      In the event, the Labour party, which came to power saying that it would not increase taxation, has increased it by £13 billion. This is one of the biggest tax-raising
      262
      Budgets in history. I shall give credit where it is due. It is remarkable that the party that managed to produce that huge tax-raising Budget has not yet been rumbled by the electorate.
      There are two points to make about MIRAS. Labour Members have said that we started it. It is curious that they justify this change by saying that we did it, so it must be right, even though we are now opposing it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) explained, when we adjusted MIRAS it was in the context of a downward trend in interest rates.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: No.
      Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman can pick out particular months, but if he sits down later in a reflective mood he will see that when we adjusted MIRAS there was a downward trend in interest rates.[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman can wave his document in the air as much as he wants, but he should read it quietly, and hopefully he will be able to understand it.
      When we adjusted MIRAS, we were heavily criticised by Labour Members. They had a principled objection to doing anything about MIRAS, but in today's Labour party the presence of principle is no obstacle to action and change.
      To highlight their embarrassment, it is worth reminding Labour Members of what their leaders were saying about our attempts to adjust MIRAS. As recently as March 1996, in a speech to the Labour housing conference, the present Prime Minister "had to say"—because he talks like that—this:
      "The first blow the government dealt to homeowners was to cut MIRAS in the 1993 Budget. First to 20 per cent., then a year later to 15 per cent. … the effect of all these measures was to add to insecurity, to destroy confidence in the housing market and to make people much more wary of buying and selling homes."
      The hon. Gentleman may raise his eyebrows, and I understand how he feels, but that is what the Prime Minister said.
      The then shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), attacked the changes to MIRAS. In a press release in March 1995, he said:
      "Many people's living standards will suffer a severe knock when the latest two Tory tax increases take effect in a few weeks' time. These latest tax hikes hit as the Tories continue to argue amongst themselves over the absence of a supposed 'feel good' factor."
      We are criticised for suggesting that it is inappropriate for the Labour party to make these changes to MIRAS, but when we made adjustments to MIRAS, we were roundly attacked. Adjustments to MIRAS may or may not be appropriate, but it is clear that Labour Members cannot say that our attack on the Government is inconsistent or intellectually unsatisfying.
      Changes to MIRAS do not hit the very rich. Those who recently made a windfall gain of £300,000 or £400,000 by selling their house in London will not be affected by this change. It does not affect people wealthy enough to travel all over the world with their own personal crimper. Alterations to MIRAS have no effect on them whatsoever: to them it is a matter of pence. But such changes affect the people who are just about able to claw their way into the housing market at the very lowest level.

      263
      I remember a speech made by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) in which he spoke wistfully of the time when one could go into a council estate and feel at home. He said, "Now you walk down the streets of a council estate and all you see are fake Georgian front doors." That said it all. It showed contempt for the efforts of the very poor to raise themselves above the level of municipal serfdom and get into the property market.
      What is so awful about the changes to MIRAS is not the £10 a month that it will cost people—because that is eminently affordable by Prime Ministers, Chancellors of the Exchequer and hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Workington and me—it is the effect that such a sum has on the working poor. [Interruption.] It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to mock. It is a long time since Labour Members, most of whose salaries have doubled, were in the ranks of the working poor.
      Such people will have to find another £10 a month because of the change to MIRAS, and a further £20 a month because of the interest rate rises that have already been announced, let alone those that are in the pipeline. For those people, whose plight makes Labour Members giggle, an extra £30 is real money. It is immensely sad that such changes are being proposed by a party that was once the genuine champion of the working poor, but it no longer has any acquaintance with those people: the principles, rhetoric and concerns that used to matter to the Labour party have been Follettised and Mandelsonised out of existence.
      I can imagine what is said in Cabinet: "Let's do a bit of tinkering on MIRAS—it won't matter very much because it's only a tenner here and there." That is what happens when a party cannot even fall back on the paternalism that it has disliked over the years, and has deprived itself of its principles.
      These alterations will make a small but significant difference to those least able to stand up to their effects. The view that has been put forward in some newspapers is that this measure was taken to dampen the property market. That is ridiculous. I mentioned that in a spirit of fairness, so that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo) could cross it out if it was in her brief. The hon. Member for Workington is right: this will not be a dampener on the property market—far from it.
      One of the consequences of the raid on pension funds was to make them a far less attractive option than they were before. People with substantial sums of money to spare, such as Labour Prime Ministers and Labour Members of Parliament, will no longer think seriously about putting money into pension funds and providing for their future. The temptation will be to plough the money back into the property market. Far from the change being a dampener, it will boost the rise in property values. That is great news for those who can make a killing in the London property market by doing nothing more than sitting on their house in Islington, but it is a pretty sorry day for the working poor, whom it will hit most.
      Mr. Geraint Davies: This is a sad day for the Opposition. They complained about the guillotine motion, but how many of them are present? Eight. It is a sad and
      264
      pathetic day. They said, "This is terrible. We haven't got time to debate these crucial issues. We didn't want the Budget anyway." Look at them. What a sad lot.
      Would anyone in their right mind agree to the Opposition's amendment, which underlines the fact that they are not serious about the long-term prospects of the British economy but still spend all their time thinking about the short-term political impact, as presented in the media, and the impact on their Back-Bench committees or whoever runs their party in this day and age. They are not interested in the long term. The Chancellor's Budget, however, is about the long term: it is about confronting, realistically, the legacy of 18 years of Tory rule.
      We all know what that legacy is. It is a legacy of under-investment in physical and human capital, a massive public sector debt that was out of control and an economy that was overheating and, at the same time, disabled by under-capacity. Every time we have seen a bit of consumption in the economy, it has fed straight into interest rates. As my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) pointed out, that contrasts with the situation in Japan, which has had a long-term industrial strategy.
      The Chancellor, boldly and courageously, confronted the Tory legacy with, for instance, incentives for long-term investment—in the context of corporation tax and taxes on small businesses—and, before that, with his bold changes in arrangements involving the Bank of England. We all recall the master stroke with which my right hon. Friend delegated responsibility for the setting of interest rates to the Bank of England.
      That is the answer to the question posed by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) about interest rates in the longer term. They are falling because the financial markets can see beyond the current blip—the current difficulties with sterling and the like, linked with sentiments about European monetary union and the fact that our current position in the economic cycle is out of synch with Germany's. In the long term, under the stewardship of our present Chancellor, we can expect interest rates to fall, providing the environment for health and wealth in Britain.
      As for what has been said about massive taxes, a large proportion of the money that will be raised from the portfolio of activity that has been proposed will be used to reduce public sector debt—in other words, to cut future taxes. We inherited responsibility for paying back interest of some £25 billion a year, which, given the financial system, must have future tax implications. There are transfers; it is not a case of the old tax-and-spend idea that people seem to want to talk about.
      Notwithstanding the denials that we have heard, we have a problem with housing. Consumption is increasing, and an extra £30 billion has been injected following the flotation of building societies and the like. This was the right time at which to help to stabilise the housing market by introducing a marginal reduction in MIRAS from 15 per cent. to 10 per cent.
      As has been said, the reduction will not have a dramatic impact; it is just a touch on the brake. Given that we have given independence to the Bank of England, if we had not introduced the reduction, home owners would in any event have had to bear the cost in the form of a marginally larger increase in interest rates. The advantage of the

      265
      MIRAS reduction is that we can reclaim some of the money and invest it either to avoid debt or to support worthwhile causes.
      The changes that we have made are clearly good for Britain and good for the home owner. We do not want to return to the days of boom and bust, when home owners did not know where they were going. Under the Tories, at one moment it was a case of run out and buy a house; at the next, house prices were spiralling; a moment after that, prices were plummeting and people had negative equity. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are the friends of the home owner.
      Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman is presenting an interesting argument, and he has just made an interesting assertion. He suggested that the Prime Minister and the Government were the friends of the home owner. I recall the Financial Secretary to the Treasury saying the other day that she regarded the Government as the friend of pensioners. Is there some propensity among Labour Members to take the maximum amount of damage as an indication of how kind one is to people? If so, would it not have been better to increase taxes by twice as much? The Government could then have helped everyone even more.
      Mr. Davies: That might sound logical in a cocktail bar—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has many friends there—but, in fact, all the measures in the Bill involve long-term rather than short-term considerations.
      As the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of pensions, let me explain what the Bill means in that context. We are creating conditions in which British industry is strong and in which pensions are therefore secure. Moving some expenditure to cut future taxes must also be in the interest of the long term. Similarly, acting in the housing market to end an unstable cycle of change and uncertainty to which home owners cannot adjust must be in the interests of those home owners.
      The hon. Gentleman will never learn from his party's recent history of instability, uncertainty, insecurity and fear. That was the legacy of old Britain and the old Tory party, but people are now waking up to the reality that things are improving. They have the greatest confidence in the new Government, and so they should.
      8.15 pm
      The shadow Chancellor has no idea of financial management, in that he has no idea whether interest rates should or should not have gone up in recent days. He will say nothing, one way or the other. Why? Is he worried about the view of the financial markets, or about the view of Back Benchers—or is he worried that he does not really know the answer? It is probably a combination of all three.
      As we know, the amendment is about increases in interest rates after the election. We also know about the meetings between the Governor of the Bank of England and the last Chancellor of the Exchequer, who called the shots in terms of political interest, but held back interest rates against the long-term interests of the economy so that they would surge back after election day. The amendment suggests that the legacy of the last Government's political interference should interfere with the purity and elegance of the Government's proposals.
      266
      Incidentally, the amendment and the former Chancellor's behaviour in the past show that monetary and fiscal policy were governed by political considerations and were not designed to meet the country's long-term economic interests. That is why the Tories presided over the old boom-and-bust economy.
      Many of us will remember the time when interest rates were at 15 per cent. We remember when we marched boldly into the exchange rate mechanism, and we remember arguments about the rate at which we entered. We did not know what we were doing. Then, suddenly, George Soros did a bit of manoeuvring, and everything collapsed. That was how we ended up, thanks to the politics and economics of the short term, and it is why we do not need any lessons from the wine bar about how to run an economy in the short term. I am beginning to dwell on specific statistics here, but it is preposterous that the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) can sit there and suggest that figures taken from the House of Commons Library today are wrong, although that is typical of the arrogance of the former Government.
      I note that no one has bothered to look up the figures given some time ago by the hon. Gentleman. I may as well give them now. In November 1993, the interest rate was 5.5 per cent. It was in the Budget produced at that time that the Conservative Government decided to reduce MIRAS. By January 1996, the interest rate had risen to 6.25 per cent. By that time, we had seen two reductions, from 25 to 20 per cent. and from 20 to 15 per cent.
      The behaviour and policy of the last Government were in direct contradiction to the amendment that we are discussing now. The Conservatives do not even remember what they did. Anything that is easy will be cobbled together in an attempt to mount some ludicrous opposition. There is a ragbag of hon. Members complaining about the guillotine. It is pitiful, is it not?
      Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman refers to a ragbag that has been cobbled together. What is his verdict on the Government's proposals on foreign income dividends?
      Mr. Davies: I am not conversant with the precise nature of that. It will be articulated later, but that does not undermine my point that only a handful of Conservatives Members are in the Chamber barracking the Government.
      Mr. John Bercow: For the benefit of the House, will the hon. Gentleman please name an occasion in the previous Parliament when the current Chancellor of the Exchequer, then the shadow Chancellor, gave a verdict on the level of interest rates, saying that they should be higher, lower or at the level accepted by the then Chancellor?
      Mr. Davies: That is precisely the point. The current Chancellor has rightly said that the onus for setting interest rates should be on the Bank of England. Conservatives Members are suggesting again that politicians should jump up and down and say that interest rates are too high and are hurting people here and there. The reality is that we need to set a context in which Britain will succeed. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor did not jump about making the verdicts to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: There was a momentous occasion when our people made their position on the

      267
      matter absolutely clear: it was at the time of black Wednesday in October 1993. Conservative Members forget very quickly indeed.
      Mr. Davies: The point is well made.
      The Conservative party pretends that it is the friend of the home owner. Under the previous Government, home owners suffered the biggest negative equity in history and there were more repossessions than during the highland clearances. No wonder the Prime Minister said what he said, which Conservative Members have taken out of context. When the housing market was in chaos because of the short-termism of Conservative policy, naturally he said that that was not the time to reduce MIRAS, particularly given the wider economic problems that they had created, but the situation has changed.
      Conservative Members talk about trust and say that, before the election, they did not know precisely every detail of what Labour was going to do. Of course they did not. There is no historical precedent for that. A newly elected Government will not have a plan for all the five years of the Parliament, detailing everything that they will do. We gave the thrust of what we were going to do, which was about putting people back to work, creating conditions for economic strength and creating a fairer and better Britain to face the new millennium.
      Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Davies: Yes, I am happy to do so, because I am running out of things to say.
      Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I will wager that I have marginally more to contribute to the exchange between us than he has to offer in reply. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) referred to white Wednesday. I can state beyond peradventure that, in the context of the interests of home owners, I would not wish to see a return to the extended recession mechanism, but will the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) tell the House whether, in his judgment, re-entry to the extended recession mechanism would assist or hinder home owners?
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I remind the House that the amendment refers to mortgage interest payments, and I would be extremely grateful if hon. Members on both sides of the House confined their remarks to that matter.
      Mr. Davies: The extended recession mechanism is a code name for the Conservative party, I presume. I will take your advice, Mr. Lord. We do not want to delay the Committee. All I say in passing is that one of the problems that we face is that exchange rates are too high because of the dilly-dallying and delaying of various decisions.
      Mr. Damian Green: Are exchange rates too high now?
      Mr. Davies: As perhaps the hon. Gentleman should know, Britain is quite high in its economic cycle relative
      268
      to Germany. In addition, the financial markets are concerned about moving towards European monetary union on 1 January 1999, by which time the convergence criteria will not be met by all parties, particularly Italy and Spain, so Britain is being used as a safe haven for money. That is unfortunate for many British manufacturers, particularly those in the midlands, but the answer is not just the Chancellor and the Prime Minister being tough, insisting on the right convergence criteria and not supporting premature entry without it; it is also about providing pricing stability, which we have established through giving the Bank of England more independence, to ensure stability for manufacturers.
      The shadow Financial Secretary and I were with the chairman of Ford today, and he was saying that he wants stability. He is getting that from the new Labour Government.
      Mr. Boswell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Davies: I was going to end there, but as the hon. Gentleman is here, I shall give way.
      Mr. Boswell: Although I thought that we had an interesting time at Ford, I do not recall the conversation to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but it has just occurred to me that he must have uttered at least 400 words since my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) asked him whether exchange rates were too high. I should have thought that it required only one word—yes or no—but I have not heard it yet.
      Mr. Davies: I do not know whether this says anything about the hon. Gentleman, but the chairman of Ford chose to sit at my table, not his. Because of that, the hon. Gentleman would not be aware of all the comments were made. Obviously Ford does not represent the British economy. It has a mixed view of different exchange rates because it spends on inputs and outputs and it acts on a European and global basis, but we had an enjoyable time.
      I shall not dwell on the matter any further. The point is simple. The amendment does not stand up to any interrogation. It does not command much Opposition support, as we have seen from both the quantity and the quality of commentary. Moreover, the Budget, in terms of the financial markets, share values and the British public's level of confidence, has been given the thumbs up. I am happy to suggest that hon. Members do not support the amendment.
      Mr. Tim Collins: I greatly enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies), for two reasons. He said that the Prime Minister is a friend of home owners. I suspect that the only home owner of whom the Prime Minister is a sincere friend is any home owner who can stump up 675,000 readies to buy his luxury home in Islington.
      The other point that I greatly enjoyed was the hon. Gentleman's statement that the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer should be criticised for not commenting on interest rate movements. When my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) pointed out that the present Chancellor failed to comment on any interest rate movement throughout the past five years, the hon.

      269
      Gentleman said that politicians should not jump up and down and comment about interest rate movements. A little consistency in his speech would have helped.
      Like me, the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is a Cumbria Member. He said that the economy is palpably overheating and had been clearly overheating for some months, so everyone knew that tax increases would be necessary, whoever formed the Government after the general election. People who believe that the economy is overheating must have been confused by the Labour party's constant references throughout the past year or 18 months to the idea that we were still in a recession.
      If it were palpably obvious that the UK economy was overheating, I wonder why it was that, whenever figures came out showing that interest rates were moving in the right direction and, in particular, that unemployment was coming down, the Labour party's reaction was not to say, "That is further proof that the economy is overheating", but, "Those figures are all fiddled. Unemployment is not falling at all." How is that consistent with this palpable vision of an overheating economy?
      A point with which the hon. Member for Workington might agree is that, whatever the state of the economy in London and the south-east, it is very difficult to sustain the case that the economy is overheating in our part of the country. He knows that I am fortunate enough to represent one of the more prosperous parts of Cumbria, but we both know Barrow—it is not far from our constituencies—and he would agree that, if one told people there that the UK economy was overheating and needed to be damped down, one would be greeted with a hoarse laugh. There is still great unemployment in the area, and there is no real evidence of anything other than the first rosy fingers of dawn rising over the horizon for economic growth. It is difficult to sustain the case that the economy is overheating and that the first action of an incoming Government must be to wallop £13 billion of tax increases on to that economy.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Do I presume from that that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept that there is overheating, but only in one part of the country—the south-east? If it is the case that property prices are higher in that region, may I presume also that he supports our position on stamp duty?
      Mr. Collins: The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to support the Government's position on stamp duty. He said that all voters across the UK knew for a fact that the economy was overheating and that taxes would have to rise, whoever won the election. That is not sustainable.
      There is another important reason why people did not believe that interest rate rises and then tax rises would be necessary after the election. People will recall the great public relations stunt performed by the Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Opposition. A large poster was displayed which said that Labour pledged not to increase income tax rates for five years. The poster was signed "Tony Blair". The hon. Member for Workington may have had a similar experience to me in terms of people's responses on the doorstep during the election campaign. People took that poster and the series of pledges—including those referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls)—to mean that there would be no tax rises at all.
      270
      I tried to explain during the election campaign that the poster meant not that the Labour party was promising not to increase any taxes, but merely that it would not increase the basic rate and the higher rate, but could increase direct taxes in all sorts of ways. People replied, "Mr. Blair has said that he will not put up taxes at all." That is what the public believed, and that is the basis for any spurious mandate that Labour may believe that it has.
      Mr. Bercow: In addition to being an assiduous representative of his constituents, my hon. Friend is an established and well-respected student of political theory. Does he agree that it is lamentable that Labour did not state in its election manifesto that it intended in this Parliament to reduce tax relief on mortgages when it has always prided itself on being the party that believes in the mandate theory of political representation—in other words, a party that receives a mandate is entitled to do whatever is in its manifesto? Does he agree that that reduction was not in Labour's manifesto and that it is particularly outrageous that, without notice or forewarning, the Government should now propose that highly damaging measure?
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Can we have brief interventions please, and not minor speeches?
      Mr. Collins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am also grateful that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is paying attention. Had she been in the Chamber for the previous debate, she would know that the entirety of the Paymaster General's argument for the windfall tax was that it was in the manifesto which was endorsed by the public, and therefore it must go through. That argument cannot apply to what we are considering now. The reduction in MIRAS was not in the manifesto, nor was it addressed in the election campaign. There is no mandate for it.
      Mr. Jim Murphy: I have listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman's version of political theory. Does he apply that analysis to the Conservative party's pledge on VAT on domestic fuel? Will he take the opportunity to apologise for the previous Government—his party—introducing VAT on domestic fuel, or is it only the current Government who have to keep their pledges?
      Mr. Collins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to nail one of the most pernicious pieces of mythology passed around by the Labour party during the last Parliament. If he studies the 1992 Conservative manifesto, he will find that there is not one single reference in the document to any pledge concerning VAT. It is simply untrue that the previous Government breached any manifesto pledge on VAT. The Labour party manifesto made no mention of MIRAS, yet we are facing substantial changes in it.
      Mr. Murphy: That is not an answer. [Interruption.] Well, it is an answer, but it is not an answer to my question. Does not the fact that the increase in VAT was not in the Conservative manifesto make it even worse? The manifesto did not contain that pledge, and no mention was made of it; yet the previous Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and announced that VAT on fuel would

      271
      be introduced. Had it not been for the then Opposition preventing him from doing so, the charge on pensioners and the poor would have been greater.
      Mr. Collins: I gave a clear answer to the hon. Gentleman's charge, which was that we breached a manifesto pledge. We did nothing of the sort. If he is arguing that, before a party introduces a tax increase, it should announce it in its manifesto, he is making my point for me, which is that the Labour Government should have pledged to tinker with MIRAS.
      In moving the amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) linked changes in MIRAS to changes in interest rates. Another important principle—which was, broadly speaking, adhered to by the previous Government, even in the adjustments that they made to MIRAS—is that the rate of MIRAS should be related to the basic rate of income tax. Two adjustments were made to MIRAS during the last Parliament. The first was to reduce it to 20 per cent. That was set out clearly as the long-term objective for the basic rate of income tax. By the time that the previous Government left office, they had made substantial progress towards reaching that rate. The basic rate had been reduced to 23p, and a large number of people were already paying at a rate of 20 per cent.
      The second adjustment was to reduce MIRAS to 15 per cent. I believe that, over time, it was possible to believe that a Government who had reduced the basic rate from 33p, and then most of the way to 20p, could set a target of a basic rate of 15 per cent., at which point MIRAS and the basic rate would have been reunited.
      I remember an excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham at a Conservative party conference in the 1980s, when he received a standing ovation for proposing that the Conservative party should set a target of a 15p basic rate of income tax. He was greeted by the then party chairman—as I greet him now—as a future Chancellor of the Exchequer.
      The difficulty now is that the level of MIRAS being set by the present Government—10 per cent.—is not intended to be related in any way to any target for the basic rate. The Labour party has said that it wishes ultimately to set a starting rate of 10 per cent., but it has no target for the basic rate. Notably, the Budget made no progress towards introducing a 10 per cent. starting rate even at the lowest and smallest level. So the Budget and the Finance Bill have removed any semblance of a relationship between the rate of MIRAS and the basic rate of income tax. That is a dangerous and pernicious development.
      What is the purpose of MIRAS? It is, explicitly and rightly, a subsidy of home ownership. Many things are subsidised in the tax system. A generous level of MIRAS subsidises something that is important in our society. Wider home ownership is one of the great achievements of 18 years of Conservative government. Millions more people became home owners as a result of successive changes in financial and other legislation made by the last two Prime Ministers and successive Chancellors.
      Dawn Primarolo: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Will he explain why the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1993, Norman Lamont, gave two
      272
      reasons for his reduction in MIRAS—first, that the Government needed the revenue and, secondly, that the reduction helped to spread the pain?
      Mr. Collins: I am sure that the hon. Lady will recall, as I do, that Norman Lamont said clearly that one of the reasons for picking 20 per cent. for the first reduction—I made it clear that there were two reductions, first to 20 per cent. and subsequently to 15 per cent.—was that it was the long-term target for the basic rate of income tax. I am sure that other factors were involved.
      If the hon. Lady says that the reduction was justified then and is presumably justified now for the purpose of raising revenue, one wonders why the present Prime Minister was so scathing about the Conservative Government's reduction, even three years later. He did not say, "We are in favour of higher public spending. We might not have increased taxes in quite this way, but it was necessary to do it." The Prime Minister said that the reduction in MIRAS was a pernicious Tory tax increase. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
      Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman has laid out the case that there was a logical and reasonable basis to the previous Government's decisions on MIRAS, and that they were guided by principles related to the housing market. Will he confirm that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer made it crystal clear in this Chamber that the reduction in MIRAS was a revenue-raising measure? He did not link it to the housing market, whatever might have been in his mind for the future.
      Mr. Collins: Any tax increase is clearly made for a number of reasons. Raising revenue is likely to be one of them. One of the reasons why MIRAS was reduced by a Government who were, unlike the present Government, not ideologically in favour of increasing taxes for the sake of it was to plug the gap in the nation's finances caused by a global recession. I am sure that that was a factor. If the hon. Lady goes back and checks in full all the remarks made by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, she will find what was his thinking. If all that he had been interested in doing was raising as much revenue as possible, he would not have picked a particular level but would have abolished MIRAS entirely.
      The Financial Secretary will know that plenty of so-called experts believe that it would be a good idea to sweep MIRAS away. I believe that there is a philosophical and general case for a good level of MIRAS throughout the system. The hon. Lady will know that it is not enough to say, "We need to raise more revenue." If one does that, one whacks taxes up immediately. That is the answer to the hon. Lady's point. I now return to what I was saying before she interrupted me.
      8.45 pm
      There is a general case for mortgage interest tax relief. Wider home ownership was a huge achievement of the past 18 years. It helps to underpin social stability. On housing estates, there is now mixed ownership. Communities in places such as Westminster, in the environs of the House, which has a mixture of public sector and owned housing, are more stable. There is a wider spread of ownership, and more people feel that they have a stake in society. That has always been at the heart

      273
      of Conservative philosophy. It is one of the differences between the two parties. It is why a Conservative Government, against ferocious Labour opposition, took through the right-to-buy legislation.
      MIRAS is part of the same philosophy. It is based on the belief that, if people own their homes and are responsible for them, they will look after them better. They will have something to pass on to future generations. They will have a centre that they feel belongs to them rather than to others—as people always feel when they live in public housing. That is why widespread home ownership is a good thing, and why it is right to have a subsidy for home ownership in the tax system.
      If the amendment is not carried, the Committee will endorse an agenda of the Government that will see not only successive reductions in MIRAS but its elimination, and the disappearance of the belief in a subsidy for home ownership in the tax system. That would be much to be regretted. It would be a retrograde step and we should oppose it.
      Jacqui Smith: Is there not a certain illogicality in proposing that a tax subsidy in the housing market to promote home ownership is effective, while arguing that a subsidy in the labour market to promote employment is ineffective? Research would seem to suggest that there is a much larger deadweight effect in the housing market—in other words, people would still buy their houses if they did not receive tax relief—than in the employment market. The Government propose to provide a subsidy to create jobs for people, which must surely be important.
      Mr. Collins: I agree with the hon. Lady that there is a strong case for a subsidy of both home ownership and employment. That is why the previous Government introduced family credit. The argument that she uses to undermine the argument for subsidising home ownership could be played back to undermine all the remarks made by Labour Members against family credit. Family credit was targeted at subsidising people to find work. So were the changes introduced by the previous Government in national insurance. Those changes were far more effective than others set out elsewhere in the Budget. However, I can see, Mr. Lord, that you are asking me to return to the amendment. I was tempted off it by the hon. Lady.
      I conclude with the clinching argument for the amendment. It explicitly links the change in MIRAS to interest rates. In so doing, it rightly puts the spotlight back where it should be, on the first and probably the most important decision that the Government have taken—the transfer of control of interest rate movements away from democratically elected Ministers accountable to the House to an unelected body, the Bank of England.
      Those hon. Members who can receive Channel 5 may have seen last night a film entitled "Runaway Train". It was about a couple of hardened convicts played by Jon Voight and Eric Roberts. The runaway train was piling through the Alaskan landscape out of control. I forget the names of the two hardened criminals in charge of the train, but one was older and more seasoned—let us call him Eddie—and the other was younger and more inexperienced—let us call him Gordon. They were out of control. Every time that the signals told them to go on a different track, they crashed through. Whenever there was
      274
      an obstacle in the way, the train crashed through, splinters and branches everywhere. People in its way were mown down, limbs strewn left, right and centre.
      The Government's management of interest rates has created a runaway train. The amendment, modest though it may be, would put something of a brake on it by providing that, until interest rates are brought back down, the Bank of England cannot have what it wants: a reduction in MIRAS. I hope that the Committee accepts the amendment before we all get run over by the runaway train.
      Mr. Cranston: Conservative Members have presented themselves as the home owner's friends. In 1979 and subsequent years, home ownership is supposed magically to have increased. The fact is that, since the first world war, the trend of home ownership has been up, and the trend of rental accommodation down. Some of my constituents would be surprised by the Conservatives' claim, because they suffered severely in the late 1980s and early 1990s when their houses were repossessed. They certainly do not regard the Conservative party as the home owner's friend.
      The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) spoke about a material breach of trust. It seems to me that there is a material smell of hypocrisy here. The rate of relief was reduced from the basic rate to 20 per cent. in 1994, and to 15 per cent. in 1995. He tried to explain that by saying that the context was the downward move in interest rates. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) challenged him, and the claim then became a downward trend of interest rates. The fact is that the figures from the Library support neither notion.
      The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) worked himself into a lather about how the MIRAS change would adversely affect the working poor. He did not seem to know much about poverty. Again we can identify hypocrisy, because Conservative Members oppose the minimum wage, which would greatly benefit the working poor. Some people in my constituency earn £3, or even £2, an hour, yet Conservative Members oppose a minimum wage.
      There are two reasons for clause 15. First, the Government intend to introduce some stability into the housing market. Coupled with the stamp duty proposals, this measure will achieve some stability. The impact will vary around the country and, as with any fiscal measure, it is not possible to produce an absolutely certain result, but when enacted, clause 15 will have a beneficial effect through greater stability in the housing market.
      The second reason for clause 15 relates to social justice, a notion mentioned by Conservative Members. In the past, mortgage interest tax relief cost huge amounts of money. As the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) said, it was a subsidy—a huge subsidy—to home owners, but it worked in a most regressive fashion. It benefited the better-off. Conversely, under the Conservatives, there was a massive decline in expenditure on social housing. Expenditure on housing benefit went up, but only to subsidise people already in rented accommodation.
      So little new social housing has been constructed recently that many people have no access to decent housing. That is the context. As Dr. Williams of the

      275
      Council of Mortgage Lenders has pointed out, reductions in the rate have made the impact of MIRAS more progressive, but it remains an untargeted subsidy.
      Mr. Green: The logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that mortgage interest tax relief should be abolished. Is he urging that on his Government?
      Mr. Cranston: The hon. Gentleman anticipates me. I was going to remind the Committee that, on Second Reading, I said that I hoped that the Government would consider the case for a targeted subsidy for home owners that would assist people on low incomes to buy their own homes. I have been influenced by the detailed work of Shelter, which has campaigned so well over the years for people who do not have access to decent housing. There is a need for targeted assistance, and I hope that the Government will seriously consider it. The implication is that ultimately I want this untargeted subsidy to be abolished.
      Mr. Bercow: In his general election literature, did the hon. Gentleman give any indication that he favoured the ultimate abolition of mortgage interest tax relief?
      Mr. Cranston: One can say only a limited amount in one's election address, as hon. Members well know. I told the House that I wanted the Government to consider the matter in coming years.
      Finally, I want to deal with the amendment. I have never seen such a pathetic attempt at an amendment. Its intention is clear—the change would not come into effect until interest rates had fallen below a certain level—but it is badly worded. It talks about the average mortgage rate coming down, whatever that means. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington referred earlier to the tables of mortgage rates that appear in The Sunday Times, and other organisations, such as the Halifax, also publish such tables. It behoves the Opposition to explain what is meant by the phrase "average mortgage rate".
      One should bear in mind the uncertainty that would be created if the amendment were carried, not least because it would not be put into effect until some time in the future which we cannot identify, and which is not identifiable from the proposed legislation. One of the important principles of tax law is certainty, and the amendment would lead to a great deal of uncertainty. I shall certainly oppose it.
      Mr. Green: I support the amendment in the interests of home owners in my constituency and around the country. Secondly, and possibly of equal importance, I support it on the basis of the arguments that we have heard on both sides of the Committee in what has been a fairly lengthy debate. The poverty of the argument in favour of the Government's case for reducing MIRAS is now clear to those of us who have followed the debate.
      I should like to pick up on some of the points made by Labour Members. First, however, I should like to refer to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who said that one of the most scathing attacks against the principle of cutting MIRAS came from the Prime Minister. The hon. Member for
      276
      Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) said that those comments were quoted out of context; I shall give him that context—it was a speech to a Labour housing conference. That attack was the central point of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He argued that cutting MIRAS would add to insecurity, destroy confidence in the housing market and make people much more wary of buying and selling homes.
      9 pm
      Labour Members have argued that it was possible to make that argument in the early 1990s, when the housing market was in recession. I should point out to those hon. Members, to put the speech in its proper context for them, that not only did the Prime Minister make his speech to a housing conference, but he did so in March 1996, some years after the recession in the housing market of the early 1990s. It is quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman wanted to give home owners throughout the country the impression that he was against any further cuts in MIRAS in principle. It is a bit rich for a Government to introduce a measure in their first Budget, a few weeks after taking office, which so blatantly reneges on a commitment made by their own leader.
      Mr. Brooke: Does my hon. Friend remember likewise that that speech was foreshadowed as a major statement of Labour housing policy?
      Mr. Green: Indeed I do. That makes the behaviour of the Labour Government all the more disreputable, because almost their first act relating to the housing market reneges on that commitment.
      The second argument that we have heard from Labour Members is that somehow the measure is designed to cool down an overheating housing market. We heard that argument most eloquently from the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). There are several reasons why that argument does not hold water.
      The first and most obvious is that the Government do not intend to introduce the measure now, but from the spring of next year. If they really believe that the housing market is overheating now, they should introduce a measure to control it now. They should not introduce measures that will be enacted in practically a year's time.
      I thought that the country had learnt that classic lesson about fiscal policy in the 1960s and 1970s. Attempts to use it to fine-tune the economy when it is either overheating or cooling down always go wrong, because the timing is always wrong. That truism has been accepted by the authors of all economic textbooks, and it seems to have reached people in every part of the country except those on the Treasury Bench. What they propose is not an effective means of cooling down a housing market that may or may not be overheating.
      Even if the Government thought that such a measure was effective, they should look at the facts produced by those who know about the housing market. The Halifax, which constructs possibly the largest house price index, made it clear in its June report that that month's figures support its view that the housing market is recovering slowly and not at the pace that some commentators would suggest. There has been no growth in transactions between April and May, so it said before the Budget:

      277
      "there is no need for any specific Budget measure aimed at curbing an allegedly 'booming' housing market … Prices paid by first-time buyers fell by 0.6 per cent. in June and is the first monthly fall since January."
      So not only will this measure fail to cool an overheating housing market, but according to our best evidence the housing market is not overheating anyway. So the idea is both ill conceived and unnecessary.
      Thirdly, I want to pick up a point made by the hon. Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Cranston) about the impact on the property market, especially households with low incomes. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Council of Mortgage Lenders has pronounced on the matter, but it said the very opposite of the impression that the hon. Gentleman gave us:
      "The restrictions imposed on mortgage tax relief in recent years mean that now it is a better source of targeted help to households on low incomes. Nearly 5 million home buyers, about half the total number of home owners who are in receipt of mortgage tax relief, have incomes of less than £20,000."
      They will be the very people hit hardest by the measure, which will mean more to those on relatively low incomes.
      Mr. Cranston: Admittedly, the effect of the tax is now more progressive—but purely by accident. Hence my suggestion that ultimately a more targeted benefit ought to be considered by the Government.
      Mr. Green: I shall deal later with targeted benefits. Whether by accident or design, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman admits that it is now a targeted benefit. It helps home ownership, which is a good thing; and at the moment it particularly helps home owners on relatively low incomes. That seems to me an ideal subsidy.
      The CML goes on to make the point that previous cuts in mortgage tax relief took place against a background of rapidly falling interest rates, and that the move proposed by the Government will mean an increase of 1.25 per cent. in mortgage rates for lower-income households. The hon. Member for Dudley, North quoted the deputy director general of the CML, Peter Williams. What he said in full was:
      "The Government should understand that further cuts in mortgage tax relief do not represent a zero-cost option. Ill considered action on mortgage tax relief based on short-term expediency of releasing funds for other programme priorities is likely to damage home owners and the housing market indiscriminately."
      Mr. Stevenson: I want, first, to reassure the hon. Gentleman that, although his Front Benchers are not listening to him—they have been absent for 20 minutes—we are. Secondly, as regards the housing policy credibility of our respective parties, will he remind the Committee which Government presided over the worst ever crisis in housing and home ownership? It resulted in 1,000 repossessions a week, and has continued from the late 1980s to this day.
      Mr. Green: When the housing recession occurred, the Conservative Government put in place a rescue package for those who were in trouble. This Government are hitting householders in two ways: cutting mortgage tax relief, and steering an economic course that has made interest rates go up. The Government are walking into another housing crisis. Because their spending priorities lie elsewhere, unlike the previous Government in the early
      278
      1990s, they will not want to organise a rescue package for those hit by negative equity. Labour is not interested in home owners, and we can be quite sure that the measures in the Budget that will damage the housing market will not be made up for by any rescue packages.
      There are some who agree with the hon. Member for Dudley, North that there should be changes. Some groups are not instinctively in favour of home ownership and have argued for different types of housing subsidy. Even they, however, are not in favour of the measure. The Shelter briefing on the 1997 Budget says:
      "The announced cut in MIRAS will hit the poorest owner-occupiers hardest".
      That is hardly a piece of central office propaganda. When a Labour Government introduce a measure that alienates millions of home owners and Shelter at the same time, they should realise that they are on the wrong tack.
      Shelter states:
      "For those on low incomes, a monthly increase in mortgage payments of around £10 per week will be critical to their budget … Reductions in the level of MIRAS ought to be redirected into a mortgage benefit or mortgage security scheme."
      The Government have given us the worst of all worlds. They are hitting the home owner, while not doing anything that might meet the demands of those who misguidedly think that a specific and more targeted form of tax relief for certain classes of home owner would be more effective.
      We can see the outlines of the effect of the measure if the Government do not accept our amendment and proceed with their original policy. There will be continuing uncertainty in the housing market, which will inevitably spill over into the wider economy. Labour Members have repeatedly said that they want a climate of certainty. No home owner and no prospective home owner can be certain about the housing market because of the Government's actions.
      Contrary to all their swords and propaganda before the election, the Government's first action is to cut mortgage tax relief. They will give no guarantee that they wish to preserve mortgage tax relief through this Parliament, and are being urged by their Back Benchers to get rid of it. That is a recipe for uncertainty, and will damage the housing market for years to come.
      The Government are making mortgage tax relief less and less of a cushion for home owners when interest rates rise, as they are doing. As the financial markets have become increasingly uncertain about the Government's grip on the economy, they have put up interest rates—those interest rate rises are likely to go further. Home owners have every right to be uncertain and prospective home owners are even less likely to want to enter the market, which will create a spiral of decline.
      The motivation behind the measure is clear: it is the Labour party's underlying hostility to home ownership and home owners. The measure is a traditional Labour measure. The Labour party does not like home ownership; its members regard it as a Conservative ideal, which it is. It gives people a direct, individual stake in society. It is one of the cornerstones of Conservative philosophy, and has always been opposed by the Labour party.
      The Budget proves that, whatever weasel words were spoken before the general election, one of the Government's first acts on taking power has been to

      279
      damage home owners and the housing market. Many millions of home owners will feel betrayed by the Government, the Budget and this particular measure.
      Mr. Jim Murphy: I am grateful for this opportunity to speak in the debate. I shall attempt to be brief—a lesson that I am learning from listening to the less than factual contributions of many Conservative Members.
      I welcome the broad thrust of the Finance Bill. Having listened to this debate for many hours this evening, I welcome the fact that the guillotine has been used. If Labour Members had to sit and listen to even more of the sort of contributions made by the last three or four Conservative Members to speak, they would jeopardise many of their sensibilities.
      We are discussing a 23-word amendment. At different times during the debate, there have been anything between six and, at the current top rate—I have obviously brought the crowds in—nine Conservative Members in the Chamber. Although we are not having an education debate, I calculate that the figures show that we have had between two and a half and three and a half words per Conservative Member. I have been advised that, at some points, the Opposition Front Bench has been empty.
      It took the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) 23 minutes to offer his murmurings and protestations on the 23-word amendment to the Labour Budget. He offered no analysis of what Conservative Members would do to improve the economy and bring long-term stability. Until Opposition Members are able to do that, they will be found wanting, and I suspect that they may, as a consequence of that and other things, lose the vote tonight. [Interruption.] That is a dangerous prediction, but I suspect that it will be accurate, because only six or nine Conservative Members are present.
      I spoke on Second Reading, which was very interesting—more so than tonight's debate. The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) paid me a welcome compliment on my remarks that evening.
      9.15 pm
      The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) also contributed to the Second Reading debate. Alone among Opposition Members, he has been honest enough to say what the Opposition would like to do about MIRAS. I shall quote two comments that he made in his speech that evening. When asked by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury what the Opposition would have us do, first he said that he would not reduce VAT on fuel, because that would be
      "a perverse thing to do."
      It is making an unusual and warped value judgment to suggest that reducing charges for the most vulnerable members of our society would be perverse.
      More important for tonight's debate, when the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford was asked about MIRAS—the next Opposition Member to speak may choose to agree or rebut, criticise or congratulate—he said:
      "I would have got rid of mortgage interest relief altogether."— [Official Report, 10 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 1120.]
      280
      That is a telling statement of the feelings of many Conservative Members; thus far, it has been the only statement by any Opposition Member on what they would have us do. Until such a claim has been rebutted or clarified, I, for one, will take that as a statement of what the Conservatives would have done if they had been in government.
      The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) made what seemed, at least to me, an unusual comment—he mentioned Shelter's briefing on the Budget. It is unusual for a Conservative Member to compliment Shelter, as the previous Government did so much to bolster its business. That is one of the businesses and organisations to which the previous Government did bring increased funding and increased business—because of their housing policy, the number of repossessions, the amount of negative equity and the difficulty caused to what have been described tonight as "the working poor".
      We all know the essential details of the measure reducing MIRAS to 10 per cent. It has been welcomed by the Confederation of British Industry and others because it helps to place our public finances on a sound footing. It helps to create a system of stable economics. It removes once and for all the concept of boom and bust—that has been a litmus test of economic policy—and I am reassured by the fact that it prevents overheating in the property market. If we are talking about the working poor, as the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) did tonight, that fact in itself is of great benefit to those at that lower end of the property market.
      Mr. Loughton: If the hon. Gentleman believes that the reduction in MIRAS will end the boom-bust syndrome in the property market, why have the Government not abolished it? Why have they introduced other measures in the Budget, especially that to remove ACT from equities—which has direct consequences for property investment by pension funds, among others—that will cause a marked return to a boom, which will inevitably be followed by bust in the not-too-distant future?
      Mr. Murphy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that interjection. The Labour party takes a balanced approach to those issues. We are talking about a 5 per cent. reduction, whereas the previous Government brought about a 10 per cent. reduction. We are moving away from boom and bust towards long-term economics. I believe that the hon. Gentleman will be one of the next speakers in the debate and I look forward to hearing what he would have done in terms of MIRAS and all the other policies in the Finance Bill, were the Conservatives in government.
      The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) said earlier that the Labour party was involved in an enormous "material breach of trust". I do not know why he asserted that—nothing could be further from the truth.
      Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, even if I complimented him on his last speech, I do not always have to do so. The point is that the then Opposition set itself up as somehow vested with moral superiority. They said that they would keep all their pledges, which the previous Government had not done, and that there would be no tax increases. There was also a specific

      281
      exchange with a constituent of mine. I await with interest the Financial Secretary's explanation of what I rightly described as a "material breach of trust".
      Mr. Murphy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that interjection. He clearly did not read our manifesto in detail, or the 12 ft by 8 ft posters about our tax policy, which were put up throughout the country. I was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his compliments on my speech; he will be aware that, thus far, I have not complimented him on his speech, because it was devoid of coherent argument. I hope that any other speeches he makes this evening will redeem the quality of his argument.
      The electorate are in no doubt who breached their trust before the election and, to an extent, since the election. They showed clearly that the Conservatives were distrusted on the economy and had surrendered that ground to the new Labour party. They believed that the Conservatives were the party of boom and bust—the party of the few rather than the many—and that the Labour party was the exact opposite: we believed in long-term economic prosperity and understood how to deliver it, and we believed in governing for the many rather than just the few.
      Conservative Members sometimes find it uncomfortable to talk about polling evidence. I contend that it is sometimes helpful for politicians to be in touch with public feeling and public opinion. That is one reason why we sit on the Government Benches putting forward our Finance Bill, while Conservative Members sit on the Opposition Benches with a 23-word amendment which will do nothing to improve the economy. Nevertheless, in opinion poll after opinion poll before and after the general election, the public realised that the previous Government's inactivity and economic impotence brought about repossessions and negative equity.
      More important than any headline figure, the individuals who make up that polling evidence want long-term economic stability. They want to be able to plan their lives for the next five or 10 years, which is why people, especially my constituents in Eastwood, welcome the idea of long-term planning. Even after the reduction in MIRAS, families with a £50,000 mortgage are £250 better off than they were at the high point of interest rates under the previous Government.
      We have heard much this evening about how Labour has allegedly lost touch with those who represent the "working poor". In addition to the contents of the Finance Bill, which will help those very people and bring about long-term prosperity, it is important to consider what we have done in respect of education for those people, and what we will do in respect of the health service for the majority of our population, and in respect of job opportunities to ensure that many more people are working and many fewer people are poor.
      That is why I am eager to lend my support to the Finance Bill. With reference to the working poor, I want to ensure that many more people are working and far fewer are poor.
      Mr. Robert Walter: I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I rise to the challenge of the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy), who asked what we would have the Government do. We would not have introduced a Budget at this time, so we would
      282
      not be debating the Finance Bill. We would not be introducing a windfall tax or a tax on pensions and pensioners, and we would certainly not be instituting an increased tax burden on home owners, which is the subject of the clause and the amendment.
      I shall try to confine my remarks to the reduction in MIRAS and the implications for home ownership. From the contributions that we have heard this evening, it is clear that Conservative Members are concerned about that, whereas Labour Members seem less concerned.
      I congratulate the hon. Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Cranston) on his honesty and frankness with the Committee when he said that he wanted the total abolition of mortgage interest tax relief. From the answer he gave, I suspect that he was not so frank with his constituents at the last election, which may be a pity. None the less, I am sure that they are all avid readers of Hansard and that they will be put right tomorrow morning.
      The clause is a mean measure. It fails to meet the criteria or the rhetoric in the Chancellor's Budget statement. In his concluding remarks in that statement, the Chancellor said:
      "The measures that I have announced today for stability, for investment … will make Britain better equipped and more ready to face the future with confidence.
      Previous Budgets pursued the short-term interests of the few. This Budget advances the long-term interests of the many. It is a Budget that equips Britain for the future—meeting the people's priorities. It is a people's Budget for Britain's future."—[Official Report, 2 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 316.]
      For this measure, the people will pay. In the first year of its introduction, they will pay £900 million. I am sure that people will be delighted with that contribution to their long-term investment in their homes and in home ownership.
      MIRAS is not as relevant to the well-heeled Member of Parliament or to the City whiz kid as it is to those on middle incomes and below. Currently, 68 per cent. of homes are owner-occupied—an increase from 56 per cent. in 1979. Four million new home owners have benefited from the Conservative approach to home ownership, of which MIRAS was but a small part.
      The Conservative approach to housing is based on three core values: choice, opportunity and responsibility. Choice is central to our policy. We believe that individuals, not Government, know what is best for them and their families. In housing, the state's role is to ensure a diversity of provision to extend choice as widely as possible. Opportunity is closely related to individual choice, and we believe that we should create greater opportunities for investment and innovation in housing to assist not only the home owner but the private rented sector.
      Mr. John McAllion: Who wrote this?
      Mr. Walter: That is a very interesting point. It was not the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson).
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Hon. Members should not come into the Chamber and make comments from a sedentary position.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Walter: Thank you, Mr. Lord.
      A further principle is responsibility. The previous Government sought to extend responsibility through opportunity and choice. In the White Paper "Our Future

      283
      Homes", which was published in June 1995, we said that continued growth of home ownership for those who wanted and could afford it was a central principle. Home ownership has increased over the years to 68 per cent. of households. The lower and middle-income groups have seen an extension of home ownership. People have been able to buy council houses and houses in the lower range of the market for the first time. MIRAS has been a very real benefit to them.
      The Government secured a very large majority at the last election, so, to some extent, they can ignore the effects of this measure on lower-income families. However, those families will be affected most by this very mean measure. The reduction in MIRAS will have exactly the same effect on the City banker, with his £300,000 mortgage on his £500,000 house, as on the first-time buyer, with his £30,000 mortgage on his £40,000 or £50,000 house. There is no distinction: the measure will hit everybody equally. Therefore, the burden is proportionately much greater for those on lower and middle incomes. I have read the full text of the Budget, and I find it most intriguing that the measure is couched in such terms.
      This is a very mean measure. It does nothing for housing, for the low-paid and for investment, and nothing for Conservative Members.
      Mr. Steve Webb: We have heard some striking contradictions in the speeches of Opposition Members on the amendment. They were exemplified by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), who regarded the cut in mortgage interest tax relief from 15 to 10 per cent. as an assault on home ownership. He apparently had no problems with the cut from 25 to 20 per cent. or from 20 to 15 per cent. that the Conservative party implemented a few years ago. Perhaps he would like to take this opportunity to dissociate himself from the actions of the previous Government.
      Mr. Green: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening when my colleagues and I made our speeches, he would know that there is a difference between cutting mortgage interest tax relief at a time of rapidly falling interest rates and cutting that relief when interest rates are rising rapidly. That makes the real difference for home owners, and that is why the measure is so damaging to home owners and to home ownership.
      Mr. Webb: Judging from that response, I suspect that the hon. Gentleman would be in good company with angels and pinheads.
      The Opposition are not alone in having a contradictory position on this issue. I welcome the fact that the reduction in mortgage interest tax relief removes some cash from the personal rather than the corporate sector. The Budget did not do enough on that front, so, to that extent, I welcome the measure.
      The Budget is supposed to be about welfare to work, but what are the prospects for people with mortgages who want to take a low-paid job? They will find that their mortgages are higher when they are in work. When in opposition, Labour Members opposed the cut in help with mortgage interest for those on income support. If we want
      284
      people to move from welfare into work, we must give them security and ensure that, if they lose their jobs, they will receive help with their mortgages. At present, as soon as someone comes off income support, even if it is only for a few weeks, his mortgage will not be paid if he loses his job. For many people, the risk is not worth while. What will be done to help those people under the Government's proposals?
      The question has been asked: what would Opposition Members do? We have heard that Conservative Members would do nothing, because they would not have had a Budget. My colleagues and I, however, would have gone one step further: we would have spent part of the money saved from the cut in mortgage interest tax relief on low-income benefit, to which the hon. Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Cranston) referred. That would at least cushion the blow and help people to move from welfare into work. If the Budget is to be seen as a welfare-to-work measure, why has the issue of the low-income home buyer not been addressed?
      It is clear that mortgage tax relief is on its way out, either rapidly or slowly. However, unless the position of those who are trying to move from the bottom end of the labour market is not taken into account, we shall never make progress. What will be done to remove the insecurity that is felt by many at the bottom end of the labour market? They are told now to rely on private mortgage insurance, but what private mortgage insurer has any interest in someone on a short-term contract or in a low-paid job?
      Will people who are currently in receipt of welfare be in a position to take work, and what will happen when they lose it? We know, of course, that people will be forced to take work. We know that there will be compulsion for young people, for example. What will they live on? What encouragement does the Budget give them to take chances? It seems that there is a paradox in the Government's approach. They talk about welfare to work, but they provide no support for those who are willing to take the chance. That is the fatal weakness of the clause.
      Dawn Primarolo: Apart from a fleeting reference to the amendment in the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), no further remarks have been directed to it. Our discussion started with a reference to the Conservative Government's six changes to MIRAS, including the announcement of a cut in November 1993. It was introduced in 1995 when interest rates were moving up. Opposition Members never suggested when they were in government that a delayed-mechanism amendment of the sort that they are now proposing was needed.
      Various Conservative Members have told us how important MIRAS is and explained that Conservative Members, when in government, never touched it except on principle. As I said in an intervention, however, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Norman Lamont, made it absolutely clear why he was cutting MIRAS: he explained that the cut was to raise revenue and to spread the pain.
      The hon. Members for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) and for Ashford (Mr. Green) told us how they were really the friends of the poor. The hon. Member for Teignbridge was terribly

      285
      concerned about the working poor. It is a shame that he was not so concerned during the property boom, when thousands of those people were losing their homes through repossession. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale did not express his concern for social stability as people were deprived of their homes and savings.
      Before the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) rises, perhaps he can explain exactly what the Conservative Government did to assist negative equity, because my recollection is that it was the building societies and not the Government who made arrangements to assist those people.
      Mr. Green: Will the Financial Secretary tell the House whether she thinks that her measure in the Finance Bill will help poor home owners or make them worse off?
      Dawn Primarolo: Turning to the question—[Interruption.] I know that some hon. Members have had a very good evening drinking and eating. I was about to deal with affordable housing and who benefits in the housing market.
      I should remind hon. Members that most lenders have special schemes for first-time buyers and that interest rates are still extremely low compared to the record levels reached under the Conservative Government, when a typical mortgage of £50,000 would have cost £250 more than it does now. [Interruption.] I see that we are all returning from the restaurant.
      Mr. Boswell: When one of my hon. Friends asked the Financial Secretary a question a moment ago, I had the impression that she was reluctant to answer it, so I put it to her again. Does she feel that home owners, particularly those in more modest circumstances, will welcome the changes in her right hon. Friend's Budget, or not?
      Dawn Primarolo: I realise that it is a good sport to trade across the Dispatch Box, particularly at this time of the evening, but as the hon. Gentleman knows, what is most important for those who own their own homes is stability and security in the housing market, and a prospect that they will manage to keep their houses.
      Referring specifically to—[Interruption.] Sir Alan, this is very difficult. The Opposition table an amendment, repeatedly complain that it is not dealt with at the Dispatch Box, and then come into the Chamber simply to cause disruption.
      Mr. Greenrose—
      Dawn Primarolo: An amendment is before the Committee, to which I have to respond. I intend to respond to it, and when I have, if there is time, the hon. Gentleman can certainly intervene again.
      The reduction in the rate of mortgage interest relief is an important measure to give economic stability. The point of the amendment is that it delays the implementation of that reduction—a delay that was not sought by the Conservatives when in government. The delay would not assist mortgage lenders. The very notice that we are giving them in the Budget would be denied them in terms of being able to deal with their mortgagees.
      286
      The amendment simply will not work, because there is no recognised average mortgage rate or prevailing rate, and it does not tell us who will decide what that rate should be. The amendment will cause instability rather than provide stability in the market. Opposition Members have referred continually to election manifesto promises, but the Conservative party's 1992 election manifesto promised to maintain mortgage tax relief, only for it to be cut when they came into office.
      9.45 pm
      The Council of Mortgage Lenders has said that the Budget package contains a prudent set of measures. The Halifax has said that it will allow the steady recovery in house prices to continue. The Budget has been welcomed by the Institute of Directors and a number of other building societies which are clear that there is need for action now in the housing market. Opposition Members have also referred repeatedly to comments made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It is necessary to apply a gentle brake to the housing market because of the increase in prices and in order to secure the stability that all house owners want. In the three months to June, prices were up 2.1 per cent. on the previous month and 6.8 per cent. on the year as a whole. That shows why it was necessary to dampen down the housing market.
      Mr. Boswell: Will the hon. Lady comment on the second quarter's report of the Halifax, which said:
      "there is no need for any specific Budget measures aimed at curbing an allegedly 'booming' housing market"?
      Does she agree with that comment, or does she simply beg to disagree?
      Dawn Primarolo: We need to ensure stability in the housing market so that those who own their houses and those who seek to own their houses are not at the mercy of the market from which they suffered under the Conservative Government. What we do not want to see is rising house prices or people trapped in negative equity and unable to provide for themselves.
      The Government's proposals are sensible and modest. The amendment would not work and is not viable. It would not give stability and it would deny mortgage lenders time to plan for and adjust to the changes. The Government's proposals seek to prevent a return to the boom and bust policies of the previous Government. On that basis, I ask the Committee to reject the Opposition amendment and to support the Government's measures to provide stability and to assist home owners.
      Mr. Boswell: This has been an interesting debate, and merely reinforces the official Opposition's determination to press the amendment to a vote.
      I will deal first with the contributions of Labour Members, which have contained two themes. Two new Members, the hon. Members for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) and for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy), emphasised the importance of stability, as did the Financial Secretary—they were obviously all on message. That concept is rather like motherhood and apple pie, and one from which I cannot dissent, although three successive interest rate rises and a series of unpromised and uncovenanted tax increases on a large scale in the space of eight weeks does not seem to suggest a Government bent on stability.

      287
      Labour Members also showed some MIRAS scepticism. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who has been in the House a long time, said that everyone knew that Labour would breach its election pledge. He characteristically suggested that there might have been a conspiracy between Members of the two Front Benches to produce a collective guilty secret. Neither my constituents nor I saw any sign of that being offered to us during the election campaign.
      The hon. Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Cranston), who outed himself as an opponent of MIRAS, said that he was not able to include this measure in his election address due to inadequate space—the only Labour election address in history that could have been a little longer so as to be a little more informative. His theme was that we all knew that MIRAS was coming to an end, and so it should. He implied that we should not take too seriously the matters of trust invoked by his leader.
      The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) made an interesting contribution. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) touched on the possibility of restructuring, which was open to the Government and could be in subsequent Budgets. The Government could have introduced proposals, but merely to make a cut is a major breach of faith.
      I greatly enjoyed the contributions of my hon. Friends, which contained two underlying themes. They were concerned about the home owner, and not merely about Islington man or those at the top who have cleared more than £0.5 million in a particular sort of windfall which is not being taxed under the windfall levy. According to the Financial Secretary, such windfalls will not be available to any persons bent on making money out of their houses in the future. She said that the housing market was overheating and that action had to be taken, so people will not make a profit on their houses in the future. My hon. Friends emphasised their passionate commitment to home ownership at all levels of income and for people from all walks of life.
      I hope that the Government will take note of my hon. Friends' concern about the breach of trust, which goes all the way up to the Prime Minister. It is not possible to construe the words delivered by the Prime Minister to Labour's housing conference in any other way than that MIRAS was safe in his hands. Now we know better.
      In the Financial Secretary's brief remarks—she read out her brief, which Ministers have done since time immemorial—she pointed to alleged deficiencies in the drafting of the amendment. As a matter of fact, we did speak to our amendment. Nevertheless, she was unable to answer the serious questions put to her. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford asked the Financial Secretary to answer a specific question: which home owners would benefit? As she did not appear to understand that perfectly simple question, I asked it again, but I am still waiting for an answer.
      What has become increasingly clear during the debate, however, is the Government's approach to taxation. The theme was initiated by the Financial Secretary the other day, when she said that pensioners would welcome the Budget, and that pension funds would benefit from it. That theme was taken up today by the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies), who said that the
      288
      measures were for the good of home owners. This is not the first occasion on which Labour Governments have said that taxes—
      Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Boswell: Briefly.
      Mr. Davies: Do you agree that your comments about the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] I am sorry. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his comments about the Prime Minister were out of context, and that what Tony Blair was referring to—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what the Prime Minister was referring to was a housing market that had been crucified by your Government—[Interruption.] The Prime Minister was referring to a housing market that had been crucified by the hon. Gentleman's Government, in terms of negative equity and repossessions. In the present circumstances, is it a good idea to start another cycle of boom and bust? If the hon. Gentleman were in the Government, would he encourage an over-fuelling of the housing market, which would cause a repeat of the chaos and catastrophe that were produced by the hopeless leadership of his party?
      Mr. Boswell: I advise the hon. Gentleman to make his interventions shorter, and to stop digging when he is in a hole.
      The law that has been made clear by Labour Members—it might be termed the Bristol, South law—is that if it is bad for you, it is really good for you. It was put very well by Shakespeare, who spoke of taking correction mildly and of kissing the rod. That could apply to taxpayers. It was put even more succinctly by the Roman historian Tacitus, who said, describing methods of classification:
      "They create a wilderness and call it peace."
      When the Government create a wilderness for taxpayers, they call it "really in their own best interests."
      We have heard no explanation from the Financial Secretary of a specific point that I raised both on Second Reading and tonight. I asked why mortgage interest tax relief should be further reduced, given that that breached a pledge made to my constituent. I also asked the Financial Secretary for a commitment that the present Government would at least not make further reductions in MIRAS, but I heard no such commitment from her lips.
      Meanwhile, Conservative Members realise that home owners will suffer under the Budget. They will be losing an average of £21 a month in higher interest rates, following three hikes of £7 a month. They will be losing £9 a month following the Chancellor's discretionary decision to withdraw a further tranche of mortgage interest relief. That means that home owners—the ordinary people—will already be losing £30 a month under the present Government. I think that, so far, they are losing about 50p a day each.
      I am sorry to say that there is no sign of interest rates coming down. I remind the Committee that our amendment prescribes that the wilful increase in tax caused by the withdrawal of further mortgage interest relief should not take effect until interest rates return to the level that we bequeathed to the Labour Government.

      289
      There is no sign of interest rates coming down. There is no need for this hit on the house owner. It should not take effect at least until the Government have, in their own terms, stabilised the economy and reduced interest rates to where they were.
      Our proposal is to protect home owners. That is our commitment on the Conservative Benches, and that is why we shall press this amendment to a Division with considerable relish.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 147, Noes 381.

      Division No. 57]

      [9.59 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Greenway, John

      Amess, David

      Grieve, Dominic

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Arbuthnot, James

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Baldry, Tony

      Hammond, Philip

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Bercow, John

      Heald, Oliver

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Blunt, Crispin

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Body, Sir Richard

      Horam, John

      Boswell, Tim

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Brady, Graham

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Brazier, Julian

      Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Key, Robert

      Burns, Simon

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Butterfill, John

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Leigh, Edward

      Chope, Christopher

      Letwin, Oliver

      Clappison, James

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Lidington, David

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Loughton, Tim

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Luff, Peter

      Collins, Tim

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Colvin, Michael

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      MacKay, Andrew

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Davis Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Madel, Sir David

      Day, Stephen

      Malins, Humfrey

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Maples, John

      Duncan, Alan

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Merchant, Piers

      Evans, Nigel

      Moss, Malcolm

      Faber, David

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Fabricant, Michael

      Norman, Archie

      Fallon, Michael

      Page, Richard

      Flight, Howard

      Paice, James

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Paterson, Owen

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Prior, David

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Fraser, Christopher

      Robathan, Andrew

      Gale, Roger

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Garnier, Edward

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Gibb, Nick

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Gill, Christopher

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Ruffley, David

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Gray, James

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Green, Damian

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      290

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Trend, Michael

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Soames, Nicholas

      Viggers, Peter

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Walter, Robert

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Wardle, Charles

      Spring, Richard

      Wells, Bowen

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Steen, Anthony

      Whittingdale, John

      Streeter, Gary

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Swayne, Desmond

      Willetts, David

      Syms, Robert

      Wilshire, David

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Yeo, Tim

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Thompson, William

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Townend, John

      Mr. James Cran and

      Tredinnick, David

      Mr. Nigel Waterson.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cann, Jamie

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Ainger, Nick

      Casale, Roger

      Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)

      Caton, Martin

      Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Chaytor, David

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Chidgey, David

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Ashton, Joe

      Clapham, Michael

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Austin, John

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Banks, Tony

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Barnes, Harry

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Barron, Kevin

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Battle, John

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Clwyd, Ann

      Beard, Nigel

      Coaker, Vernon

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Cohen, Harry

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Coleman, Iain (Hammersmith)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Colman, Tony (Putney)

      Benton, Joe

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Best, Harold

      Cooper, Yvette

      Betts, Clive

      Corbett, Robin

      Blackman, Liz

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Boateng, Paul

      Cotter, Brian

      Borrow, David

      Cousins, Jim

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Cox, Tom

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Cranston, Ross

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Crausby, David

      Breed, Colin

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Dafis, Cynog

      Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Darvill, Keith

      Burden, Richard

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Burgon, Colin

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Burnett, John

      Davidson, Ian

      Burstow, Paul

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Butler, Christine

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Byers, Stephen

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Cabom, Richard

      Dawson, Hilton

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Denham, John

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Canavan, Dennis

      Donohoe, Brian H

      291

      Doran, Frank

      Ingram, Adam

      Dowd, Jim

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Drew, David

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Jamieson, David

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Efford, Clive

      Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)

      Ellman, Ms Louise

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Etherington, Bill

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Flynn, Paul

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Follett, Barbara

      Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Keetch, Paul

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

      Kidney, David

      Foulkes, George

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Fyfe, Maria

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Galbraith, Sam

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Galloway, George

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Gapes, Mike

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Gardiner, Barry

      Laxton, Bob

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Lepper, David

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Gerrard, Neil

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Linton, Martin

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Livingstone, Ken

      Godsiff, Roger

      Livsey, Richard

      Goggins, Paul

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Lock, David

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      McAllion, John

      Gorrie, Donald

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Graham, Thomas

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Grocott, Bruce

      McDonnell, John

      Grogan, John

      McIsaac, Shona

      Gunnell, John

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Hain, Peter

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McNulty, Tony

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      MacShane, Denis

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hancock, Mike

      McWalter, Tony

      Hanson, David

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Mallaber, Judy

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Mandelson, Peter

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Marek, Dr John

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Heppell, John

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Maxton, John

      Hill, Keith

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Hinchiffe, David

      Meale, Alan

      Hoey, Kate

      Michael, Alun

      Hood, Jimmy

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Hope, Phil

      Milburn, Alan

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Miller, Andrew

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Mitchell, Austin

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Moore, Michael

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Hurst, Alan

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Hutton, John

      Morley, Elliot

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Illsley, Eric

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon) (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      292

      Mountford, Kali

      Mudie, George

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Mullin, Chris

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

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

      Norris, Dan

      Snape, Peter

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Soley, Clive

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      O'Hara, Edward

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Olner, Bill

      Stevenson, George

      Öpik, Lembit

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Osborne, Mrs Sandra

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Pearson, Ian

      Stott, Roger

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Pickthall, Colin

      Stringer, Graham

      Pike, Peter L

      Stuart, Ms Gisela (Edgbaston)

      Plaskitt, James

      Stunell, Andrew

      Pollard, Kerry

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Pond, Chris

      Swinney, John

      Pope, Greg

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Pound, Stephen

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Timms, Stephen

      Purchase, Ken

      Tipping, Paddy

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Todd, Mark

      Quinn, Lawrie (Scarborough)

      Touhig, Don

      Radice, Giles

      Trickett, Jon

      Rapson, Syd

      Truswell, Paul

      Raynsford, Nick

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

      Rendel, David

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Tyler, Paul

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Vaz, Keith

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Rogers, Allan

      Wallace, James

      Rooker, Jeff

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Rooney, Terry

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Watts, David

      Rowlands, Ted

      Webb, Professor Steve

      Roy, Frank

      Welsh, Andrew

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      White, Brian

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Salmond, Alex

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Wills, Phil

      Sawford, Phil

      Wills, Michael

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wilson, Brian

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Winnick, David

      Sheerman, Barry

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Wise, Audrey

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Wray, James

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Wright, Tony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Singh, Marsha

      Wyatt, Derek

      Skinner, Dennis

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

      Smith, Miss Geraldine

      Mr. David Clelland.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN put the remaining Question required by the Order [14 July] to be put at that hour.
      Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 370, Noes 141.

      Division No. 58]

      [10.15 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Colman, Tony (Putney)

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Ainger, Nick

      Corbett, Robin

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)

      Cotter, Brian

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Cousins, Jim

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Cox, Tom

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Cranston, Ross

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Crausby, David

      Ashton, Joe

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Austin, John

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

      Banks, Tony

      Barnes, Harry

      Dafis, Cynog

      Battle, John

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bayley, Hugh

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Beard, Nigel

      Darvill, Keith

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Davidson, Ian

      Benton, Joe

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Best, Harold

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Betts, Clive

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Blackman, Liz

      Dawson, Hilton

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Boateng, Paul

      Denham, John

      Borrow, David

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Breed, Colin

      Doran, Frank

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Drew, David

      Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Efford, Clive

      Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)

      Ellman, Ms Louise

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Etherington, Bill

      Burden, Richard

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Burgon, Colin

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Burnett, John

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Burstow, Paul

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Butler, Christine

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Byers, Stephen

      Flynn, Paul

      Caborn, Richard

      Follett, Barbara

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Foulkes, George

      Cann, Jamie

      Galbraith, Sam

      Caplin, Ivor

      Galloway, George

      Casale, Roger

      Gapes, Mike

      Caton, Martin

      Gardiner, Barry

      Cawsey, Ian

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Chidgey, David

      Gerrard, Neil

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Clapham, Michael

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Godsiff, Roger

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Goggins, Paul

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Gorrie, Donald

      Clwyd, Ann

      Graham, Thomas

      Coaker, Vernon

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Cohen, Harry

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Coleman, Iain (Hammersmith)

      Grocott, Bruce

      294

      Grogan, John

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Gunnell, John

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hain, Peter

      McNulty, Tony

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      MacShane, Denis

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McWalter, Tony

      Hancock, Mike

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hanson, David

      Mallaber, Judy

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Mandelson, Peter

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Marek, Dr John

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Heppell, John

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Maxton, John

      Hill, Keith

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Hinchliffe, David

      Meale, Alan

      Hoey, Kate

      Michael, Alun

      Hood, Jimmy

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Hope, Phil

      Milburn, Alan

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Miller, Andrew

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Mitchell, Austin

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Moore, Michael

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Hurst, Alan

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Hutton, John

      Morley, Elliot

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Illsley, Eric

      Mountford, Kali

      Ingram, Adam

      Mudie, George

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Mullin, Chris

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Norris, Dan

      Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Olner, Bill

      Öpik, Lembit

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Osborne, Mrs Sandra

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Pearson, Ian

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Pendry, Tom

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

      Pike, Peter L

      Keetch, Paul

      Plaskitt, James

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Khabra, Piara S

      Pond, Chris

      Kidney, David

      Pope, Greg

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Pound, Stephen

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Laxton, Bob

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Lepper, David

      Purchase, Ken

      Leslie, Christopher

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Quinn, Lawrie (Scarborough)

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Radice, Giles

      Linton, Martin

      Rapson, Syd

      Livingstone, Ken

      Raynsford, Nick

      Livsey, Richard

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Rendel, David

      Lock, David

      Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

      McAllion, John

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Rooker, Jeff

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Rooney, Terry

      Macdonald, Calum

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McDonnell, John

      Rowlands, Ted

      McIsaac, Shona

      Roy, Frank

      295

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Timms, Stephen

      Salmond, Alex

      Tipping, Paddy

      Sanders, Adrian

      Todd, Mark

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Touhig, Don

      Sawford, Phil

      Trickett, Jon

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Truswell, Paul

      Sheerman, Barry

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Tyler, Paul

      Singh, Marsha

      Vaz, Keith

      Skinner, Dennis

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Wallace, James

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Watts, David

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      White, Brian

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

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

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Snape, Peter

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Soley, Clive

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Stevenson, George

      Willis, Phil

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Wills, Michael

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Wilson, Brian

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Winnick, David

      Stott, Roger

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Wise, Audrey

      Stringer, Graham

      Wray, James

      Stuart, Ms Gisela (Edgbaston)

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Wright, Tony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Wyatt, Derek

      Swinney, John

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Mr. David Clelland and

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Mr. Jim Dowd.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Day, Stephen

      Amess, David

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Duncan, Alan

      Arbuthnot, James

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Baldry, Tony

      Evans, Nigel

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Faber, David

      Bercow, John

      Fabricant, Michael

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Fallon, Michael

      Blunt, Crispin

      Flight, Howard

      Body, Sir Richard

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Boswell, Tim

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Brady, Graham

      Fraser, Christopher

      Brazier, Julian

      Gale, Roger

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Garnier, Edward

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Gibb, Nick

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Gill, Christopher

      Burns, Simon

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Butterfill, John

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Gray, James

      Green, Damian

      Chope, Christopher

      Greenway, John

      Clappison, James

      Grieve, Dominic

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Collins, Tim

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Colvin, Michael

      Hammond, Philip

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Hawkins, Nick

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Heald, Oliver

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      296

      Horam, John

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Ruffley, David

      Hunter, Andrew

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Key, Robert

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Spring, Richard

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Leigh, Edward

      Steen, Anthony

      Letwin, Oliver

      Streeter, Gary

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Lidington, David

      Syms, Robert

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Taylor Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Loughton,Tim

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Luff, Peter

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Thompson, William

      MacKay, Andrew

      Townend, John

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Tredinick, David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Trend, Michael

      Madel, Sir David

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Malins, Humfrey

      Viggers, Peter

      Maples, John

      Walter, Robert

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Wardle, Charles

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Waterson, Nigel

      Merchant, Piers

      Wells, Bowen

      Moss, Malcolm

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Willetts, David

      Norman, Archie

      Wilshire, David

      Page, Richard

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Paice, James

      Woodward, Shaun

      Paterson, Owen

      Yeo, Tim

      Prior, David

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Robathan, Andrew

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Mr. James Cran and

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Mr. John Whittingdale.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
      Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

Royal Assent
10.29 pm
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

National Health Service (Private Finance) Act 1997

Southampton International Boat Show Act 1997

Imperial College Act 1997

ESTIMATES
It being after Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.), put the Question on the total amount of outstanding estimates.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1997–98
Resolved,
That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £66,285,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges for Civil Services which will come in course of payment for the year ending on 31st March 1998, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 65.
Ordered,
That a Bill be brought in on the foregoing resolutions: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Alistair Darling, Mr. Geoffrey Robinson, Mrs. Helen Liddell and Dawn Primarolo do prepare and bring it in.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
Dawn Primarolo accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on 31st March 1998, and to appropriate the supplies granted in this Session of Parliament: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 46].

SELECT COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 146 (Select Committee on Public Administration) be amended, in line 8, by leaving out the word 'nine' and inserting the word 'eleven'.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

EUROPEAN LEGISLATION
Ordered,
That Mr. Norman Baker, Ms Hazel Blears, Mr. Ben Bradshaw, Mr. Russell Brown, Mr. Roger Casale, Mr. William Cash, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mrs. Linda Gilroy, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Ms Jennifer Jones, Mr. Jim Marshall, Mrs. Anne McGuire, Mr. Bill Rammell, Mr. Anthony Steen, Mr. Andrew Tyrie and Mr. Shaun Woodward be members of the Select Committee on European Legislation.—[Mr. Mudie.]

Insolvency
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
10.31 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is a pleasure to be able to discuss the subject of insolvency. The amazing lack of interest in the subject is testimony to the fact that Members of Parliament are so much better paid these days; this would not have happened if they were paid at the same levels as when I was a lad.
This is an important subject that should cause us a great deal of concern. The issue of insolvency, liquidation and bankruptcy is emotive. It is fraught with concern, anxiety and agony for those involved—it is traumatic for them—and that is exactly why the area should be well regulated by scrupulous practitioners who can be called to account and owe a duty of care to those involved. Such practitioners should work to predictable, known rules; they should work openly and be subject to appeal and control to protect the vulnerable. None of those characteristics applies to insolvency as it is presently regulated.
The practitioners work in the dark; that darkness is compounded for the victims of insolvency. There is no effective independent regulation—indeed, there is no effective regulation. There are 2,000 insolvency practitioners in this country and, for that small number, there are eight regulators, including the Department of Trade and Industry and the Society of Practitioners of Insolvency—a trade association rather than a regulator. There are far too many regulators. They overlap and trample on each other's feet; their responsibilities are not clear. It is difficult to secure effective regulation among such a plethora of regulators.
The framework of regulation consists of the Mafia regulating the Mafia: the practitioners regulate themselves in their own interests, without effective independent control. There is nothing to cause the public interest to intrude into that area.
Even the Department of Trade and Industry working party which, as my hon. Friend the Minister will no doubt remind me, is considering the issue, is the Mafia regulating the Mafia. The people who make up that working party do not include the victims of insolvency—those who have gone under, those who have suffered the consequences, or those who have been aggrieved by the insolvency process. The working party is essentially composed of the practitioners.
I hope that my hon. Friend will be aware of the blandishments of that working party and bear in mind what it is. It is the industry speaking for itself and almost certainly telling my hon. Friend that all is for the best in the best of all possible insolvency worlds; in fact, it is not. If it is to be effective, the inquiry should be independent and presided over by a High Court judge; in fact, it is chaired by a representative of the Law Society and includes representatives of all the other regulators—the trade associations. None of those who have suffered, including the employees of companies that have gone under, have been included. The working party does not hold public hearings; effectively, it operates in secrecy. It is a sham.

299
The main legislation in the area, the Insolvency Acts of 1985 and 1986, was meant to provide ways of rescuing companies. It was meant to protect the investor, the shareholder and the creditor. In fact, it has become a series of Acts for the protection of the accountants because it gives them, as corporate undertakers, a licence effectively to print money in the fees they levy for insolvency work—work in which the banks call the shots and the accountants enrich themselves.
By serving the dominant interest of the banks, the accountants have obtained the statutory monopoly of audit. When something goes wrong with the audit, they also operate an effective monopoly of the insolvency work that results from bad audits and bad ways of running companies. They get the fees for creating the mess and the fees for clearing it up. One cannot think of a better monopoly for self-enrichment.
The fees are huge. Much of the work is done by unqualified staff, but the fees charged are £100 per hour for some grades and £300 to £500 per hour for partners. When the Social Security Committee studied the Maxwell liquidation, in 1993, when the bill for that liquidation was only £50 million—it has increased since—it found that Robson Rhodes was charging between £111 and £174 per hour, Arthur Andersen was charging between £90 and £153 per hour, and Price Waterhouse was charging between £120 and £190 per hour. That is how some of those astronomical fees are calculated.
The fees so far in the Bank of Credit and Commerce International insolvency amount to $281 million for Deloitte and Touche. It is wonderful work if you can get it—far more profitable than designing Eurofighters, building cars or producing other things of value to the consumer. The insolvency income of the major accountancy firms, which employ 40 per cent. of the insolvency practitioners, is huge. Even two years ago, Coopers and Lybrand earned £53 million a year, KPMG earned £43 million a year and Ernst and Young earned £44 million a year—and those are data that those firms provided to the accountancy press.
Whoever loses in an insolvency, the practitioners win—that is the name of the game. I cite some instances from my experience. A Mrs. Askew, who had the lease of two pubs in Lincoln—a fairly wealthy lady, who was ill and, I believe, was inattentive to the financial side of the business—was sued by a wine merchant for £4,400 in unpaid bills. The liquidator was put in. The costs and fees of that liquidation, for a bill of £4,400, came to £120,000. When I asked the Institute of Chartered Accountants why the figure was so huge, I was told that Mrs. Askew was to blame because she did not co-operate with the trustee. That is a huge bill, given that she was in hospital for much of the time she was accused of non-co-operation. It is a ludicrous charge.
Practitioners are in a wonderful position and the big accountancy houses win both ways. The banks, which are notorious for thrusting umbrellas upon us when the weather is dry and snatching them back as soon as it rains, have most of us in a tight grip—I will make it no more vivid than that. If a firm of accountants put in by a bank
300
to report on a business recommends liquidation, the same firm's insolvency arm gets the liquidation work. That is a monstrous vested interest and places constant pressure to recommend liquidation.
The classic instance—about which I have had a long correspondence with the DTI and the regulators—is the case of J. S. Bass in Manchester in 1988. Barclays bank put in Ernst and Young to report on the business. It did a survey which took all of 48 hours—it is called a quick and dirty survey in the trade. It looked at the accounts, which effectively can be made to say anything. It did not look at the order book or the assets—this was an asset-rich company—and overestimated the losses of the company by a factor of five. It recommended that the firm be put into receivership.
The firm was put into receivership by the insolvency arm of Ernst and Young, which then sold the factory and the property at less than agreed prices—some of it, apparently, to clients of the bank—and found a surplus at the end of £1.2 million. But that had all gone in fees by then, so, effectively, there was no surplus. The insolvency practitioner is guaranteed his share of the operation.
What is more, the bank tried to take out a bankruptcy order on the managing director, Barry Chapman, to shut him up because of his objections to the operation. Professor Tony Christie of Salford university complained about the behaviour of Ernst and Young in a letter to his Member of Parliament, Sir Fergus Montgomery. Sir Fergus passed it on to Ernst and Young, which then took out a writ against Christie to shut him up and to stop his accusations against Ernst and Young. Here is an academic facing the might of one of the big six. It is easy to imagine how the balance of power will go. None of this had any effect on the inquiry by the DTI or the regulators. There was no satisfaction, and the business smells curiously.
These are murky waters. Here is a vested interest recommending liquidation to the bank and then getting the insolvency business. The banks should not do this. If they try to do it, the Government should prohibit it. The Royal Bank of Scotland, I am pleased to say, has announced that it will not appoint the same firm to do the financial inquiry and the insolvency work. It has found that it has been able to reduce the fees for insolvency work by 40 per cent. because it now has competitive bids from practitioners. It has reduced by 60 per cent. the number of receiverships it deals with, by the simple expedient of refusing to use the same firm.
The practitioners owe a duty of care only to the interests which put them in—usually the bank. They have no responsibility to other creditors, whose interests can be ignored because the practitioners and the interests which put them in effectively control the flow of information to other creditors and to the courts. The whole business is secretive and goes on behind closed doors. There is no requirement to publish the bids that the receiver is soliciting for assets or to ensure that the process is carried out fairly. The process should be open to ensure that it is above board. It pays receivers not to rescue a company, but to keep the procedure going for ever—because there are fees whatever happens.
It would be much easier if the auditor's papers were required to be available to the insolvency practitioner,

301
because the auditor has done the work and presumably knows where the assets are, where the problems are and where the creditors are. All that work must be done again for large fees by the insolvency practitioner.
The fact that that is done behind closed doors leads to doubtful, murky deals. Euroscan is a Nottingham-based printing company. An offer was made to buy the firm from the receiver for £320,000. The receiver eventually sold it for half that sum to a company formed by the receiver in which he was a major shareholder. That practice is not just curious; it is wrong.
In another notorious insolvency case a few years back, Corporate Communications was put into receivership. The receivership was operated by a firm that had acted as consultant to Corporate Communications. The receiver sold it back to the directors at half the valuation and got the fees for the operation. The creditors were left to whistle.
The list goes on. No wonder there are 500 to 600 complaints every year about insolvencies. Satisfaction of those complaints is rare indeed, because there is no way of securing satisfaction or of disciplining or controlling the practitioners. The heftiest disciplinary measure that I have heard of is the penalty imposed by the institute on Jordan and Stone in the Polly Peck liquidation. Against the guidelines, Coopers and Lybrand took on the insolvency work, even though it was working for Polly Peck in the Channel islands. When that was discovered, the firm claimed that its organisational records were not adequate for it to tell that it was working for Polly Peck. Coopers and Lybrand sells computer systems to other businesses, yet it did not know that. The machinery trundled into gear and a massive fine of £1,000 was imposed on each firm. The fees on that insolvency were between £15 million and £20 million. The fine for infringing the guidelines must have terrified the firms.
Everything is decided by private law, by discussion with the firms in which the shareholders play little part. They can complain, but they have no right of appeal. There is an ombudsman, but he is an industry figure paid by the professional body. I am sure that matters will improve under my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, but until now it has been no use protesting to the Department of Trade and Industry, because the Department has simply relayed the complaints back to the professional bodies.
The fees charade goes on. I can cite examples from the Bankruptcy Association. A plumber was bankrupted for non-payment of VAT. The bill was £2,100; the liquidation fees were £15,000. In another case, the accountants admitted doing six hours' work and charged £2,500 for it. In a further case, assets of £2.1 million were realised and the fees for realising that sum were £850,000.
I hope that my hon. Friend will take a cold, hard look at the area. I know that there will be fewer bankruptcies under Labour, because a Labour Government will run the economy for growth and expansion and improve the business climate.
I am not quite so sure about Eddie George as Governor of the Bank of England. His role in the matter worries me a little. He seems to be a master of creating the conditions for more bankruptcies by squeezing deflation, which he calls stability. I am sure that there will be economic problems, but I hope that they will not be as severe as under the previous Government.
Mr. John Burnett: There was an Adjournment debate on an analogous matter last Thursday, when the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) raised similar points. I suggested then that there should be a system analogous to that available to the public against lawyers for taxation of insolvency practitioners' bills and fees. The Financial Secretary said that she would look into that. Perhaps the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) will bear that in mind, and perhaps the Minister would consider a system whereby the taxation of the fees of insolvency practitioners would be available to the public, particularly creditors.
Mr. Mitchell: There should be some system of appeal so that people can contest the fees.
I hope that the Labour Government will look afresh at this matter. We are committed by our manifesto to encouraging a culture of rescue so that firms may keep operating rather than being looted and pillaged by insolvency practitioners. Why can we not have in this country something like chapter 11 in the United States, whereby a firm has 90 days in which to reorganise? Why can we not introduce a requirement that no creditor shall appoint any receiver immediately, and that companies shall have 28 days in which to secure additional resources?
Why can we not ban the accountancy firms that compile reports on companies from also taking on the insolvency work? Why cannot all plc receivers be forced to publish meaningful information about their affairs, such as the number of cases they have handled, and their fees? Why can we not require banks to publish the number of companies that they have placed in receivership? That might act as a deterrent and ensure that they think about those issues.
The Government are committed to many of those changes and to a more sympathetic approach. I hope that they will look at the real solution to the problem of insolvency: an effective independent regulator to represent the public interest. We are providing independent regulation in the financial sector, but that will be ineffective unless regulation is extended to accountancy, audit and insolvency where the need is greater. Only a regulator such as the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States can call people to account, establish an appeals process and ensure that the operation is run in the interests not of the insolvency industry and its practitioners but of the public and the wider community.
10.51 pm
Mr. Keith Vaz: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on securing the debate and on raising this important issue. I re-emphasise the points that he made about the liquidation of BCCI. BCCI closed six years ago on 5 July, and my hon. Friend mentioned the huge fees that the liquidators, Deloitte and Touche, accumulated. I am certain that that liquidation merits a full investigation by the Department of Trade and Industry—

303
even the charming Mr. Desmond Flynn cannot equal the massed ranks of a firm such as Deloitte and Touche. I hope that something can be done.
We recently met the Minister to discuss the issue, and he was very sympathetic to our cause. He is one of the most dynamic and effective Ministers in the new Government. If anyone can do something about the actions of Deloitte and Touche in the liquidation of BCCI, he can. I urge the Minister to hold an inquiry, and I shall write to the Chairman of the Trade and Industry Select Committee asking him to do the same. I hope that the Minister will have some positive news tonight about that matter.
10.53 pm
The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Nigel Griffiths): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on securing this debate on a matter that is of great interest to many within and outside the House. My hon. Friend is well known for his commitment to effective regulation in the accountancy and insolvency professions. Therefore, I listened to his speech very carefully
Insolvency is, by its nature, a situation in which there are many losers. Thankfully, relatively few individuals and companies will experience it. In 1995–96, 18,000 companies went into some form of insolvency procedure compared with a total of more than 1 million live companies. It is recognised that most failure is honest: people have tried their best, but the business has not worked for any number of reasons, such as changes in the market or in economic circumstances and other misfortunes that befall entrepreneurs across the spectrum. So the losers deserve, and have, our sympathy. They are the suppliers and other creditors—and the employees, many of whom have given years of loyal service. We must not forget the entrepreneurs and their families.
Joseph Chamberlain said in 1883 that the job of insolvency procedures is to
"protect the salvage and diminish the risk of wreck."
Those words are as true today as they were when first said. The job of official receivers and of insolvency practitioners is to do just that, often in the most complex of circumstances such as the liquidation of BCCI. Insolvency is an area in which the highest standards of competence must be married to the highest levels of probity.
In the 1980s, before the Insolvency Act 1986, insolvency was an unregulated profession. Anybody could become a trustee or liquidator. There were abuses by a minority, often people with no qualifications. In the 1990s, the situation has changed. We have an Act that means that practitioners may be authorised by recognised professional bodies. Those bodies are recognised by the Secretary of State, and they include the principal accountancy bodies such as the Insolvency Practitioners Association and the Law Societies of England, of Wales and of Scotland.
304
Recognition is on the basis that those bodies have rules to ensure that practitioners have appropriate educational qualifications and experience, and also that they remain fit and proper. The bodies are responsible for the regulation of the practitioners they authorise. The Secretary of State has a residual licensing function, and about 1,830 practitioners are currently authorised.
The regulatory process has developed considerably since its introduction 10 years ago—the Bass case resulted in tangible improvements—but there is no room for complacency. The professional bodies are well aware that the insolvency profession is the subject of continued scrutiny, and my Department will maintain the pressure for the highest standards both within the professional bodies and among the practitioners they regulate.
It is my view that, if self-regulation works, can be seen to work and works in the public interest, it is fine. Clearly, there are other ways of doing things. In the United States of America and in Canada, for example, the Government play a more direct and greater role in the regulation of insolvency practice, but such systems have their flaws. At the same time, self-regulation is a privilege, and if it is to continue it must be earned.
Recent headlines about the Maxwell case have caused widespread concern,—a concern that I share. I was pleased that the president of the SPI welcomed Mr. Justice Ferris's view that the remuneration of insolvency practitioners should
"reward value and not indemnify cost".
I hope that all practitioners will heed the judge's words and their president's endorsement of them.
The charging of fees that are out of proportion to the sums recovered is something that we are watching with considerable care. The taxation of fees on insolvency practitioners, which the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) kindly reminded the House was the subject of an Adjournment debate last week, has been subject to critical comment by Mr. Justice Ferris. Fees should never be a licence to print money. A liquidation committee has the job of approving the liquidator's fees and expenses. I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Tony Scott and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), and I am grateful for the work that was done in ensuring that I was properly briefed.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby made the House aware, a working party has been established to review the experience of 10 years of regulation of the insolvency profession. The working party comprises representatives of the seven RPBs and the insolvency service, and has terms of reference that clearly place consideration of the public interest at the centre of any proposals for the future. That must be right. I took a very early opportunity to meet the working party and to make clear my interest in its work. To call its work a sham is unfair, unworthy and untrue.
The working party's draft report will be available for public consultation. I urge hon. Members to make their views clear once they have studied it. I have requested a formal presentation by the working party of its finding when it produces the report.
I am aware that the working party is giving the matters that have been raised by hon. Members full and careful consideration. I shall give careful consideration to any

305
recommendations that the working party may make. Clearly, I have no wish to prejudge the outcome. However, I shall want the report to address the concerns that have been expressed in the House tonight. I undertake to ensure that my personal consideration of the working party's findings is given. I shall alert my hon. Friends to that.
306
We have in Britain one of the best ways of regulating the insolvency profession, but there are grounds for improvement. I have listened with care to what hon. Members have said. We shall, of course, continue to give those matters consideration.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Eleven o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Israel
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed the case of Mordechai Vanunu with the Foreign Minister of Israel; when he next plans to discuss this case with the Foreign Minister of Israel; and if he will make a statement on the Government's policy with regard to the conviction and imprisonment of Mordechai Vanunu. [6311]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 1 July 1997]: I have not yet had the opportunity to meet the Foreign Minister of Israel, and there is no meeting planned in the immediate future.

  We have no formal standing to intervene in this case as there is no evidence of any illegality prior to Mr. Vanunu's departure from the United Kingdom. However, we do take opportunities to raise with the Israeli authorities the matter of Vanunu's solitary confinement: this was done most recently on 1 July, with the Israeli Ambassador.

  Amsterdam Treaty
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 7 July,Official Report, column 330, what rules of procedure governed the (a) Amsterdam summit and (b) preceding IGCs in the last five years; what rules of procedure govern other international Heads of Government meetings attended by the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [8536]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Intergovernmental Conferences to consider amendments to the treaties are governed by Article N of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and are conducted by consensus. Beyond this, there are no formal rules of procedure for European Council meetings. It is for the incumbent Presidency to decide how to conduct summits.

  Other international heads of government meetings, such as meetings of NATO and the Commonwealth, are similarly not governed by formal rules of procedure.

  Gibraltar
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 7 July,Official Report, column 1331, on briefing the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, if he will make it his policy to consult the Gibraltar Government before matters of interest to Gibraltar are considered in any European Council. [8754]
  94
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  It is already the policy of Her Majesty's Government of Gibraltar on issues of interest to Gibraltar in the EU.

PRIME MINISTER

  Budget
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister if a Minister authorised confirmation of any details of the Budget to the media in advance of the Chancellor's Budget statement. [8871]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to the replies that I gave to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) on 2 July,Official Report, columns 288–89.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  "Mental Incapacity"
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has for further consultation on the recommendations of the Law Commission's report "Mental Incapacity" (Law Com. No. 231); and over what period. [8696]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government recognises the importance of clarifying the law in this area to provide a clear framework for those involved in making decisions on behalf of incapacitated adults and to ensure that the welfare and interests of the incapacitated person are adequately protected. It is hoped that progress will be made on the subject at an early opportunity.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what changes he plans to make to the qualifying criteria for legal aid as it affects asylum seekers. [8706]

  Mr. Hoon
  Sir Peter Middleton is currently reviewing all aspects of the provision of legal aid. He will produce a preliminary report in September. It would be premature to comment further. The Legal Aid Board is reviewing how the existing test is applied in practice, to make sure that legal aid reaches those, but only those, whose cases merit it.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Hendon Police Station
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the closure of Hendon police station; and if he will make a statement. [7546]

  Mr. Michael
  I have received no representations concerning the closure of Hendon police station. I understand that as long ago as 1992, the Metropolitan Police's building strategy identified the need for a new police station in the London Borough of Barnet and a new Area Headquarters for 2 Area. The investment of an
  95
  £8.8 million new building was based on relinquishment of other now redundant police buildings, leading to a review of policing strategy and tactics in the Borough. The findings were published as "Policing Barnet 2000", which included recommendations to amalgamate the Golders Green and West Hendon Divisions and to close Hendon police station due to its age, running costs and usage.

  I understand that the closure of Hendon police station has been set for 15 October. Colindale police station, which replaces Hendon and is a charging station as well as being the new 2 Area Headquarters, opened on 10 March.

  Members' Interests
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [8089]

  Mr. Straw
  The First Report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Cm 2850) made it clear that, when hon. Members are meeting Ministers or others on topics in which they have an interest, the onus is on the hon. Member to declare that interest not the Minister to know (paragraph 63 of Cm 2850). It is not practicable for Ministers and officials, amongst their other duties, 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 the Home Department if he will ensure that(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his 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. [8086]

  Mr. Straw
  The First Report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Cm 2850) recognised the value of enabling hon. 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, hon. 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.

  Commercial Lobbyists
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on what dates since 1 May(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department have met commercial lobbyists to discuss matters relating to the business of his Department; and if he will introduce a register of such meetings; [8087]
  96
  (2) on what dates since 1 May (a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department have attended meetings with organisations representing (i) commercial and (ii) non-commercial interests organised by commercial lobbying firms; and if he will introduce a register of such meetings. [8088]

  Mr. Straw
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained in response to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), on 2 June,Official Report, column 99, Ministers and officials in the Department receive deputations from many groups who are concerned to press their own interests or those of their clients, which Ministers and officials take due care to consider within the wider public interest and Government policy. It is not practicable to distinguish particular groups as lobbyists, not least because some reputable and representative bodies themselves use the services of commercial lobbyists to advise them on government relations. Ministers are however always ready to provide information on meetings held with outside bodies.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the local authorities who applied for but failed to receive assistance for the installation of CCTV in(a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96 and (c) 1996–97; [7914]

  (2) if he will list the local authorities who received assistance for the installation of CCTV in (a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96 and (c) 1996–97. [7915]

  Mr. Michael
  Closed circuit television (CCTV) Challenge Competitions have been held in 1994–95, 1996–97 and 1997–98. There was no competition in 1995–96 so I have given figures for the three years for which there have been competitions. In all three rounds, bids were invited from local partnerships. Bidding partnerships did not necessarily have local authority involvement. We are not able to identify bids which have local authority involvement but which have not been led by a local authority. There are some 760 bids which have not named a local authority as the lead partner. Numbers of successful and unsuccessful bids where a local authority was specified as the lead organisation are detailed in tables, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Emergency Services (Identity Cards)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for those providing emergency services to carry identity cards in(a) Braille, and (b) large print; and if he will make a statement. [7909]

  Mr. George Howarth
  None. Whether and in what form members of the emergency services should carry identity cards are matters determined locally by the service concerned.

  Raphael Rowe
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date the C3 department concluded its examination of the case of Raphael Rowe; what recommendation was made to the Home Secretary; what action he took; and if he will make a statement. [7858]
  97
  Mr. Michael
  In accordance with the normal conventions, we do not have access to the papers of the previous Administration. The papers have now been transferred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. It is being treated as a priority case, and we understand that the Commission are working towards taking a decision on it as soon as possible.

  Smoke Detectors
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask to the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will promote the adoption of schemes along the lines of the partnership in Stafford, between fire-rescue services, local councils and health visitors to fit and check smoke detectors in the homes of new-born babies. [7866]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We welcome the use of multi-agency projects to promote fire safety messages and will consider how far such schemes should be promoted nationally in the light of the pilot's success and the recommendations of the Community Fire Safety Task Force, which is due to report in the autumn.

  Victim Support (Review)
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give for the Interdepartmental Review of Victim Support(a) the expected completion date and (b) the cost of conducting the review. [8231]

  Mr. Michael
  I assume that the Question is referring to the Interdepartmental Working Group on Vulnerable or Intimidated Witnesses. The Group aims to report to Ministers by the end of the year. The Group is chaired by the Home Office and includes officials from various Government Departments and agencies as well as representatives from the Association of Chief Police Officers, Victim Support and the Local Government Association, who will participate as part of their normal duties. The costs of the review will therefore be met from the running costs of the individual Departments and agencies involved. It is not possible to predict the costs of the review in advance.

  Ticket Touts
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what Government proposals exist to outlaw ticket touts for sporting events; and if he will make a statement. [7994]

  Mr. Michael
  Ticket touting for designated football matches is already outlawed. We are considering in consultation with the Department for National Heritage and the police whether there is a need to outlaw ticket touting for any other sporting events.

  Immigration Rules
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to alter the concessions for overseas domestic workers under the 1979 Immigration Rules; and if he will make a statement. [8526]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I am examining in detail the operation of the concession for overseas domestic workers who accompany their employers to the United Kingdom.

  Strip Searching
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to introduce measures to record and monitor the incidence of strip searching in prisons other than for Category A prisoners; [8543]

  (2) what assessment he has made of psychiatric research in respect of the trauma suffered by victims of strip searching; and what changes he plans to make to the Government's policy on strip searching as a result; [8545]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of (a) rub-down searches, (b) metal detectors and (c) strip searches in the detection of drugs and explosives; [8544]

  (4) what guidelines govern the strip searching of women (a) during pregnancy, (b) soon after giving birth, (c) during menstruation, and (d) after operations. [8542]

  Ms Joyce Quin
  Detailed guidance on searching is set out in the Prison Service Security Manual, although there are currently no specific guidelines on the searching of women during menstruation, pregnancy, after birth or after operations. A copy of the Manual is in the Library.

  I have asked the Prison Service to review searching policy, with particular regard to strip searching. The review will consider the legal and policy framework and the need for revised procedures. The review team will take into account the usefulness of the current procedures; monitoring and statistical issues; relevant research; and whether the procedures should be different for women prisoners. I will announce the report's conclusions once it has been completed.

  Handguns (Compensation)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what provision he has made for compensation in respect of handguns under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 and the present Firearms (Amendment) Bill; and under which headings such sums appear in his estimates; [8727]

  (2) what provision he has made in his estimates for compensation payable under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 and the present Firearms (Amendment) Bill; and under which headings the sums appear. [8576]

  Mr. Michael
  The estimate for implementing the 1997 Act is about £135 million. This is made up of £50 million for the large calibre handguns that are surrendered, and £80 million for ancillary equipment. There will be administrative costs of up to £5 million.

  The estimate for implementing the Firearms (Amendment) Bill is £31 million, of which £12 million will be for small-calibre pistols and £19 million for the cost of the ancillary equipment used with those pistols.

  Blind and Partially Sighted Voters
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 9 July,Official Report, column 469, on blind and partially sighted voters, what plans he has to hold further meetings with the (a) Royal National Institute for the Blind and

  99
  (b) other organisations representing blind and partially sighted people to discuss proposals to help blind and partially sighted voters to vote in person. [8573]

  Mr. George Howarth
  No further meetings have yet been scheduled, but my officials are always ready to meet the Royal National Institute for the Blind or any other organisation representing blind and partially sighted people to consider proposals to help them to vote in person.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department will undertake research to test the practical timetabling implications of Braille templates and large print ballot papers. [8574]

  Mr. Howarth
  This Department is ready to discuss any proposals from organisations representing blind and partially sighted voters and to consider the practical and timetabling implications for the use of braille and large print templates. As to large print ballot papers, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of 9 July,Official Report, column 469.

  Police Discipline
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the powers of chief constables to discipline members of the police force. [8588]

  Mr. Michael
  Work has been going on for some time to revise procedures for dealing with misconduct by police officers and to introduce for the first time procedures to deal with unsatisfactory performance. All the police staff associations have co-operated in the development of new procedures and we hope to complete work on outstanding issues shortly.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many French nationals holding French passports have been arrested by British police stationed at the French terminus of the Channel Tunnel Shuttle within the bi-national zone and returned to the United Kingdom, without extradition procedures, for questioning or charging. [8884]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Since the opening of the Channel Tunnel system, Kent police advise that they have not arrested in Coquelles and escorted through the Tunnel to Cheriton any French national.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what review he has conducted, following the arrest by French police of Henry Tuson in June, of the procedures under the agreements permitting the French police to operate within the Channel Tunnel terminus at Cheriton and permitting British police to operate within the Channel Tunnel terminus at Sangatte; and what changes in procedures he is proposing. [8883]

  Mr. O'Brien
  We are not reviewing, nor do we propose to seek, changes to the bi-national Treaty and protocol arrangements by which French and United Kingdom police officers exercise their national police powers within the Channel Tunnel system. These arrangements are contained in the Treaty of Canterbury in 100
  force since 1987 and the Sangatte protocol in force since 1993. Similar arrangements apply to United Kingdom frontier controls in Coquelles.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many United Kingdom nationals holding United Kingdom passports have been arrested by French police stationed at the English terminus of the Channel Tunnel Shuttle within the bi-national zone and returned to France, without extradition procedures, for questioning or charging. [8885]

  Mr. O'Brien
  In the time available, we have not been able to obtain a detailed response from the French authorities. We have written to them and will forward their reply.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Iraq (Sanctions)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her oral statement of 1 July,Official Report, column 119, what proposals she has to refine the sanctions instrument against Iraq; and what account she takes of the impact of sanctions against the people of the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates in determining her sanctions policy. [8549]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 14 July 1997]: The UK co-sponsored SCR 986 (now renewed as SCR 1111) to help alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people by allowing the Iraqi Government to export oil worth $2 billion mainly for the purchase of humanitarian supplies. The impact of sanctions was a major consideration for the UN when setting the level of Iraqi oil exports permitted under SCRs 986 and 1111.

  More generally, I have asked my officials to consider the impact of sanctions regimes on poor people.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she expects her Department to complete its review on the provision of aid to Indonesia. [7871]

  Clare Short
  I expect the review of the Aid and Trade Provision to be completed within a few months. In the meantime I shall not approve any new ATP projects in Indonesia.

  Our existing support for sustainable forestry in Indonesia is likely to continue, with increased emphasis on benefits to poor people living in forest areas. We shall be looking for opportunities to support local non-government organisations in East Timor and if possible projects supporting Trade Unions in Indonesia. Other proposals will be considered on their merits.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Security Facilities Executive
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what targets he has set for the Security Facilities Executive. [9068]
  101
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I have set the following targets for SAFE for 1997–98:

  (a) to achieve 100 per cent. cost recovery in accruals terms, excluding 0.5 per cent. restructuring costs;

  (b) to achieve a Vote surplus of £0.2 million, excluding restructuring costs;

  (c) to achieve sales of £20 million;

  (d) to achieve a reduction in the unit costs of outputs of no less than 4 per cent. in real terms;

  (e) to achieve a customer satisfaction rating of 92 per cent.;

  (f) to reassess the timetable and produce a revised action plan for attaining Investors in People accreditation in 1999;

  (g) to maintain accreditation to quality standard ISO 9000, and extend it to cover Common Services.

TREASURY

  Youth Unemployment
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much youth unemployment levels have changed in each of the last four years; and by how much he expects them to change in each of the next four years. [7253]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Graham Brady, dated 15 July 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on how much youth unemployment levels have changed in each of the last four years, and by how much these are expected to change in each of the next four years.

  Legal abortions performed with (a) antiprogesterone, (b) without overnight stay, by type of purchaser, on women resident in England and Wales, health regions and health authorities, 1995

  With antiprogesterone

  Without overnight stay

  Place of usual residence

  Total

  NHS

  NHS agency

  Non-NHS

  Total

  NHS

  NHS agency

  Non-NHS

  England and Wales

  7,668

  6,649

  203

  816

  127,558

  71,683

  20,320

  35,555

  England

  6,983

  5,979

  202

  802

  122,879

  68,607

  19,966

  34,306

  Wales

  685

  670

  1

  14

  4,679

  3,076

  354

  1,249

  Northern and Yorkshire

  1,801

  1,766

  11

  24

  11,275

  9,328

  677

  1,270

  Northumberland

  276

  276

  0

  0

  290

  270

  3

  17

  Sunderland

  133

  133

  0

  0

  587

  540

  10

  37

  North Durham

  37

  35

  0

  2

  486

  438

  11

  37

  South Durham

  57

  57

  0

  0

  503

  467

  10

  26

  Tees

  554

  552

  0

  2

  544

  510

  8

  26

  South of Tyne

  13

  13

  0

  0

  626

  578

  10

  38

  North Cumbria

  279

  279

  0

  0

  355

  341

  0

  14

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  20

  18

  0

  2

  1,057

  1,010

  17

  30

  East Riding

  140

  139

  0

  1

  1,106

  934

  27

  145

  Grimsby and Scunthorpe

  24

  24

  0

  0

  629

  558

  7

  64

  North Yorkshire

  38

  36

  1

  1

  1,158

  892

  106

  160

  Bradford

  25

  22

  1

  2

  857

  655

  57

  145

  West Yorkshire

  30

  27

  2

  1

  1,115

  709

  187

  219

  Leeds

  158

  145

  5

  8

  1,527

  1,197

  126

  204

  Wakefield

  17

  10

  2

  5

  435

  229

  98

  108

  Trent

  913

  888

  2

  23

  9,233

  7,613

  115

  1,505

  North Derbyshire

  188

  188

  0

  0

  573

  452

  17

  104

  Southern Derbyshire

  11

  6

  0

  5

  1,108

  936

  11

  161

  Leicestershire

  38

  34

  0

  4

  2,166

  1,734

  28

  404

  Nottingham

  4

  1

  0

  3

  1,348

  1,172

  8

  168

  102
  The data you have requested for those under 25 years are shown in the attached table. ONS does not make forecasts of any of the labour market estimates data it produces.

  Great Britain, not seasonally adjusted, thousands figures are shown for winter of each year (December to February)

  Level

  Change on year

  1992–93

  867

  —

  1993–94

  785

  -82

  1994–95

  695

  -90

  1995–96

  656

  -39

  1996–97

  633

  -23

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey.

  Abortion
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many legal abortions were performed in 1995(a) with Antiprogesterone and (b) without overnight stay on women resident in (i) each health region and (ii) each district health authority; and how many of these abortions involved NHS hospitals, NHS agency arrangements and other purchasers. [7402]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Neil Gerrard, dated 15 July 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on abortions.
  The attached tables provide the information you requested.
  103

  Legal abortions performed with (a) antiprogesterone, (b) without overnight stay, by type of purchaser, on women resident in England and Wales, health regions and health authorities, 1995

  With antiprogesterone

  Without overnight stay

  Place of usual residence

  Total

  NHS

  NHS agency

  Non-NHS

  Total

  NHS

  NHS agency

  Non-NHS

  Trent (Cont.)

  Barnsley

  28

  27

  0

  1

  349

  227

  20

  102

  Doncaster

  10

  8

  0

  2

  664

  579

  5

  80

  Rotherham

  44

  43

  0

  1

  512

  417

  6

  89

  Sheffield

  420

  416

  1

  3

  971

  783

  14

  174

  North Nottinghamshire

  30

  27

  0

  3

  673

  545

  2

  126

  Lincolnshire

  140

  138

  1

  1

  869

  768

  4

  97

  Anglia and Oxford

  1,443

  1,358

  9

  76

  10,554

  7,012

  1,238

  2,304

  Cambridge

  79

  77

  0

  2

  610

  564

  0

  46

  North-west Anglia

  8

  3

  0

  5

  663

  535

  21

  107

  Huntingdon

  6

  3

  0

  3

  280

  250

  1

  29

  Suffolk

  4

  3

  0

  1

  1,184

  1,082

  7

  95

  East Norfolk

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1,068

  1,013

  4

  51

  Bedfordshire

  144

  127

  2

  15

  1,300

  950

  120

  230

  Berkshire

  399

  374

  0

  25

  1,718

  462

  241

  1,015

  Buckinghamshire

  94

  79

  6

  9

  1,568

  421

  771

  376

  Northamptonshire

  239

  229

  1

  9

  1,171

  852

  67

  252

  Oxfordshire

  470

  463

  0

  7

  992

  883

  6

  103

  North Thames

  961

  590

  39

  332

  29,640

  15,778

  3,588

  10,274

  North-west Hertfordshire

  12

  5

  0

  7

  625

  351

  11

  263

  South-west Hertfordshire

  2

  1

  0

  1

  643

  370

  14

  259

  Barnet

  18

  2

  1

  15

  1,332

  769

  55

  508

  Hillingdon

  9

  4

  0

  5

  767

  353

  151

  263

  East and North Hertfordshire

  28

  14

  0

  14

  1,085

  676

  6

  403

  Brent and Harrow

  38

  8

  9

  21

  2,799

  51

  1,765

  983

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  66

  14

  9

  43

  3,525

  1,164

  966

  1,395

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  286

  241

  1

  44

  2,508

  1,503

  42

  963

  North Essex

  22

  9

  0

  13

  1,781

  1,266

  3

  512

  South Essex

  182

  168

  1

  13

  1,597

  1,061

  5

  531

  Barking and Havering

  15

  3

  1

  11

  1,161

  827

  9

  325

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  38

  11

  0

  27

  1,984

  881

  31

  1,072

  East London and The City

  112

  72

  1

  39

  4,094

  3,081

  25

  988

  New River

  56

  2

  14

  40

  2,945

  1,708

  286

  951

  Camden and Islington

  77

  36

  2

  39

  2,794

  1,717

  219

  858

  South Thames

  401

  110

  92

  199

  22,098

  9,899

  4,352

  7,847

  Bromley

  29

  18

  1

  10

  690

  387

  26

  277

  East Sussex

  37

  10

  1

  26

  1,871

  872

  123

  876

  East Kent

  67

  64

  1

  2

  1,038

  633

  108

  297

  West Kent

  21

  4

  3

  14

  2,226

  542

  1,022

  662

  Bexley and Greenwich

  15

  3

  2

  10

  1,352

  808

  86

  458

  South-east London

  142

  2

  79

  61

  5,625

  2,460

  1,564

  1,601

  Croydon

  10

  1

  0

  9

  1,419

  350

  548

  521

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  37

  5

  0

  32

  2,853

  1,796

  53

  1,004

  Kingston and Richmond

  5

  1

  0

  4

  938

  536

  11

  391

  Western Surrey

  13

  1

  4

  8

  1,547

  278

  601

  668

  Eastern Surrey

  8

  1

  0

  7

  970

  564

  36

  370

  West Sussex

  17

  0

  1

  16

  1,569

  673

  174

  722

  South and West

  338

  284

  0

  54

  12,619

  8,458

  1,629

  2,532

  Dorset

  16

  9

  0

  7

  1,330

  628

  161

  541

  Portsmouth and South-east Hampshire

  8

  0

  0

  8

  1,325

  1,168

  26

  131

  Southampton and South-west Hampshire

  34

  21

  0

  13

  1,018

  403

  416

  199

  North and Mid Hampshire

  23

  9

  0

  14

  1,075

  230

  304

  541

  Wiltshire and Bath

  20

  12

  0

  8

  1,342

  290

  530

  522

  Isle of Wight

  1

  0

  0

  1

  179

  112

  27

  40

  Bristol

  122

  122

  0

  0

  1,464

  1,193

  47

  224

  Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly

  2

  1

  0

  1

  858

  774

  6

  78

  Exeter and North Devon

  22

  22

  0

  0

  789

  759

  0

  30

  Plymouth and Torbay

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1,212

  1,155

  6

  51

  Gloucestershire

  39

  37

  0

  2

  1,259

  1,040

  99

  120

  Somerset

  50

  50

  0

  0

  768

  706

  7

  55

  West Midlands

  146

  51

  49

  46

  13,332

  2,581

  6,507

  4,244

  Hertfordshire

  4

  2

  0

  2

  262

  198

  4

  60

  Worcester

  3

  1

  0

  2

  573

  106

  269

  198

  Shropshire

  6

  1

  0

  5

  851

  168

  384

  299

  North Staffordshire

  1

  1

  0

  0

  877

  645

  8

  224

  Coventry

  27

  1

  24

  2

  1,129

  7

  1,078

  44

  Dudley

  2

  0

  0

  2

  684

  6

  382

  296

  104 105

  Legal abortions performed with (a) antiprogesterone, (b) without overnight stay, by type of purchaser, on women resident in England and Wales, health regions and health authorities, 1995

  With antiprogesterone

  Without overnight stay

  Place of usual residence

  Total

  NHS

  NHS agency

  Non-NHS

  Total

  NHS

  NHS agency

  Non-NHS

  West Midlands (Cont.)

  Sandwell

  2

  0

  0

  2

  924

  13

  654

  257

  Solihull

  8

  5

  0

  3

  475

  51

  141

  283

  Walsall

  2

  1

  0

  1

  658

  438

  10

  210

  Wolverhampton

  2

  2

  0

  0

  816

  19

  353

  444

  South Birmingham

  9

  1

  0

  8

  1,250

  17

  757

  476

  North Worcestershire

  5

  1

  0

  4

  521

  237

  45

  239

  South Staffordshire

  22

  20

  0

  2

  1,221

  605

  65

  551

  Warwickshire

  23

  1

  18

  4

  1,293

  29

  1,182

  82

  North Birmingham

  30

  14

  7

  9

  1,798

  42

  1,175

  581

  North West

  980

  932

  0

  48

  14,128

  7,938

  1,860

  4,330

  North Cheshire

  5

  1

  0

  4

  840

  10

  698

  132

  South Cheshire

  17

  9

  0

  8

  1,388

  434

  708

  246

  Liverpool

  161

  155

  0

  6

  1,417

  1,091

  12

  314

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  53

  53

  0

  0

  733

  513

  31

  189

  Sefton

  65

  63

  0

  2

  566

  414

  3

  149

  Wirral

  10

  9

  0

  1

  852

  665

  37

  150

  Stockport

  4

  2

  0

  2

  706

  389

  75

  242

  North West Lancashire

  1

  1

  0

  0

  850

  59

  158

  633

  East Lancashire

  181

  177

  0

  4

  954

  817

  2

  135

  South Lanshire

  15

  13

  0

  2

  544

  334

  1

  209

  Wigan and Bolton

  188

  186

  0

  2

  1,037

  621

  16

  400

  Bury and Rochdale

  51

  47

  0

  4

  694

  453

  2

  239

  West Pennine

  25

  21

  0

  4

  88.3

  842

  48.3

  354

  Manchester

  163

  159

  0

  4

  1,274

  842

  15

  417

  Salford and Trafford

  39

  34

  0

  5

  916

  468

  28

  420

  Morecambe

  2

  2

  0

  0

  474

  345

  28

  101

  Wales

  685

  670

  1

  14

  4,679

  3,076

  354

  1,249

  Clwyd

  75

  69

  1

  5

  803

  227

  243

  333

  Gwent

  46

  44

  0

  2

  594

  213

  55

  326

  Gwynedd

  16

  16

  0

  0

  369

  252

  9

  108

  Mid Glamorgan

  96

  93

  0

  3

  784

  551

  27

  206

  Powys

  19

  93

  0

  3

  784

  551

  27

  206

  South Glamorgan

  199

  195

  0

  4

  694

  469

  12

  213

  West Glamorgan

  154

  154

  0

  0

  647

  636

  2

  9

  Dyfed

  80

  80

  0

  0

  616

  587

  1

  28

  Source:

  Abortion Statistics, England and Wales, AB Series.

  Unemployment (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many people aged 25 years or over have been unemployed for two years or more in(a) Northavon constituency and (b) South Gloucestershire unitary authority; and if he will make a statement; [7770]

  (2) how many people aged 18 to 24 years have been unemployed for more than six months in (a) Northavon constituency and (b) South Gloucestershire unitary authority. [7769]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 10 July 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Steven Webb, dated 15 July 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to reply to your recent questions (7769 and 7700) on unemployment in the Northavon parliamentary constituency and South Gloucestershire unitary authority.
  The measure of unemployment, derived from the quarterly Labour Force Survey (LFS), is defined on a consistent and internationally recognised basis set out by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and counts as unemployed people who are: a) without a job; b) available to start work within the next two weeks and c) have either looked for work in the last four weeks or are waiting to start a job already obtained. However, largely because it is a sample survey, information is not available from the LFS in as much geographical detail as from the claimant count measure described below.
  106
  ONS also publishes the monthly claimant count, which is based on the administrative system and includes all people claiming unemployment-related benefits (i.e. Jobseekers Allowance, Income Support or National Insurance credits) at Employment Service offices on the day of the monthly count, who on that day had signed on as unemployed and available to do any suitable work. Essentially, all people who attend an Employment Service office to sign are counted, irrespective of whether they are actually receiving benefit.
  The data you have requested can only be derived from the claimant count, as the labour force survey does not give details on duration of unemployment below county level.
  The figures in the attached table are for April 1997, the latest date for which figures are available.

  Numbers of claimants by age and duration, April 1997

  18 to 24-year-olds1

  25-year-olds and over2

  Northavon PCA

  106

  163

  South Gloucestershire UA

  272

  554

  1 Unemployed for six months or more.

  2 Unemployed for two years or more.

  Members' Interests
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [8117]
  107
  Mrs. Liddell
  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—para 63 of Cm 2850. It is not practicable for Ministers and officials, amongst their other duties, to vet requests for meetings against the Register of Members' Interests.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will ensure that(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his 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. [8114]

  Mrs. Liddell
  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.

  Mission Statement (MOD)
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence over the Ministry of Defence's mission statement. [8189]

  Mr. Darling
  It has been the practice of successive governments not to discuss consultations between ministers on policy matters.

  Bank of England
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for the review of the Bank of England's financial arrangements(a) the expected completion date and (b) the cost of conducting the review. [8242]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The review is under way and will be completed as soon as possible. The Treasury's costs will be met from within running costs provision.

  Commercial Lobbyists
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) on what dates since 1 May(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department have met commercial lobbyists to discuss matters relating to the business of his Department; and if he will introduce a register of such meetings; [8115]

  (2) on what dates since 1 May (a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department have attended meetings with organisations representing (i) commercial and (ii) non-commercial interests organised by commercial lobbying firms; and if he will introduce a register of such meetings. [8116]

  Mrs. Liddell
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained in response to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 2 June, column 99,
  108
  Ministers and officials in the Treasury and the Chancellor's other Departments receive deputations from many groups who are concerned to press their own interests or those of their clients, which Ministers and officials take due care to consider within the wider public interest and Government policy. As it is not practicable to distinguish particular groups as lobbyists, a register of such meetings is not kept.

  Unemployment (Warrington)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of people in the Warrington, North constituency who are unemployed but not claiming benefit. [6662]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 10 July 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Helen Jones, dated 15 July 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on unemployment in the Warrington North parliamentary constituency.
  The measure of unemployment, derived from the quarterly Labour Force Survey (LFS), is defined on a consistent and internationally recognised basis set out by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and counts as unemployed people who are: a) without a job: b) available to start work within the next two weeks and c) have either looked for work in the last four weeks or are waiting to start a job already obtained. However, largely because it is a sample survey, information is not available from the LFS in as much geographical detail as from the claimant count measure.
  Information about those ILO unemployed who are not claiming unemployment related benefits is collected for the LFS. However, no such information is available below county level.

  Life Expectancy
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average life expectancy of a United Kingdom citizen on(a) 1 May 1979 and (b) 1 May 1997. [7677]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 10 July 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Crispin Blunt, dated 15 July 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply, as Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), to your recent parliamentary question on average life expectancy in the UK.
  The expectation of life at birth in the United Kingdom, according to the mortality rates experienced in the year in question, are:

  1979

  11995

  Males

  70.0

  74.0

  Females

  76.2

  79.3

  1 Latest year for which data are available. Figures supplied by the Government Actuary's Department.

  Ecofin
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the recent council meeting of the Economic and Finance Ministers of the European Union. [8408]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I represented the UK at the Economic and Finance Council—ECOFIN—of the European Union in Brussels on 7 July.

  Most of the formal session was taken up by an open debate on Luxembourg's plans for work in ECOFIN during their Presidency of the EU. Key areas in the next six months include preparation for the Special Employment Summit, taking forward preparations for stage three of EMU and work on all financial aspects of enlargement of the Union and the Agenda 2000 dossier.

  The series of "structured dialogues" with Ministers of the Central and Eastern European countries continued with a discussion of capital liberalisation and reform of the financial sector, both in formal session and over lunch. Ministers from the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic and Poland outlined the progress their countries had made in these sectors. It was noted that, while progress had clearly been made, weaknesses remained and needed to be addressed. Hungary will host a seminar later this year to discuss further work.

  The Council carried out an examination of Italy's convergence programme for the period 1998 to 2000. It acknowledged the progress made by Italy on inflation, interest rates and currency stability. It welcomed the commitment to reducing the fiscal deficit, while stressing the need to implement structural reforms so a low deficit could be sustained in the longer term. The Council also noted the need to reduce the high level of accumulated government debt.

  The Council discussed informally a draft regulation on the technical specification for euro coins. No member state indicated disagreement with the substance of the regulation. I noted that the text had not yet cleared Parliamentary scrutiny.

  The Council discussed informally the EC Budget for 1998. Formal discussions will take place at the Budget Council meeting on 24 July.

  In further informal discussions, the Council agreed that ECOFIN should examine all issues related to Agenda 2000 and that the Presidency would propose that the meeting between Asian and EU Finance Ministers in September should include consideration of money laundering.

  The Presidency informed the Council that a meeting between EU and EFTA Finance Ministers would take place over dinner on the eve of the 13 October ECOFIN.

  Unemployment
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the annual change in unemployment for the under 25s for the past four years. [8213]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  110
  Letter from Tim Holt to Mrs. Teresa Gorman, dated 15 July 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on how much youth unemployment levels have changed in each of the last four years.
  The data you have requested for those under 25 years are shown in the attached table.

  Great Britain, not seasonally adjusted, thousands figures are shown for winter of each year (December to February)

  Level

  Change on year

  1992–93

  867

  1993–94

  785

  -82

  1994–95

  695

  -90

  1995–96

  656

  -39

  1996–97

  633

  -23

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey.

  General Government Consumption
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those years since 1974 when general Government consumption has fallen by 1 per cent. or more. [7890]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 11 July 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. David Willetts, dated 15 July 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on general government consumption.
  General government consumption, at constant prices has fallen by more than one per cent only in one year since 1974. This occurred in 1977.

  Earnings
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of the number of employees earning(a) less than £3.50 an hour, (b) less than £4 an hour and (c) less than £4.50 an hour; [8287]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of self-employed people earning (a) less than £3.50 an hour, (b) less than £4 an hour and (c) less than £4.50 an hour; [8288]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the number of people employed in the agricultural, fishing and food industries earning (a) less than £3.50 an hour, (b) less than £4 an hour and (c) less than £4.50 an hour; [8283]

  (4) what estimate he has made of the number of people employed by local authorities earning (a) less than £3.50 an hour, (b) less than £4 an hour and (c) less than £4.50 an hour; [8278]

  (5) what estimate he has made of the number of people employed in the transport industries earning (a) less than £3.50 an hour, (b) less than £4 an hour and (c) less than £4.50 an hour; [8279]
  111
  (6) what estimate he has made of the number of people employed by charitable organisations earning less than (a) £3.50 an hour, (b) £4 an hour and (c) £4.50 an hour; [8280]

  (7) what estimate he has made of the number of people employed in the retail sector earning less than (a) £3.50 an hour, (b) £4 an hour and (c) £4.50 an hour; [8282]

  (8) what estimate he has made of the number of people employed in (a) manufacturing and (b) services, earning (i) less than £3.50 an hour, (ii) less than £4 an hour and (iii) less than £4.50 an hour. [8281]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 11 July 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Michael Fallon, dated 15 July 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent questions (8288, 8279, 8280, 8281, 8282, 8283, 8287 and 8288) regarding earnings.
  The latest information, from the Labour Force Survey (LFS), is given in the attached table. Data for the self-employed are not available.

  Employees of all rates including those whose pay for the survey pay-period was affected by absence, LFS (winter/December 1996February 1997), Great Britain

  £3.50

  £4.00

  £4.50

  All

  Whole economy (SIC 92 Sectors A-Q)

  3,174

  4,786

  6,557

  Agriculture (SIC 92 sectors A-B)

  51

  76

  101

  Manufacturing (SIC 92 sector D)

  400

  680

  972

  Retail (SIC 92 division 52)

  703

  1,094

  1,427

  Services (SIC 92 sectors G-Q)

  2,612

  3,880

  5,269

  Transport (SIC 92 divisions 60–63)

  116

  155

  200

  Charity, voluntary organisation or trust

  60

  91

  130

  Local Government1

  192

  371

  585

  Full-time

  Whole economy (SIC 92 sectors A-Q)

  1,454

  2,319

  3,383

  Agriculture (SIC 92 A-B)

  45

  60

  84

  Manufacturing (SIC 92 sector D)

  292

  524

  779

  Retail (SIC 92 division 52)

  191

  326

  454

  Services (SIC 92 sectors G-Q)

  1,026

  1,618

  2,350

  Transport (SIC 92 divisions 60–63)

  86

  119

  155

  Charity, Voluntary organisation or trust

  19

  31

  44

  Local Government1

  47

  80

  163

  Part-time

  Whole economy (SIC 92 Sectors A-Q)

  1,720

  2,467

  3,174

  Agriculture (SIC 92 A-B)

  2—

  16

  18

  Manufacturing (SIC 92 sector D)

  108

  155

  192

  Retail (SIC 92 division 52)

  512

  768

  973

  Services (SIC 92 sectors G-Q)

  1,585

  2,262

  2,918

  Transport (SIC 92 divisions 60–63)

  29

  35

  45

  Charity, voluntary organisation or trust

  41

  61

  86

  Local Government1

  145

  291

  422

  1 Including police, fire services and locally controlled schools and colleges.

  2 Sample size too small to give a reliable estimate.

  SIC 92—denotes Standard Industrial Classification of economic activities 1992.

  Social Chapter
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the financial impact on the United Kingdom of expenditure under the social chapter. [8921]
  112
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  Article 2 of the Social Protocol says that financial consequences, other than administrative costs, of the Social Chapter shall not be applicable to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This exemption could be achieved by means of a rebate on the UK's contribution to the EU budget. The Government has decided, however, that pursuing such a rebate in future would be inconsistent with the agreement reached at the Amsterdam Council enabling the UK to participate in Council discussions under the Social Chapter. It has also decided not to seek reimbursement of its contribution to past budget years. The total claim which will be written off as a result of this decision—initially estimated at £1 million for budget years 1995 and 1996—will be reported in a note to the Consolidated Fund account.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Departmental Name Change
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to rename the Department for National Heritage to reflect its role in supporting culture and sport. [7346]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 14 July 1997, columns 43–44.

  Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport—what organisations of and representing disabled people were consulted by his Department before the publication of the Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds. [6978]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 9 July 1997]: My Department consulted the Centre for Accessible Environments on the revised Guide, along with many other organisations who have an interest in this area. These included the Departments for the Environment and Social Security, the sports governing bodies, and the local authority associations.

  Football Stadia (Wheelchairs)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport—for what reasons his Department has not implemented the Football Stadia Advisory Design Committee's recommendations concerning wheelchair spaces by(a) providing a definition of large stadia and (b) prescribing a formula in respect of the proportion of wheelchair spaces. [6967]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 9 July 1997]: The Football Stadia Advisory Design Committee's advice on wheelchair spaces was set out in their document "Designing for Spectators with Disabilities" which was published in 1992. The advice in the new Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds represents current good practice within sports ground safety but now defines what constitutes a large stadium and provides guidance on how many wheelchair spaces should be provided at sports grounds. This followed many lengthy arguments over the number of wheelchair places to be provided at major new

  113
  developments. The guidance should help ensure that adequate wheelchair access is provided at new stadia, and my Department will continue to monitor the situation.

  Historic Ruins (Thefts)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to prevent the theft of carved stone masonry and other architectural features from historic ruins with particular reference to monasteries. [7475]

  Mr. Banks
  It is a criminal offence to execute, or cause to be executed, works to a listed building without first obtaining listed building consent. This includes the theft of architectural features. The current penalty for conviction in a Magistrates' court is a fine of up to £20,000 or imprisonment for up to six months (or both), whilst on conviction in the Crown Court an unlimited fine or a prison sentence of up to two years (or both) may be imposed. In determining the amount of any fine, a magistrates' court or the Crown Court must have regard to any financial benefit which has accrued or may accrue from the offence.

  Planning Policy Guidance Note 15: Planning and the Historic Environment recommends that owners of listed buildings take precautions to safeguard architectural and other valuable features, especially when historic buildings are vacant or being refurbished. This may include removal for safe and secure storage, and the keeping of adequate records and photographs to help police in the recovery of stolen items.

  In the case of scheduled monuments, the prior written consent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is required in respect of any works involving the removal of a scheduled monument or any part of it. Failure to obtain consent, or to comply with any conditions imposed when granting consent, can result in a statutory maximum fine in the Magistrates' court of £5,000.

  BBC (Archives)
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what discussions he has had with the BBC concerning changes in the financial resources available for the maintenance of the BBC archives; and if he will make a statement; [8120]

  (2) if he will make a statement about the BBC's responsibilities under its Charter for the maintenance of its archives; and what arrangements he has for monitoring the BBC's fulfilment of those responsibilities. [8121]

  Mr. Fisher
  The obligations placed on the BBC in respect of its archives are set out in its Royal Charter and its Agreement with the Secretary of State. These include broad obligations to establish and maintain archives containing material relevant to the objects of the Corporation, and to make the archives available to the public with or without charge. The BBC's Information and Archives Department provides a full range of library and information services. Changes in arrangements for the delivery of these services within the BBC will not affect the BBC's archives or public access to them. While we have had no discussions with the BBC on this point, we are confident that it is continuing to maintain its archival responsibilities under the Royal Charter and Agreement.

  Lottery Funding
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much Lottery funding has been awarded to(a) opera music related projects and (b) jazz music related projects. [7855]

  Mr. Fisher
  To date, the following sums have been awarded:

  (a) In the Arts Council of England's National Lottery Capital programme, 23 opera projects have been awarded in principle funds totalling £80,064,341.48 opera projects applying to the A4E Express programme have been awarded £208,000.

  (b) In the Arts Council of England's National Lottery Capital programme, 12 jazz projects have been awarded in principle £824,351.115 jazz projects applying to the A4E Express programme have been awarded £509,000.

  Shooting Competitions
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what consultation has taken place with sports governing bodies regarding banning of shooting competitions; and if he will make a statement. [7992]

  Mr. Banks
  The Home Office has lead responsibility for firearms legislation and has been in regular contact with the British Shooting Sports Council and other organisations. I understand there has been no formal consultation exercise with specific sports bodies. Under the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, small calibre pistols would become prohibited but special arrangements may be made by the relevant Secretary of State to permit shooting events using these pistols to take place in any future Commonwealth and Olympic Games held in Great Britain.

  Sports Councils
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proposals are in hand for the review of the sports councils; and if he will make a statement. [7993]

  Mr. Banks
  Further to my right hon. Friend's speech during the "Sport for All" debate on 27 June 1997, column 1061, I can confirm that he is currently considering a number of possible changes to the way in which the present sports council structures are working. A further announcement will be made in due course.

  Museums and Galleries (Charges)
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, if he will list for the Review of Charges for National Museums and Galleries(a) the expected completion date and (b) the cost of conducting the review. [8239]

  Mr. Fisher
  We hope to be able to announce the proposals by the end of September.

  We estimate that the costs incurred by the Department in carrying out the review of admission charges will be in the order of £13,000. This estimate does not include the costs of the research by Glasgow Caledonian University on the impact of admission charges, which has been commissioned by the Museums and Galleries Commission.

  Arts Council Awards
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, when he expects the Arts Council of England to announce its grant decisions under the Arts for Everyone main programme; how many applications for awards under this scheme have been received; what is the total amount requested; and what estimate he has made of the size of the awards which will be issued under this programme. [7875]

  Mr. Fisher
  The Arts for Everyone main scheme invites applications from established organisations for between £500 and £500,000 for new arts activities. There have been two rounds this year. 1,000 applications were received for the first round (closing date 31 March 1997), totalling some £150 million. Funding decisions will be made by the Arts Council of England in August 1997, with a planned public announcement of awards in the middle of September.

  The second round (closing date 30 June 1997) received 700 applications seeking some £70 million. Funding decisions will be made by the Arts Council of England in November 1997.

  I understand that the Arts Council consider there to have been good quality applications across the whole spectrum of artforms and types of organisation, and that the Council anticipates that grants will range in size from £1,000 to £500,000. Given the level of applications received however, the Council does not anticipate being able to meet all applications in this round.

  Millennium Commission
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the names, designations and salaries of the Members of the Board of the Millennium Commission. [6127]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [pursuant to his reply, 3 July 1997, c. 228]: The table of Millennium Commissioners contained an error, the correct information is as follows:

  Millennium Commission

  Role

  Name

  Start date of present term

  Expiry date of present term

  Chairman

  Rt. hon. Chris Smith MP

  19 May 1997

  31 December 2000

  Member

  Rt. hon. Michael Heseltine MP

  23 May 1997

  31 December 2000

  Member

  Rt. hon. David Clark MP

  19 May 1997

  31 December 2000

  Member

  Dr. Heather Couper

  17 February 1994

  31 December 2000

  Member

  The Earl of Dalkeith, DL

  17 February 1994

  31 December 2000

  Member

  Sir John Hall, Bt

  17 February 1994

  31 December 2000

  Member

  Mr. Simon Jenkins

  17 February 1994

  31 December 2000

  Member

  Ms Patricia Scotland

  17 February 1994

  31 December 2000

  Member

  The Lord Glentoran, CBE DL

  17 February 1994

  31 December 2000

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Secondary Schools (East Sussex)
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average number of children in secondary school classes in East Sussex. [6983]

  Mr. Byers
  In January 1997 (provisional estimate), the average class size was 21.4 in one teacher classes in maintained secondary schools in the East Sussex Local Education Authority area.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his plans to change the status of grant-maintained schools; and when he expects to implement such plans. [7479]

  Mr. Byers
  The White Paper "Excellence in Schools" sets out our plans for introducing a new framework of community, aided and foundation schools. The new framework will incorporate all LEA and grant-maintained schools. We intend to introduce legislation to implement these plans in the Autumn.

  Child Care
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has for the long-term funding of the trained child-carers taken on under the new deal for the unemployed. [8035]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  We are committed to the production of a national childcare strategy, which will plan provision to match the requirements of the modern labour market and help parents, especially women, to balance family and working life. We are currently considering the content of such a strategy, and will make an announcement in due course.

  Young unemployed people will be offered the opportunity to obtain training and work experience in childcare as part of the New Deal programme. We hope this will create a larger skilled workforce in childcare, which will help to improve the overall position on childcare provision.

  New Deal
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of the New Deal's first year budget has been allocated to the provision of roadshows and regional conferences. [8204]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Some preliminary work has been undertaken to organise and deliver regional events.

  It is not possible yet to say what proportion of the first year's budget is to be allocated to these events as the total budget for the delivery of the New Deal is still to be allocated.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the total in direct payments each person will receive over their six month period on the New Deal under each of the options. [8211]
  117
  Mr. Smith
  Under the option of a job with an employer, young people will be paid the wage offered by their employers for the jobs they are doing. Young people who take up a job with a voluntary sector employer or in our Environment Taskforce will receive an allowance equivalent to benefit and will remain entitled to passported benefits: in addition, they will receive a grant of up to £400 paid in instalments. Those young people who take up the option of full-time education and training for up to twelve months will also receive an allowance equivalent to benefit and remain entitled to passported benefits: they will also have access to a discretionary grant to help with travel and other costs.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the estimated annual budget of the Advisory Task Force in the New Deal. [8206]

  Mr. Smith
  Members of the New Deal Advisory Task Force will be unpaid and will be supported by a small secretariat. The Task Force will be given the resources it needs to carry out the important role assigned to it in the Government's proposals for young and long-term unemployed people. It is not yet possible to estimate the annual budget.

  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) when the Government plans to extend the welfare to work assistance offered to the young and long-term unemployed and lone parents to those on incapacity benefit; [8034]

  (2) what assistance whilst training and working will be given to those on incapacity benefit under the Government's New Deal proposals for the unemployed. [8036]

  Mr. Smith
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his budget speech on 2 July that the Government was to set aside an additional £195 million to help those who are disabled or on Incapacity Benefit who want training or work and for other measures.

  As on Welfare to Work and the New Deal generally, the Departments for Education and Employment and Social Security will work closely together, to ensure this money is used effectively to encourage and enable disadvantaged disabled people to access new training and work opportunities.

  We will make an announcement about the type of assistance to be provided as soon as possible.

  Pupils (Bus Safety)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which laws govern the transporting of school pupils in a hired bus or coach. [7850]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The main legislation in England governing the transport of school pupils in a hired bus or coach is:

  Transport
  the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (as amended by the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994), the Transport Act 1985, the Road Traffic Act 1988, and regulations made under those Acts;

  Health and Safety
  the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992;
  118
  Home to School Transport
  the Education Act 1996 (section 509).

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment who is legally responsible for the safety of pupils carried on a bus or coach hired by a school. [8037]

  Ms Morris
  Schools and LEAs in England are responsible for ensuring that they use an appropriate bus or coach company. Operators of public service vehicles are legally responsible for ensuring passenger safety.

  Departmental Budgets
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what new plans he has to introduce cuts and savings in his Department as a result of the effect on his Department as a result of the effect on his Department's budgets for 1997–98 and 1988–99 of the upward revisions to the GDP deflators in the Budget on 2 July; and if he will make a statement. [8294]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 14 July 1997]: Along with all other Departments, my Department is reallocating spending within the Departmental ceiling as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment 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. [8293]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 14 July 1997]: The figures requested for my Department's spending plans within the Control Total are as follows: £13,141 million, £12,854 million, £13,343 million and £13,141 million.

  In addition my Department will benefit from part of the Welfare to Work expenditure and the New Deal for Schools, which are outside the Control Total, and which were announced in the Budget.

  Dearing Review
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects to issue the Government's response to the Dearing review of higher education. [8704]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend expects to make an initial statement when the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education under Sir Ron Dearing reports very shortly. This will be followed by a fuller policy statement later in the year.

  Students
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students there are in each institution funded by the Higher Education Funding Council on courses designated as(a) fee band 1, (b) fee band 2 and (c) fee band 3. [8594]

  Dr. Howells
  The information is set out in the following table.
  119

  Student numbers by fee band 1996–97

  Institution

  Band 1

  Band 2

  Band 3

  England total

  274,638

  364,080

  10,816

  Anglia Polytechnic University

  4,013

  3,642

  0

  Aston University

  1,866

  1,518

  0

  University of Bath

  1,558

  2,326

  0

  Bath College of HE

  664

  898

  0

  University of Birmingham

  4,957

  5,669

  658

  Birkbeck College

  16

  5

  0

  Bishop Grosseteste College

  66

  50

  0

  Bolton Institute of HE

  1,480

  1,903

  0

  Bournemouth University

  2,229

  3,812

  0

  University of Bradford

  2,031

  3,239

  0

  Bretton Hall

  87

  1,322

  0

  University of Brighton

  2,079

  3,702

  0

  University of Bristol

  3,236

  3,965

  698

  Brunel University

  2,510

  3,998

  0

  Buckinghamshire College of HE

  2,212

  2,356

  0

  University of Cambridge

  4,723

  4,445

  478

  University of Central England

  2,500

  4,355

  0

  University of Central Lancashire

  4,286

  5,251

  0

  Central School of Speech and Drama

  0

  431

  0

  Canterbury Christ Church College

  855

  1,330

  0

  Cheltenham and Gloucester CHE

  1,944

  2,228

  0

  Chester College of HE

  202

  1,320

  0

  Chichester Institute of HE

  759

  867

  0

  City University

  1,039

  1,629

  0

  Coventry University

  2,653

  5,413

  0

  Cranfield University

  42

  288

  0

  Cumbria College of Art and Design

  81

  541

  0

  Dartington College of Arts

  0

  440

  0

  De Montfort University

  4,359

  8,451

  0

  University of Derby

  3,345

  3,723

  0

  University of Durham

  3,563

  3,556

  0

  University of East Anglia

  3,264

  1,544

  0

  University of East London

  3,567

  2,976

  0

  Edge Hill College of Higher Education

  856

  1,177

  0

  Institute of Education

  0

  0

  0

  University of Essex

  2,370

  1,054

  0

  University of Exeter

  2,938

  2,607

  0

  Falmouth College of Arts

  114

  789

  0

  Goldsmiths College

  1,096

  1,375

  0

  University of Greenwich

  2,762

  4,099

  0

  The College of Guidance Studies

  0

  0

  0

  Harper Adams Agricultural College

  82

  1,329

  0

  University of Hertfordshire

  2,859

  5,380

  0

  Homerton College, Cambridge

  7

  7

  0

  University of Huddersfield

  2,682

  3,959

  0

  University of Hull

  3,552

  2,099

  0

  Imperial College

  608

  2,809

  322

  Keele University

  3,023

  533

  0

  University of Kent at Canterbury

  3,495

  1,531

  0

  Kent Institute of Art and Design

  0

  1,359

  0

  King Alfred's College, Winchester

  1,075

  736

  0

  King's College London

  2,283

  3,136

  434

  Kingston University

  3,067

  4,519

  0

  Lancaster University

  3,397

  2,338

  0

  La Sainte Union College of Higher Education

  654

  437

  0

  University of Leeds

  6,235

  6,696

  567

  Leeds Metropolitan University

  2,344

  5,144

  0

  University of Leicester

  3,294

  2,167

  371

  University of Lincolnshire and Humberside

  3,729

  4,077

  0

  University of Liverpool

  3,729

  4,568

  803

  Liverpool Hope College

  723

  1,574

  0

  Liverpool John Moores University

  3,314

  6,079

  0

  University of London-Senate

  423

  0

  0

  Institute of Cancer Research

  0

  0

  0

  Charing Cross and Westminster Medical School

  0

  287

  401

  Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine

  0

  170

  314

  United Medical and Dental Schools

  0

  510

  750

  London Business School

  0

  0

  0

  120

  Student numbers by fee band 1996–97

  Institution

  Band 1

  Band 2

  Band 3

  London School of Economics and Political Science

  1,682

  53

  0

  London Guildhall University

  3,775

  2,112

  0

  London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

  0

  0

  0

  The London Institute

  75

  5,260

  0

  Loughborough University

  2,001

  4,325

  0

  Loughborough College of Art and Design

  0

  693

  0

  University of Luton

  3,168

  4,066

  5

  University of Manchester

  6,188

  5,572

  905

  UMIST

  867

  2,637

  0

  Manchester Metropolitan University

  5,750

  8,249

  0

  Middlesex University

  5,947

  5,183

  0

  Nene College

  2,656

  3,249

  0

  University of Newcastle upon Tyne

  3,567

  4,506

  576

  Newman College

  114

  174

  0

  University of North London

  3,722

  3,329

  0

  North Riding College

  489

  574

  0

  Northern School of Contemporary Dance

  0

  159

  0

  University of Northumbria at Newcastle

  3,547

  5,441

  0

  Norwich School of Art and Design

  0

  624

  0

  University of Nottingham

  3,416

  4,673

  382

  Nottingham Trent University

  5,236

  8,300

  0

  Open University

  0

  0

  0

  School of Oriental and African Studies

  1,100

  5

  0

  University of Oxford

  6,194

  3,387

  294

  Oxford Brookes University

  1,552

  3,392

  0

  School of Pharmacy

  0

  281

  0

  University of Plymouth

  3,658

  7,892

  0

  University of Portsmouth

  3,150

  6,019

  0

  Queen Mary and Westfield College

  2,084

  2,330

  698

  Ravensbourne College

  0

  532

  0

  RCN Institute

  0

  66

  0

  University of Reading

  2,681

  3,254

  0

  College of Ripon and York St. John

  986

  1,084

  0

  Roehampton Institute

  1,586

  1,872

  0

  Rose Bruford College

  0

  433

  0

  Royal Academy of Music

  0

  276

  0

  Royal College of Art

  0

  0

  0

  Royal College of Music

  0

  328

  0

  Royal Holloway, University of London

  2,120

  1,738

  0

  Royal Northern College of Music

  0

  401

  0

  Royal Postgraduate Medical School

  0

  0

  0

  Royal Veterinary College

  0

  189

  228

  St. George's Hospital Medical School

  0

  296

  465

  College of St. Mark and St. John

  467

  573

  0

  St. Martin's College

  621

  776

  0

  St. Mary's College

  607

  763

  0

  University of Salford

  2,432

  6,723

  0

  University of Sheffield

  4,273

  5,632

  532

  Sheffield Hallam University

  3,928

  6,586

  0

  University of Southampton

  3,185

  4,578

  383

  Southampton Institute

  3,574

  5,215

  0

  South Bank University

  2,251

  4,278

  0

  Staffordshire University

  3,783

  5,683

  0

  University of Sunderland

  2,844

  5,257

  0

  Surrey Institute of Art and Design

  102

  2,077

  0

  University of Surrey

  363

  3,100

  0

  University of Sussex

  2,975

  2,610

  0

  University of Teesside

  3,123

  3,023

  0

  Thames Valley University

  3,988

  1,773

  0

  Trinity and All Saints

  494

  718

  0

  Trinity College of Music

  0

  312

  0

  University College London

  2,750

  3,769

  552

  UCL—Eastman Dental Institute

  0

  0

  0

  UCL—Institute of Neurology

  0

  0

  0

  University of Warwick

  4,189

  2,015

  0

  Westhill College

  329

  171

  0

  University of Westminster

  2,861

  4,013

  0

  Westminster College, Oxford

  257

  0

  0

  121

  Student numbers by fee band 1996–97

  Institution

  Band 1

  Band 2

  Band 3

  University of West of England, Bristol

  3,949

  6,389

  0

  Wimbledon School of Art

  0

  344

  0

  University of Wolverhampton

  4,262

  5,418

  0

  Worcester College of HE

  1,037

  984

  0

  Writtle College

  0

  756

  0

  Wye College, University of London

  71

  383

  0

  University of York

  2,284

  1,984

  0

  Askham Bryan College

  54

  121

  0

  Berkshire College of Art and Design

  0

  246

  0

  Bedford College

  0

  35

  0

  Birmingham College

  561

  1,337

  0

  Blackburn College

  458

  154

  0

  Blackpool and Fylde College

  127

  959

  0

  Bournemouth and Poole College of AD

  0

  566

  0

  Bracknell and Wokingham College

  0

  2

  0

  Bradford and Ilkley Community College

  1,075

  1,037

  0

  Brooklands Technical College

  54

  38

  0

  Carlisle College

  99

  0

  0

  Chesterfield College of Technology

  76

  13

  0

  Chichester College of Art, Science and Technology

  0

  27

  0

  City of Liverpool Community College

  49

  184

  0

  City College, Manchester

  71

  324

  0

  Cleveland College of Art and Design

  0

  356

  0

  Coalville Technical College

  7

  0

  0

  Cordwainers College

  0

  122

  0

  Coventry Technical College

  0

  93

  0

  Crawley College of Technology

  37

  21

  0

  Croydon College

  364

  317

  0

  Dewsbury College

  50

  228

  0

  Doncaster College

  410

  265

  0

  Farnborough College of Technology

  475

  771

  0

  Gloucester College of Art and Technology

  0

  109

  0

  Guildford College of FHE

  132

  113

  0

  Halton College of FE

  46

  150

  0

  Hammersmith and West London College

  145

  22

  0

  Harlow College

  0

  0

  0

  Havering College of FHE

  0

  132

  0

  Henley College

  44

  0

  0

  Herefordshire College of Art and Design

  0

  153

  0

  Herefordshire College of Technology

  153

  0

  0

  Highbury College, Portsmouth

  145

  0

  0

  Lackham College

  0

  25

  0

  Leeds College of Art and Design

  0

  256

  0

  Loughborough College

  160

  42

  0

  Mid-Kent College of HFE

  214

  309

  0

  NE Worcestershire College

  40

  242

  0

  New College Durham

  423

  226

  0

  Newcastle College

  229

  1,194

  0

  Newham College of FE

  0

  114

  0

  North East Surrey College of Technology

  163

  500

  0

  North Lincolnshire College

  0

  12

  0

  Northbrook College, Sussex

  86

  405

  0

  Northumberland College

  0

  40

  0

  The College of North West London

  17

  17

  0

  Oldham College of Technology

  112

  0

  0

  Peterborough Regional College

  58

  41

  0

  Rycotewood College

  0

  102

  0

  Salisbury College

  0

  158

  0

  Sandwell College of FHE

  49

  125

  0

  The Sheffield College

  27

  116

  0

  Solihull College

  43

  238

  0

  South Tyneside College of FE

  0

  15

  0

  Southport College

  0

  39

  0

  Sparsholt College, Hampshire

  0

  212

  0

  St. Helens College

  223

  235

  0

  122

  Student numbers by fee band 1996–97

  Institution

  Band 1

  Band 2

  Band 3

  Stockport College of FHE

  382

  406

  0

  Suffolk College of FHE

  997

  915

  0

  Swindon College

  78

  235

  0

  Thurrock College

  0

  0

  0

  Trowbridge College

  0

  17

  0

  Wakefield College

  66

  33

  0

  Walsall College of Technology

  0

  24

  0

  Warrington Collegiate Institute

  350

  548

  0

  West Thames College

  112

  0

  0

  Westminster College, London

  208

  0

  0

  Wigan and Leigh College

  294

  353

  0

  Wirral Metropolitan College

  260

  167

  0

  Worcester College of Technology

  126

  116

  0

  York College of FHE

  85

  117

  0

  Student numbers are full time undergraduates only receiving mandatory awards. Band 1 = classroom-based courses; Band 2 = laboratory and workshop-based courses; Band 3 = clinical elements of medical, dental and veterinary courses.

  Student Governors
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to change the arrangements concerning the numbers of student governors in institutions of further and higher education. [8792]

  Dr. Howells
  In respect of further education, governing bodies may include a student governor and we have no plans to end that arrangement.

  We shall be considering what the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education has to say about student membership of institutions' governing bodies in its report which is expected shortly.

  Education Funding
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much is currently spent by his Department(a) by proportion of national income, (b) by proportion of total education spending, (c) by proportion of Government spending and (d) in cash terms on (1) higher education, (2) pre-school education and (3) primary education. [8700]

  Mr. Byers
  The figures requested are as follows and are estimated outturn for 1996–97, the latest year for which such figures are available:

  (a) 2.0 per cent. (Source: FSBR 97 and PESA 97)

  (b) 30.0 per cent. (Source: PESA 97)

  (c) 5.0 per cent. (Source: PESA 97)

  (d) (1) Expenditure on HE and student support: £6,343 million. (Source: DfEE Departmental Report 1997)

  (2) Pre-school education expenditure in 1996–97 was £25.5 million which covered expenditure on the pilot schemes for nursery vouchers. (Source: DfEE Departmental Report 1997).

  (3) It is not possible to separate central Government expenditure between primary and secondary schools. However, in addition to central Government expenditure local education authorities spent some £18.4 billion on recurrent education expenditure in 1996–97, of which expenditure on under 5s accounted for £1.4 billion and expenditure on primary schools accounted for £5.7 billion. (Source: DfEE Departmental Report 1997).

  Disabilities
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what decision he has made on the future of the National Advisory Council on Employment of People with Disabilities; and if he will make a statement. [9138]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Government is committed to introducing comprehensive and enforceable civil rights for disabled people against discrimination. Employment and training issues will form an important part of this. The National Advisory Council on Employment of People with Disabilities (NACEPD) has provided advice on matters concerning the employment and training of disabled people for a number of years and I want it to continue to do so whilst the Government develops its proposals for the future. I have, therefore, extended to 31 March 1998 NACEPD's term of office and am pleased that most members have been able to accept the extension of their appointments.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Water Companies
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what actions are being taken by the water companies and by the Government on the 10-point plan he announced at the recent water summit. [7543]

  Mr. Prescott
  Each water company has now responded in a generally positive and constructive way to our proposals for action. I have today placed copies of each company's response in the Libraries of the House, together with a short analysis of them prepared by my Department.

  All water companies will now provide free supply pipe leakage detection and repair services to their household customers. Eight of the smaller companies have told me that they will limit the number of free repairs to any one service pipe. Two other of the smaller companies have decided to replace leaking supply pipes free of charge.

  All companies are taking action to promote water efficiency. All tell me that they are making significant efforts in the provision of water saving devices. Most are actively distributing devices to reduce toilet flush volumes or else are making them available free on request. A very few companies have decided to conduct trials before committing themselves to widespread promotion; they should take very careful note of what the majority of companies have done and are doing. Most water companies already offer free water efficiency audits to household customers. The remainder are developing or evaluating the service they intend to offer and I want them to go firm very soon. All water companies confirmed that they have in place a wide variety of measures to encourage water efficient gardening. All companies see clear roles for the Environmental Task Force in promoting water efficiency.

  In addition to the 14 companies which had already done so, eight companies have indicated to me that they are now prepared to conclude formal arrangements with the Director General of Water Services in respect of their
  124
  compensation schemes for drought-related supply interruptions. I want to see these eight licence amendments made by October. I also want the six other companies which indicated that they are minded to accept licence amendments to resolve their reservations with the Director General and to have the amendment process agreed by the same time. That also applies to the one company which still declares itself unable to accept licence amendment. All companies have expressed a willingness to consider compensation payments if they have to issue advice to boil or refrain from using mains water for reasons within their control.

  Those companies which have not already done so are now moving to agree with the Environment Agency a publicly-available drought contingency plan. I am pleased that the industry is united in taking this action in advance of our bringing forward legislation to make it a statutory requirement when Parliamentary time allows.

  We asked companies to do more to explain to their customers their water supply performance targets and how well they are being met. Altogether, I believ`e that companies are taking appropriate action. But none should rest contented with their efforts.

  I shall be looking for sustained commitment to all of these actions. So I shall be writing to all companies again in November, asking for an update on the various activities and initiatives they have described to me.

  We have kept to our part of the plan. At its head was tough action by the Director General of Water Services on leakage. He wrote to all water companies on 22 May, setting out the process by which he will establish mandatory targets.

  We said that we would make new water regulations which would include significantly tighter requirements for water efficiency. The proposed recommendations of the Government's Water Regulations Advisory Committee were published for consultation on 19 June. We also announced that we would be conducting two reviews. My right hon. Friend Michael Meacher announced on 25 June the launch of a review of the water charging system in England and Wales.

  Today, we are launching the review of the water abstraction licensing system in England and Wales. A key aim will be to ensure that abstraction licensing and related processes provide full protection for the environment while enabling fair and flexible arrangements for meeting properly-managed demand for water resources. This review will be conducted jointly by my Department and the Welsh Office, in consultation with the Environment Agency and the Office of Water Services. My Department will be writing today to interested organisations, inviting their representations on a wide range of issues associated with water abstraction. A copy of this letter has also been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  City Diesel
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the potential environmental benefits of City Diesel. [7444]
  125
  Angela Eagle
  The Government is very interested in the opportunities offered by cleaner fuels, including ultra low sulphur diesels such as "City Diesel", particularly their potential to play a part in the improvement of urban air quality. My Department is currently sponsoring comparative trials of both cleaner conventional fuels and alternative fuels, including natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas and bio-diesel. "City Diesel" is included in the trials, which will provide an indication of both the emissions reduction potential of the fuels and of the practicability, reliability and driveability of vehicles which use them. The results of the trials will be published later this year.

  Members' Interests
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions 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. [8101]

  Angela Eagle
  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 and not the Minister to know.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will ensure that(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his 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. [8098]

  Angela Eagle
  The First Report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Cm 2850) restated the requirement to declare any interests, both in the Register of Members' Interests and on other appropriate 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. Their representations are viewed with their declared interests in mind.

  Voluntary Sports Clubs
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what Government proposals exist to harmonise rate relief for voluntary sports clubs in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [7990]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There is no disparity between the rate relief regimes in England and Wales. Non-profit making sports clubs in both countries are eligible for relief at the discretion of their billing authority. If relief is granted, 75 per cent. of the cost is borne by the Exchequer.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the 126
  timetable for SRB 4 bids; if he will make a statement on the criteria which will be used; and when the accompanying guidelines will be issued. [7923]

  Angela Eagle
  My hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning, in answer to a question from the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) on 7 July 1997 Official Report, column 338, announced the publication of supplementary guidance for Round 4 of the Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund. This guidance contains details of both the criteria which will be used to assess proposals and the revised timetable for submitting proposals. Copies of the guidance have been placed in the Library of the House. I have also arranged for my hon. Friend to be sent a copy of this guidance.

  Commercial Lobbyists
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) on what dates since 1 May(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department have attended meetings with organisations representing (i) commercial and (ii) non-commercial interests organised by commercial lobbying firms; and if he will introduce a register of such meetings; [8100]

  (2) on what dates since 1 May (a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department have met commercial lobbyists to discuss matters relating to the business of his Department; and if he will introduce a register of such meetings. [8099]

  Angela Eagle
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained in response to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 2 June 1997,Official Report, column 99, Ministers and officials in the Department receive deputations from many groups who are concerned to press their own interests or those of their clients, which Ministers and officials take due care to consider within the wider public interest and Government policy. As it is not practicable to distinguish particular groups such as lobbyists, the Department cannot keep a register of such meetings.

  Earth Summit
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Government supports the 1992 Rio Declaration; and if he will make a statement. [8128]

  Angela Eagle
  At the recent Special Session of the UN General Assembly, which reviewed progress since the Rio Earth Summit, the United Kingdom reaffirmed its commitment to all the agreements reached at Rio, including the Rio Declaration.

  Judicial Reviews
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how many occasions since 1994–95 legislation has been introduced by the Department(a) to remove the effects of judicial review decisions and (b) to implement them. [7846]

  Angela Eagle
  No legislation has been introduced for either of those purposes since 1994–95 by my Department or by its predecessor Departments.

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the total expenditure by the LDDC from public funds on the preparation of derelict sites to build-ready standard for the private residential developer in the Isle of Dogs area. [8020]

  Angela Eagle
  Of the sites owned by the London Docklands Development Corporation in the Isle of Dogs area which have a residential use, the Corporation have spent £8.773 million since 1981 on a range of preparation works. Repairs and enhancements to River walls, River walkways and a pier account for just over half of that expenditure. These works have fed through into land values. Actual and forecast receipts from the subsequent sale of the sites to private developers total £19.916 million with the excess of income over expenditure invested by LDDC in regeneration programmes. Additionally, in two instances (Arnhem Wharf and Masthouse Terrace) where LDDC undertook preparation works, 62 per cent. and 49 per cent. respectively of the subsequent residential development has been for social housing; in a third instance (Maconochies Wharf) the development has been a self-build project.

  Housing (Urban Sites)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of new houses he proposes should be built on redeveloped urban sites. [8123]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The current target is to build half of all new homes on reused sites. The Green Paper on Household Growth last year sought views on an aspirational target of 60 per cent. We are considering all the responses received in helping us decide how the issues surrounding household growth, including this one, should be taken forward.

  Policy Planning Guidance
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to review the Policy Planning Guidance Note 17 Sport and Recreation; and if he will make a statement. [7989]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My officials have received the final report of the research project on The Effectiveness of Planning Policy Guidance on Sport and Recreation last week. My department will now be considering the implications of the report's findings for the future of Planning Policy Guidance Note 17 on Sport and Recreation.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assistance is available to local authorities to clean up contaminated land; and if he will make a statement. [7997]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Ms Ellman) on 12 June 1997,Official Report, columns, 519-20.

  Hedgerow Protection
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for the review of the new system of hedgerow protection(a) the expected completion date and (b) the cost of conducting the review. [8233]

  Angela Eagle
  The group, which has been set up to review how the Hedgerows Regulations 1997 might be strengthened, is expected to report its recommendations to Government by the end of December 1997. The cost of providing the secretariat to the group is estimated to be of the order of £10,000. It will be met from within existing Departmental resources.

  Safer Cities Programme
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for the future of the safer cities programme. [7984]

  Angela Eagle
  Government funding for the remaining Safer Cities projects will end, as planned, by March 1998. The Safer Cities programme is part of the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) and new crime prevention and community safety schemes can be included in bids for round 4 of the SRB Challenge Fund. Over 50 per cent. of the schemes successful in the first three rounds of the Challenge. Fund have had crime prevention as an objective. The Government regards crime prevention as a vital issue directly affecting quality of life.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will give for the review in respect of implementing plans for regional development agencies in England(a) the expected completion date and (b) the cost of conducting the review. [8256]

  Angela Eagle
  We have announced that legislation will be introduced in the Autumn to establish regional development agencies in England. On 11 June we began a consultation on the functions and organisation of regional development agencies. The closing date for responses is 5 September 1997. The consultation is being managed by staff in my Department and by the Government Officers in the Regions; the costs are being met from existing budgets.

  Incineration Plants
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will make a statement on his policy on the use of incineration plants to change waste into energy; [7614]

  (2) if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of the importation of waste for incineration in United Kingdom waste to energy incineration plants. [7615]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 14 July 1997]: The Government believes that the recovery of energy from waste, for example through incineration, can play an important part in sustainable waste management practices, as part of a general effort to move up the hierarchy of waste management options. It should, however, play its part within a wider context in which reduction, re-use and

  129
  recycling of waste are favoured. It is also essential that both new and existing incinerators meet stringent emissions standards to protect public health and the environment.

  On the specific issue of the transfrontier shipment of waste, policy is set out in the United Kingdom Management Plan for Exports and Imports of Waste. Under the Plan, which is legally binding throughout the United Kingdom, imports of waste for genuine recovery operations are allowed, as long as they comply with the technical criteria set out in the Plan, and subject to the controls set out in Council Regulation (EEC) No.259/93 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community.

  In the case of imports to a waste-to-energy incineration plant, the tests set out in the Plan which will be applied by the competent authority in coming to a decision as to whether the import is for genuine recovery or not are as follows:

  (a) that the primary purpose of the facility is for the dual function of incinerating waste and generating energy, rather than the disposal of waste;

  (b) that the calorific value of the waste input should be at least 11,000kJ/kg, calculated by reference to a representative sample of the waste; and

  (c) that the heat generated/energy recovered must be used either by the operator himself or by third parties.

  Competent authorities should also have regard to the nature of any contamination of the waste in the light of the guidance in the Plan.

  These criteria are intended to limit opportunities for incorporating wastes into fuels without benefit to the calorific value or the burning characteristics of the waste, simply to avoid the costs of disposing of those wastes in the country where they are produced.

  Sprinklers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to make compulsory the installation of sprinklers in factories, shops and warehouses; and if he will make a statement. [8510]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The relevant Statutory Building Regulation Requirement B3(3) states:

  To inhibit the spread of fire within the building, it shall be sub-divided with fire resisting construction to an extent appropriate to the size and intended use of the building.

  The Department gives guidance on how to comply with the requirement and in multi-storey retail and industrial buildings the guidance suggests that the floor area can be doubled if a sprinkler system is installed. In the case of multi-storey storage buildings the guidance suggests that the cubic capacity of the building can be doubled if a sprinkler system is installed. The Department is considering giving revised guidance on the use of sprinklers in relation to compartment size in single storey buildings.

  M3
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the road accident rate for the M3 between junctions 10 and 11 since it was opened. [7822]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Junction 10 to 11 is a relatively new junction on the M3 and only 2 years of accident data are available 1995–1996 with 1 and 6 accidents respectively). For small areas or short road lengths, longer time periods are required to ensure a robust estimate. Personal injury road accident data are published in 'Road Accidents Great Britain—The Casualty Report'. Data for 1996 are due to be published in August 1997 and a copy will be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Traffic estimates (the other component of accident rates) have not yet been robustly estimated for this j unction.

  Roads (PFI)
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the use of the Private Finance Initiative to build public roads. [7876]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government has conducted a review of PFI and we are taking measures to reinvigorate it. Private financing has been shown to offer value for money in the procurement of DBFO projects. Value for money would be critical to our consideration of any future projects taken forward under private financing arrangements.

  Roads Programme
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will give for the strategic review of the trunk roads programme(a) the expected completion date and (b) the cost of conducting the review; [8253]

  (2) if he will give for the review of roads (a) the expected completion date and (b) the cost of conducting the review. [8254]

  Ms. Glenda Jackson
  We have said that we will announce decisions on the accelerated part of the review this month and the conclusions of the main review next Spring. The review is being conducted by officials within their normal duties. We intend to meet costs from planned Departmental Running Costs.

  Franchising Director
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish his Department's review into the Rail Franchising Director's Objectives, Instructions and Guidance; and if he will make a statement. [8538]

  Ms. Glenda Jackson
  The Government is currently reviewing the Franchising Director's Objectives, Instructions and Guidance and will make an announcement in due course.

  British Railways Board
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list(a) the current acreage of land owned by the British Railways Board and (b) its current value. [8519]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  At the beginning of this financial year the Board held some 906,000 square feet of freehold office accommodation. Total acreage of land is not readily available. The book value of the freehold properties held by the Board at that date was £155.62 million.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each of the last three years the land disposed of by the British Railways Board, indicating the acreage involved and its value. [8520]

  Ms Jackson
  Several hundred freehold properties have been sold by the British Railways Board each year over the past three years. Total acreage and square footage is not readily available. Gross sales proceeds have been:

  1994–95: £37.92 million

  1995–96: £50.80 million

  1996–97: £65.60 million

  Rail Safety (Educational Visits)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken to ensure the continuation of the scheme operated by the British Railways Board for train drivers to visit schools to alert children to the dangers of trespassing on railway lines. [8521]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Railtrack are continuing this scheme in conjunction with train operating companies and the British Transport Police.

  Trespass and vandalism remain a serious problem on the railway. The Health and Safety Commission's Railway Industry Advisory Committee is setting up a Working Group to help develop a national strategy and action plan for this area.

  Air Traffic Control Centre, Prestwick
  Mrs. Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects building work to begin on the new Scottish air traffic control centre at Prestwick. [7089]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Sky Solutions consortium has been named by National Air Traffic Services Ltd. (NATS) as the preferred bidder for this contract, and negotiations are expected to continue for several months before a contract is signed. NATS will then be in a position to draw up a detailed timetable for the project.

  Shadow Tolling
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of shadow tolling as a way of funding road-building; [8222]

  (2) what assessment he has made of shadow tolling as part of an integrated transport strategy; [8223]
  132
  (3) what assessment he has made of the potential consequences for local demand management and improvements in public transport of shadow tolling; and if he will make a statement; [8224]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the potential environmental consequences of shadow tolling. [8225]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  DBFO projects show that private financing with remuneration under shadow tolling arrangements can offer value for money. There is development work in hand to see whether it is possible to refine the shadow toll payment mechanism so that it is less dependent upon traffic related payments, placing greater emphasis on the safety of the road and the availability of lanes for traffic use. Other aspects of shadow tolling as a funding mechanism for road schemes will be considered further in the context of our comprehensive spending review and in the work to develop an integrated transport strategy.

  London Bus Services
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what information is available to London bus passengers in relation to standards of service requirements set out in contracts with operating companies. [8753]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  London Transport Buses' commitment to its passengers is contained in "The London Bus Passenger's Charter" which is freely available to members of the public. Private bus operators are required to take steps to comply with the Charter.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Export Licences
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the(a) number and (b) export licence categories of open individual export licences granted to Procurement Services International which are currently valid indicating how long each licence will be in operation. [3689]

  Mrs. Roche
  Procurement Services International has no current Open Individual Export Licences.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if she will list the(a) amounts, (b) export licence category, (c) countries and (d) security forces of destination since 1988 of (i) general purpose machine guns, (ii) sub-machine guns and (iii) other automatic weapons; [3696]

  (2) if she will list the number and categories of export licences granted to British companies since 1988 for the export of (a) general purpose machine guns, (b) sub-machine guns and (c) other automatic weapons. [3437]

  Mrs. Roche
  General purpose machine guns, sub-machine guns and other automatic weapons are controlled under categories ML1, ML2 or PL5018 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order. An initial search of records shows around 8.000 licences issued under these categories by the previous Government. Details could therefore be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  133
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the(a) number and (b) export licence categories of open general export licences granted to (i) Greys Defence Systems and (ii) Procurement Services International which are currently valid, indicating how long each licence will be in operation. [3694]

  Mrs. Roche
  Open General Export Licences, (OGELs) are not issued to specific exporters. They can be used by any exporter provided, in most cases, they register with my Department. There are currently 21 OGELs in force, for which registration is required for 14. Neither Greys Defence Systems nor Procurement Services International are registered to use any OGEL. OGELs remain in force until they are revoked.

  Indonesia (Exports)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list(a) the number and (b) the categories of export licences granted for the export of military, security, police surveillance systems to Indonesia since 1988, indicating the (i) type of equipment or systems, (ii) companies to whom the licences were granted and
  (iii) destination agency. [3620]

  Mrs. Roche
  To identify equipment in these broad categories would entail a significant computer and paper record search which could be done only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the(a) number and (b) categories of export licences granted to Arte Systems Ltd. for the transfer of surveillance or communication systems and equipment to Indonesia since 1988. [3636]

  Mrs. Roche
  Readily available records, since 1991, show that no export licences for this equipment to Indonesia have been granted to Arte Systems Ltd. To search records for earlier years would involve disproportionate costs. Moreover the Grays Group Limited have confirmed in writing that no export licence applications have been made or licences granted to the company.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the licences granted for the export of 40mm grenade launchers to Indonesia since 1988. [3383]

  Mrs. Roche
  The export of 40mm grenade launchers are controlled under entry ML2 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order. To identify licences covering these specific goods, all licences assessed as coming under ML2 would need to be searched and this can be done only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the(a) number and (b) categories of open (1) individual and (2) general export licences granted to (i) Procurement Services International and (ii) Greys Defence Systems since 1988 for the export of military security and police equipment or services to Indonesia indicating the equipment and services provided. [3692]

  Mrs. Roche
  Neither Procurement Services International nor Greys Defence Systems hold current Open Individual Export Licences, nor have we any record of these companies ever holding such licences.
  134
  Open General Export Licences (OGELs) are not issued to specific exporters. They can be used by any exporter provided, in most cases, they register as an OGEL user. There are four OGELs, which allow the export of certain goods controlled under the Military List (Schedule 1 of Part III of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, as amended) to a wide range of destinations including Indonesia. Three of these OGELs require exporters to register if they are using them. Neither Greys Defence Systems or Procurement Services International are registered. The fourth OGEL allows licensable goods to be exported after prior importation into the UK for exhibition purposes. It could not therefore be used for UK origin exports.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the companies which are current applicants for export licences covering command, control, communication and information systems to Indonesia. [3434]

  Mrs. Roche
  There are no current export licence applications for command, control, communication and information systems to Indonesia.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list(a) the licences granted for the export of System X to Indonesia, (b) which agency it was destined for and (c) the year in which it was exported. [3525]

  Mrs. Roche
  Although some advanced optional features of the System X telephone exchange remain licensable, the majority of System X systems were removed from export control in 1992. From readily available records, which date from 1991, no export licences have been granted for this equipment to Indonesia.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she is minded to grant current export licence applications for the command, control, communication and information systems to Indonesia. [3435]

  Mrs. Roche
  There are currently no such applications. Should any applications for such goods be received in the future they would be considered in light of the outcome of the Government review of the criteria used in considering licence applications for the export of conventional weapons announced on 22 May.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what control she has over the transfer of(a) armoured vehicles and (b) armoured personnel carriers to (i) Indonesia and (ii) other countries from the GKN Defiance licensed production facility in the Phillippines. [3639]

  Mrs. Roche
  The control of exports from the Phillippines is a matter for the Phillippine Government. Any export of licensable goods from the UK to the Phillippines would be subject to UK export controls.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the (i) number of (ii) categories of open general export licences granted to(a) Greys Defence Systems and (b) Procurement Services International since 1988 for the export of military, security and police equipment or services to Indonesia; and if she will make a statement on the equipment and services provided. [3687]
  135
  Mrs. Roche
  Open General Export Licences (OGELs) are not issued to specific exporters. They can be used by any exporter provided, in most cases, they register as an OGEL user. There are four OGELs, which allow the export of certain goods controlled under the Military List (Schedule 1 of Part III of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, as amended) to a wide range of destinations including Indonesia. Three of these OGELs require exporters to register if they are using them. Neither Greys Defence Systems nor Procurement Services International are registered for any of these. The fourth OGEL allows licensable goods to be exported after prior importation into the UK for exhibition purposes. It could not therefore be used for UK origin exports.

  Computers (Millennium Compliance)
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to assist small businesses which are adversely affected by(a) Government departments and (b) others failing ensure that their computer systems are millennium compliant. [5165]

  Mrs. Roche
  Within Government itself, Departments and Agencies are responsible for their own systems. The Central IT Unit, through its agency the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA) is supporting the public sector with a range of specific activities, including the publication of extensive guidance by CCTA. As part of that support, CITU and CCTA have identified a programme of action to ensure that Government's response to the year 2000 problem is co-ordinated and coherent. This involves each department is producing a detailed and costed plan by October to ensure that all their systems are modified and tested by January 1999.

  Each private sector organisation is responsible for its own systems. The DTI is working closely with Taskforce 2000 to alert all businesses to the problem and encourage action.

  If, despite these efforts, a computer failure in one organisation adversely affects another party, the normal legal remedies will be available.

  Phthalates
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what representations she has received concerning the health risks posed by the release of phthalate from babies' teething rings; and if she will make a statement; [4487]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the health risks posed by the release of phthalates from babies' teething rings; and if she will make a statement; [4488]

  (3) what plans she has to introduce a ban on toys containing phthalates; and if she will make a statement; [4489]

  (4) if she will list the EU countries which currently operate cautionary bans on certain plastic toys releasing phthalates when chewed; and is she will make a statement. [4490]

  Mr. Griffiths
  [holding answers 24 June 1997): I have received no representations concerning the health risks posed by the release of phthalates from either toys or teething rings. The Department of Health has advised that there are unlikely to be any health risks to children from phthalates in such products provided that exposure does
  136
  not exceed the relevant Tolerable Daily Intakes (TDIs) for phthalates set by the EC Scientific Committee for Food. This advice takes account of all available information on the possible effects of phthalates, including recent studies concerning oestrogenic activity.

  There is no ban on plastic toys containing phthalates applying in any of the European Union member states. I am aware, however, of some media reports about teething rings, containing phthalate plasticiser, which were removed from sales in Denmark, Spain, Greece and Italy. I am advised they were never on sale here. Trading standards departments in this country have been provided with full details of the products identified. The Danish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) analysed 11 PVC products sold by a variety of companies in Denmark. Three of these products produced higher levels of a specific phthalate than expected on extraction by a test apparently developed by the Danish EPA. The remaining eight items examined released no, or very small, amounts of any phthalate and were considered to be acceptable by the Danish authorities. PVC teething rings as such have not been banned.

  In view of this, I have no plan to introduce a ban on toys or teething rings containing phthalate chemicals. A note reviewing the background to this issue, prepared by officials in my Department and Department of Health together with scientists at the Laboratory of the Government Chemists, has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Internet
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions she has had with other Government and law enforcement agencies on the need to regulate illegal and harmful matter on the Internet; and if she will make a statement. [5868]

  Mrs. Roche
  My Department has worked in close co-operation with the Home Office, the Metropolitan Police, and Internet Service Providers (ISPs), to facilitate the development of a system for dealing with illegal content on the Internet, using existing law and the existing penalties. This framework is known as Internet Watch.

  As a general rule, existing law applies to the Internet exactly as it does in the "physical" world. This means that ISPs have a clear liability for any illegal content which they host on their servers, but only once they have been made aware of it, and if they have then failed to take reasonable steps to remove it. Internet Watch offers ISPs a service, facilitating their compliance with existing law. An ISP who chose not to co-operate within the framework would risk prosecution and the full force of the criminal law. Internet Watch has already proved successful in bringing about the removal of illegal material, and in passing details to the police.

  VAT (Fuel)
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will estimate the effect on domestic energy consumption of a reduction in VAT on domestic fuel and power to 5 per cent. [6262]
  137
  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 1 July 1997): Since the announcement of this cut in the budget we have had the opportunity to fine tune the modelling of this VAT reduction. As a result, it is estimated that reducing VAT on domestic fuel will increase domestic sector energy consumption by around 0.7 per cent.

  Gas-fired Power Generation
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will review the process of granting permission for new gas-fired power generation; and if she will make a statement. [7215]

  Mr. Battle
  We are currently considering a number of applications for consent for new power stations and will examine these on a case by case basis.

  Bananas
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action Her Majesty's Government have taken in support of the European Commission's appeal against the World Trade Organisation's ruling on the EU banana import regime; what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the import of bananas from the West Indies to Europe; what assessment he has made of the impact of United Kingdom policy on the Caribbean banana industry; and if he will make a statement. [7476]

  Mrs. Roche
  The UK has supported the European Commission's robust defence of the EU banana regime in the World Trade Organisation. We are continuing that support during the appeal to the Appellate Body. The EU policy of offering preferential access for bananas from the West Indies and other traditional ACP suppliers is one that the UK supports. The Government is well aware of the importance to the West Indies of continuing access, given the dependence of their economies on banana exports.

  EU Low Voltage Directive
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what instructions she plans to give to the United Kingdom representatives at the European Commission meeting on 8 July to discuss guidelines for implementation of the low voltage directive; and if she will make a statement; [7163]

  (2) what consultations she plans to have with industry about changing the scope of the low voltage directive; [7164]

  (3) what factors underlay her Department's decision in 1995 that cable management products should not remain within the scope of the low voltage directive; and if she has plans to review this decision. [7165]

  Mr. Battle
  My officials sought to establish a clear understanding of the position on the guidance on issues such as the application of the Directive to cable management products, components and the CE marking requirements.

  The scope of the Directive has not changed since its adoption in 1973 and I have no plans to consult on this particular issue. However, the Department's Standards and Technical Regulations Directorate recently consulted
  138
  with interested parties and met with industry representatives, on a draft European Commission guidance document about the Low Voltage Directive.

  The Department also plans a further meeting with industry representatives to discuss the proposed Commission guidance at the earliest mutually convenient time.

  Although the Directive was adopted in 1973, it was only after the adoption of the CE Marking Directive in 1993, that an approach was first made to the Department by a manufacturer of plastic conduit, for an opinion as to whether the Directive covered such items.

  Cable management products, such as plastic conduit, will fall within the scope of the Low Voltage Directive only if they are items of electrical equipment as described within the meaning of Article 2 of the Directive. In order to answer the enquiry a detailed analysis was undertaken by my Department to clarify the meaning of electrical equipment. As the Directive does not define what is meant by electrical equipment it is necessary to base this on the ordinary English language usage of the term in the context in which it appears in the Directive. The natural meaning of these words and hence the scope of the Directive, implies a product which operates between the voltage limits set, is not an electrically passive product and has the potential to generate electrical, mechanical, thermal or other hazards, all arising from its electrical, nature which must be protected against, as required by Article 2 of the Directive.

  At a meeting of member States on 8 and 9 July to discuss a proposed European Commission guidance document on the Directive, the European Commission requested that the Department review its position. My officials are presently carrying out a further review and I hope that a mutually acceptable form of wording can be found for inclusion in the guidance.

  Trade Fair Support
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will place in the Library copies of her letter to potential sponsors of trade fair seminar support programmes. [7679]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 10 July 1997): Officials wrote to potential sponsors and a copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the sample companies exhibiting overseas with a DTI supported group in the last two years who have been sent the Support for Overseas Trade Fairs and Seminars consultation document. [8145]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 11 July 1997]: A list of the sample of companies exhibiting overseas with a DTI supported group in the last two years, which have been sent a copy of the DTI's consultation paper "Support for Overseas Trade Fairs and Seminars—The Way Forward" is being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  To enable the paper to reach as many exporters as possible it has also been sent to a wide range of business intermediary organisations and has been publicised so that as many organisations, firms, or individuals wishing to participate in the consultation can do so.

  International Nuclear Safety Convention
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will give for the review of international obligations under the International Nuclear Safety convention(a) the expected completion date and (b) the cost of conducting the review. [8248]

  Mr. Battle
  The United Kingdom's report on its implementation of obligations under the Convention on Nuclear Safety will be submitted to the Convention's Secretariat by 29 September 1998, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure for the Convention. This report and those of all other Contracting Parties to the Convention will be reviewed at a meeting at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) starting in Vienna on 12 April 1999 and expected to last two to three weeks. At this early stage, costs of conducting the review are unclear.

  Royal Greenwich Observatory
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will provide a detailed breakdown of the savings expected to be made as a result of the closure of the Royal Greenwich Observatory. [7588]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 10 July 1997]: The Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council's proposals to restructure and co-locate its operations will lead to savings of at least £3 million per annum in salary costs full details are set out in Annex E of PPARC's report "The Future Management of the Royal Observatories", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. In addition, approximately £1 million per annum savings will be made in overhead costs.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will estimate the market value of the Royal Greenwich Observatory at Cambridge. [7589]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 10 July 1997]: The value of the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council's assets is routinely recorded for accounting purposes but because of the uncertain effect of restrictions in the lease, a true market value for the RGO could be established only by a full market test.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the Government's policy for renewable energy; and what measures she proposes to take to increase the use of renewable energy. [8539]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on 10 June 1997,Official Report, column 417.

  Life Patent Directive
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the draft Life Patent directive under consideration in the European Parliament was(a) published for consideration by the Council of Ministers and (b) considered by them; what recommendation they made on the directive, what consultations Her Majesty's Government have entered into with interested bodies in
  140
  the United Kingdom; if the Government have signed the requisite Explanatory Memorandum; and what parliamentary scrutiny this directive will receive. [8505]

  Mr. Battle
  The Commission's proposal for a Directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions was published on 13 December 1995, and formally sent to the Council of Ministers on 25 January 1996. The Opinion of the European Parliament on the Commission's proposal is still awaited and to date consideration by the Council has taken place only at official level. No recommendation have emerged.

  The Commission's proposal was circulated for comment in February 1996 to some 50 interest groups representing the professions, industry, consumers, trades unions, the research community, groups concerned with social and environmental impact of biotechnology, and including member organisations of the Standing Advisory Committee on Industrial Property, a body set up to advise Ministers on all aspects of industrial property.

  An Explanatory Memorandum was submitted by this Department on 4 March 1996, and further Memoranda will be submitted as matters proceed before the Council.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the calculation and forecasts for CO2 emissions contained in European Union document 8468/97 from the Secretary-General. [8160]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 14 July 1997]: I submitted an Explanatory Memorandum to Parliament on 9 July 1997 on the European Union document 8468/97, a copy of which is in the Library of both Houses. My officials have discussed the scenario for future carbon emissions with the European Commission and believe it fairly describes likely broad trends at European Union level.

  Nuclear Power (Documents)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 9 July 1997,Official Report, column 485, what matters are dealt with in the 1952 Atomic Energy Board (minutes and papers); and if she will now transfer those documents to the Public Record Office for release for public inspection. [8708]

  Mr. Battle
  The 1952 Atomic Energy Board (minutes and papers) dealt with a variety of issues pertinent to the UK nuclear industry. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs stated in his answer of 9 July, many of these records contained material of a sensitive nature and therefore, both IKAEA and MOD agreed at the last review of this file in 1996, that these papers should not be released at this time.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to increase accessibility to information held by(a) her Department and (b) the Atomic Energy Authority relating to nuclear power generation. [8709]

  Mr. Battle
  I attach considerable importance to freedom of information and am concerned to improve the level of information made available to the public. The Department of Trade and Industry already makes a significant amount of information about nuclear power generation available through publications such as the
  141
  Energy Report and the Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics. It will continue to explore ways of increasing access to this information both proactively and in response to specific requests. This is being reflected, for example, in the more forthcoming answers to Parliamentary Questions, on a range of nuclear issues, in the last two months.

  The UK Atomic Energy Authority is publicly committed to a policy of frank and open communication of information wherever possible.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what papers relating to the Windscale fire in 1957 are still held by her Department; and if she will now pass those to the Public Record Office for release for public inspection. [8707]

  Mr. Battle
  All known files relating to the Windscale fire are already in the Public Record Office. I am not aware of any other files held by the Department. The official UKAEA historian, Lorna Arnold has also written a book on the Windscale fire, "Windscale 1957—Anatomy of a Nuclear Accident" published 1992, which includes an exhaustive reference list.

  BT (Special Share)
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Government have clarified for British Telecom its position on the Special Share in advance of the company's annual general meeting of 16 July. [9069]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have written to British Telecom stating that the Government is willing to redeem its Share. This decision was taken after careful consideration of the specific issues involved; it has no implications for other Special Shares where any decisions would have to take account of the different circumstances in each case.

  Solar Power
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade and Industry how many homes in Britain are solar powered currently; and if he will set targets to increase this number. [7098]

  Mr. Battle
  There are currently four solar powered (photovoltaic) domestic housing schemes in the UK, comprising a total of 14 homes in the private sector. However, there are over 40,000 homes with active solar heating and many more with passive solar design features. The current cost of installing photovoltaic (PV) panels (1.5–3.0kWp) onto a domestic house is typically between £10,000 and £15,000 per property. PV electricity costs typically around 5–10 times more than conventionally generated electricity, depending on specific circumstances. However, the technology is developing rapidly, and with continually falling costs due to economies of scale, PV may become a strategically important electricity generating technology in the future.

  I recently announced a review of policy on new and renewable energy, and the Government's support for the solar energy industry will be considered in that context.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Hospital Admissions (Waiting Costs)
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the annual social security cost among those waiting for hospital admissions(a) in total and (b) broken down by benefit category in the last year for which figures are available. [8705]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  No information is recorded about whether or not benefit recipients are waiting for hospital admission.

  SERPS
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his oral statement of 9 July,Official Report, column 1037, if SERPS will continue and expand in line with demand from all those that wish to remain members of the scheme; and if he will make a statement. [8590]

  Mr. Denham
  The forthcoming Pensions Review will look at all aspects of pensions provision. We will retain SERPS for those who wish to remain members of it.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his oral statement of 9 July,Official Report, column 1037, what firm proposals he has to enable pensioners to belong to a pension scheme that is flexible, secure, gives value for money and does not reduce people's savings if they become unemployed; what price formula he intends to use when increasing the basic state pension in line with prices; how long he expects his Department's wide ranging review of pensions to take; and if he will list the organisations that will be consulted. [8591]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government is committed to the development of stakeholder pensions, which will be good quality second pension schemes. They will allow those without access to occupational schemes to invest their contributions in a secure, flexible and value for money pension. A framework for stakeholder pensions will be developed in close consultation with potential pension providers and representatives of employers, employees and the self-employed. We will also build on the good quality second pensions that many employees enjoy by supporting the existing framework of occupational pensions.

  My right hon. friend the Secretary of States, will shortly announce details of the Pensions Review, including when it will report.

  As part of the review, we will engage in a process of wide ranging consultation. We will involve all key players, including employers, employees, the pensions industry, and pensioners' organisations. The Government will ensure that the views of pensioners are heard.

  My right hon. Friend is required to review annually the value of Basic Retirement Pension to determine whether it has retained its value in relation to the general level of prices. The results of that review will be announced in due course. We will retain the Basic State Retirement Pension as the foundation of pension provision, increasing it as least in line with prices.

DEFENCE

  Pay Deductions
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors underlie the length of delay between the deduction of maintenance money from serving personnel's wages and its subsequent payment to separated partners. [7714]

  Dr. Reid
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. G. Winsland to Mr. Gordon Marsden, dated 15 July 1997:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the factors which may delay maintenance payments made by Service personnel as this matter falls within my responsibility as Chief Executive of the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency (AFPAA).
  There are 3 general processes employed by the Agency to make maintenance payments from Servicemen's pay:

  (a) Automatic credit transfer through the Bankers Automated Clearing System (BACS).

  (b) Payable Orders in the form of a cheque, which are sent by post and are drawn against HMPMG account.

  (c) Allotment or payment books which are pre-funded and against which credits are drawn on the due date.

  In each case, the method of payment is dictated by the Child Support Agency (CSA), the Court, or the dependant. The 3 systems have proven to be effective and payments are rarely delayed, other than through exceptional circumstances such as postal delays, technical failure in the BACS system or the production of the payable orders. In the vast majority of cases, payments deducted from pay due on the last working day of each month are credited to the separated partner's account or paid by cheque on the same day.
  Usually, AFPAA is directed to make payment to the CSA or Magistrates Court for them in turn to issue funds to the individual. From past experience, this can be the most significant factor in any delay between the deduction of maintenance from a Serviceman's pay and subsequent payment to a separated partner. If your question relates to a specific case, I would be happy to initiate a review if you can provide the necessary detail.

  Army Individual Training Organisation
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give for the review of the Royal Navy's approach to efficiency in the Army's Individual Training Organisation(a) the expected completion date and (b) the cost of conducting the review. [8261]

  Dr. Reid
  There is no such review. I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) on 24 June,Official Report, columns 421-22.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those areas of his departmental responsibility currently under consideration for defence agency status. [8132]

  Dr. Reid
  There are three areas within my Department currently under consideration for Defence Agency status. These are the Defence Communications Service, Army Equipment Support and the RAF Support Management Group.

  Trident
  Professor Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to include the Trident missile programme within his Strategic Defence Review; and if he will make a statement. [7985]

  Dr. Reid
  The Government's commitment to retain Trident is one of the policy principles on which the Strategic Defence Review is founded. Within this framework the review will examine all aspects of our deterrence requirements.

  Plastic Baton Rounds
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 10 June,Official Report, column 372, when Ministers were made aware that the plastic baton rounds being used in Northern Ireland were firing too fast. [8266]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 11 July 1997]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and I were informed on 14 May 1997 that tests had indicated that some of the baton rounds manufactured in 1994 exceeded the specified velocity. We decided to make an announcement as soon as we knew the results of further tests, and we did so on 10 June.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Housing Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many tenants of private landlords received housing benefit between 1 April 1996 and 1 April 1997; and how many of those were subsequently found to have committed housing benefit fraud. [7186]

  Mr. Worthington
  The information required to answer the question fully is not readily available at present but I will write to the hon. gentleman shortly and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

  Mr. Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) housing executive and (b) DSS fraud inspectors were in situ between 1 April 1996 and 1 April 1997. [7185]

  Mr. Worthington
  Between 1 April 1996 and 1 April 1997, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive did not employ its staff as fraud inspectors. During this period, fraud investigations and prosecutions were carried out on behalf of the Housing Executive by staff of the Social Security Agency's Fraud and Prosecutions Branch and by the Royal Ulster Constabulary under the Theft Act.

  During 1996–97, the Housing Executive appointed five staff to commence work on the development of a Security Strategy for Housing Benefit. Procedures operated by Housing Executive staff administering Housing Benefit include fraud prevention measures, as a result of which it is estimated that, for the six month period ended 31 March 1997, some £1.5 million was saved.
  145
  On 1 April 1996 the Social Security Agency had in place 61 staff involved in fraud prevention and detection. On 1 April 1997 the number had risen to 88, 70 of whom include the investigation of referrals from the Housing Executive in their duties.

  Mr. Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many tenants of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive received housing benefit between 1 April 1996 and 1 April 1997; and how many of those were subsequently found to have committed housing benefit fraud. [7187]

  Mr. Worthington
  The information required to answer the question fully is not readily available at present but I will write to the hon. gentleman shortly and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

  Gearóid O'Dochartaigh
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the grounds for arrest of Gearóid O'Dochartaigh on 14 June. [7369]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 14 July 1997]: Following a stone-throwing incident in Londonderry on 14 June 1997 Gearóid O'Dochartaigh was stopped and questioned by police as to his identity, under the provisions of section 25 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996. On failing to satisfy police in this regard, O'Dochartaigh was arrested under the provisions of section 18 of the Act and taken to Strand Road RUC Station where he subsequently provided satisfactory details of his identity. He was subsequently released into the custody of his mother, who attended the station.

  Irish Language
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps she has taken to ensure that the rights of Irish language speakers in Northern Ireland under the law are protected with particular reference to the use of their given name. [7368]

  Mr. Worthington
  [holding answer 14 July 1997]: Current administrative guidelines on the use of Irish in official business in Northern Ireland recommend that officials should respect the wishes of any individual who has indicated a desire to be known by a personal name in the Irish language. Unless it appears that he or she is not generally known by that name, a personal name in Irish should be accepted for all official purposes, including correspondence and official documents.

  Plastic Baton Rounds
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) pursuant to her answer of 19 June,Official Report, columns 275–76, what assessment she has made of Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary's opinion of the need to review RUC guidelines on the use of baton guns more accurately to reflect the Association of Chief Police Officers' manual of guidance; [8529]

  (2) pursuant to her answer of 30 June, Official Report, column 63, what assessment she has made of Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary's opinion on the risks involved in the routine use of baton rounds; [8530]
  146
  (3) pursuant to her answer of 19 June, Official Report, columns 275–76, what assessment she has made of Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary's concern in respect of the application of the existing guidelines on baton rounds to the protection of property and detection of crime. [8528]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 14 July 1997]: HMIC's report contains eight main recommendations relating directly to the handling of public order situations and the use of PBRs. These recommendations have been accepted by the Chief Constable. They will be taken into consideration in the current review of baton gun guidelines, which ACPO is conducting and in which the RUC is participating.

  Holding Centres
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment she has made of the 4th Annual Report of the Independent Commissioner for the Holding Centres; and if she will make a statement. [7411]

  Mr. Ingram
  A consultation exercise on the recommendations made in the 4th Annual Report of the Independent Commissioner for the Holding Centres is at present being conducted. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider making a statement when the consultation exercise has been completed.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will publish the code of practice for video-recording interviews with suspects detained in the holding centres. [7412]

  Mr. Ingram
  The code of practice for the silent video-recording of interviews with suspects detained in the Holding Centres is at an advanced stage of preparation. It will be published as soon as possible.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will review guidelines for the holding centres to enable detainees to be provided with writing materials. [7413]

  Mr. Ingram
  The provision of writing materials for detainees is being considered as part of the consultation exercise.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the police have a right of veto over the decision of the Independent Commissioner for the Holding Centres or his Deputy to attend a detainee interview. [7414]

  Mr. Ingram
  The question as to whether or not the Independent Commissioner or his Deputy attends a detainee interview is in the first place a matter for the detained person. Additionally though, in exceptional circumstances, the police have a right of veto over the Commissioner's decision to attend. This is reflected in the Commissioners' Terms of Reference.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will place a copy of the RUC document, "Notice to Detained Persons," in the Library. [7415]
  147
  Mr. Ingram
  The Codes of Practice for the Detention, Treatment, Questioning and Identification of detained persons set out very clearly and in some detail the requirements in terms of informing detained persons of their rights while in custody.

  A copy of the Codes of Practice is available in the Library.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list(a) the functions carried out in each of the three holding centres and (b) the allocation of space accorded to each. [7416]

  Mr. Ingram
  The function of each of the Holding Centres is to provide for the detention and interview of persons detained under Section 14 of the Prevention of Terrorism (TP) Act 1989, in accordance with the Codes of Practice issued under Section 61 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991.

  The allocation of space accorded to each function varies between Holding Centres and indeed variation exists within each Holding Centre.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is(a) the estimated cost of building works proposed by the Police Authority to replace Castlereagh Holding Centre and (b) the estimated duration of such works from commencement to completion. [7417]

  Mr. Ingram
  It has been estimated in the absence of a statement of feasibility and cost range, that a replacement build for Castlereagh Holding Centre would currently:

  (a) cost in the region of £6 million; and

  (b) would take a period of approximately 18 months to complete.

  Perinatal Mortality
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the perinatal mortality rate in the Royal Maternity Hospital during the past five years; and what has been the average rate for maternity hospitals in the United Kingdom in the same period. [8585]

  Mr. Worthington
  The information is not available in the form requested.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Channel Tunnel (Electrified Grids)
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the electrified grids in the channel tunnel are turned on. [7705]

  Mr. Rooker
  Eurotunnel has told us that the grids are now operating, but not to their full specifications. MAFF officials will shortly be carrying out an inspection following a recent visit I made to the tunnel areas in England and France.

  Mink Farming
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to prohibit the farming of mink for fur; and if he will make a statement. [7655]
  148
  Mr. Morley
  I am currently exploring all possible ways forward on how to implement the Government's pre-election pledge to end fur farming as soon as practicable.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all areas of United Kingdom seas in which it is known radioactive waste has been dumped; what records he holds on which companies produced radioactive waste during the second half of this century, where the place where they disposed of their waste is unknown or was at sea; and if he will make a statement about the danger of this waste. [8230]

  Mr. Rooker
  Dumping of radioactive waste in United Kingdom waters was carried out in the Hurd Deep from 1950 to 1963 and, as reported in my written reply to my hon. Friend, the member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) on 1 July 1997,Official Report, columns 158–60, in Beaufort's Dyke in the 1950s.

  The Department does not hold records on the production by companies of radioactive waste except in relation to the authorised disposal of such waste at sea, and in relation to the Ministry's previous responsibilities with regard to authorising radioactive waste disposal from licensed nuclear sites. We have already undertaken to publish any new information which may be found in the search of archive material referred to in my written answer of 1 July.

  Monitoring has shown that levels of man-made radioactivity in UK waters remain well within internationally agreed safety levels and give no cause for concern. Results of this monitoring are compiled and published annually and copies are placed in the Library of the House.

  Livestock Support Schemes
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many payments under the force majeure provisions of(a) the sheep annual premium scheme and (b) the hill livestock compensatory allowances scheme were made in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [7461]

  Mr. Rooker
  The following table shows the information requested in respect of England for the two years 1994 and 1995. Information for earlier years is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Information on the number of cases in 1996 is currently being gathered.

  Force majeure cases accepted in England under the sheep annual premium scheme and the hill livestock compensatory allowances scheme

  Scheme

  1994

  1995

  SAPS

  30

  7

  HLCAS

  3

  4

  Drift Nets
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the
  149
  (a) extent of use and (b) effectiveness of drift nets with Dolphin doors relative to drift nets without such doors; and if he will make a statement. [8485]

  Mr. Morley
  In 1996, five of the eight United Kingdom vessels participating in the high seas drift net fishery for tuna used dolphin doors. The industry's estimate of dolphin casualties caused by the UK fleet in this fishery was approximately 90. It is not clear how far the use of dolphin doors affected the level of casualties or effectiveness of the drift nets in catching other species.

  I am currently considering our policy towards high seas drift nets.

  Minestone Tipping (Northumberland)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 3 July,Official Report, column 260, if he will publish the report on the environmental effects of minestone tipping at Lynemouth, Northumberland, which he is currently considering. [8512]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 14 July 1997): I have arranged for copies of the Report to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Cattle Transportation
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidance he will be giving to Staffordshire farmers for the transportation of cattle to slaughterhouses outside the county. [8589]

  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will review the recent decision of the Intervention Board in respect of the lack of an abattoir registered to take over 30 months cattle and casualty cattle within Staffordshire. [8697]

  Mr. Rooker
  Following a competitive tender, 26 abattoirs in Great Britain have been contracted by the Intervention Board to slaughter cattle under the Over Thirty Month Scheme. Selection was made on the basis of criteria which included quality and volume of service, suitability of premises, price and geographical location to ensure reasonable access for producers. Proportionally greater capacity has been provided to the traditional dairy areas, including the North West of England, and the number of liveweight markets acting as collection centres for entry to the scheme has not changed.

  Inevitably, with the number of abattoirs being reduced from about 50 to 26 to reflect the much lower throughputs in the scheme, some producers will have to travel greater distances. But those in Staffordshire are relatively well served under the new arrangements, despite there being no scheme abattoirs in the county. In fact, distances for them will be less than those for a great many producers elsewhere in the country.

  Beef (Illegal Exports)
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he has taken over allegations of illegal exports of United Kingdom beef; and if he will make a statement.[9120]
  150
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  My officials, in conjunction with officials from other member states, the Commission's Anti-Fraud unit and DGXXIV, are pursuing investigations in this country and elsewhere into allegations of the illegal export of UK beef. It will be some time before those investigations are complete. Criminal proceedings will be instigated if sufficient evidence of illegal activity is found. All allegations of illegal exports of beef are urgently and rigorously investigated.

  As a result of serious hygiene concerns arising out of our investigations, however, my Department yesterday issued Notices preventing two meat plants in the UK from trading in beef.

  In the light of recent events I have undertaken a thorough review of the measures currently in place to implement the ban on the export of UK beef imposed by EC Decision 96/239 as amended by EC Decision 96/362 and have concluded that those measures should be enhanced and extended. I have today informed the European Commission that I intend to:
  introduce new secondary legislation both to clarify and strengthen the powers available to UK officials where illegal exports are suspected;
  to enhance the checks that are carried out at ports of despatch.

  I am also giving urgent consideration to enhancing veterinary checks at beef plants.

  The UK is under an obligation to implement and enforce the export ban firmly and effectively for as long as it is in place. Only in this way will we regain the trust of our European partners, which is an essential pre-requisite to an early lifting of the export ban.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Cabinet Committees
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make it her policy to issue statements following meetings of the Cabinet Committees that she chairs. [6728]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  No. Details relating to proceedings of Cabinet Comittees are not published.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Cycle Allowance
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Council if she will assess the advantages of introducing a cycle allowance for right hon. and hon. Members. [6726]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  If hon. Members, instead of using a car, want to use cycles for Parliamentary business then it makes sense to consider this. I shall look at ways of taking this further.

  Visitor Facilities
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the hon Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what plans the Commission has to improve facilities for visitors and families of hon. Members. [6727]
  151
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, if the Commission will increase the financial provision for resources and facilities available to visitors to the House. [6733]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  Following a Recommendation of the Catering Committee in the last Parliament, the House agreed on 12 July 1994 that the area currently occupied by the Westminster Hall Cafeteria should be converted to a Visitor Centre, but this should only take place once a suitable alternative has been found for the present lunchtime users. No doubt this is a matter a new Catering Committee will wish to take up at an early date.

  Provision of facilities for families of hon. Members is a matter for the Administration Committee.

  Constitutional Bills
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the President of the Council what is her policy on taking major constitutional Bills in a Committee of the whole House. [6729]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to the Government's Memorandum to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons.

  Palace of Westminster
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what plans the Commission has(a) to make the Palace of Westminster more accessible to the public and (b) to provide clearer information on the operation of the House; and if he will make a statement. [6730]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The Commission appreciates the importance of ensuring that access to the Palace of Westminster is available to the thousands of members of the Public who visit it each week and information is provided through the Public Information Office so that they can understand the House of Commons and its activities. A number of initiatives are in progress and I will arrange for a list of these to be published in the Official Report.

  The following is the information:

  The Public Information Office of the Library takes the lead in providing information to the public and it has been making every effort to deal with the increased public interest in Parliament which has become evident in the last few months.

  Plans by the Education Unit of the Public Information Office to provide more information for young people were agreed by the Administration Committee in March 1997. These are in addition to the current Autumn Visits Programme, and include greater use of the public gallery for schools visits from November 1997, from 1998 the use of Committee Room 10 to be made available for the holding of six or seven "Pupil Parliaments" per year and from autumn 1997 the holding of four teacher seminars per year. The Administration Committee has also agreed that, following the opening of Portcullis House, a Committee or Conference Room in that building be set aside each Monday and Friday when the House is sitting to enable whole-days seminars for schoolchildren on the work of Parliament to take place.
  152
  The Line of Route is available to parties of visitors sponsored by Members and the Administration Committee regularly reviews the arrangements to ensure the greatest possible access. In addition, the general public will be admitted to Westminster Hall from 4 August to 26 September to visit an exhibition being held by the House of Lords Record Office.

  Electronic means are also being used to increase accessibility. The Parliamentary public Internet web-site is proving popular and greatly increases the accessibility of the papers and proceedings. New arrangements were instituted for overseas visitors from 1 May 1997. In addition an interactive CD-ROM about Parliament and its activities is currently being produced on a commercial basis with the co-operation of the House authorities and an interactive education web-site is in the planning stage.

  It is planned to redevelop the area currently occupied by Westminster Hall Cafeteria to include a visitors' centre after the new Portcullis House is occupied.

  An exhibition video and hard disk ROM is on view in the historic Jewel Tower, almost opposite St. Stephen's Entrance.

  Privy Counsellors
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the President of the Council if she will bring forward proposals to put Privy Counsellors on an equal footing with other hon. Members in parliamentary debates. [6732]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  I have no plans to do so. The Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons may wish to consider this in due course, but for the present I think this should be left to the discretion of Madam Speaker.

  Staff Pensions
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, if the final value of the pensions of employees of the House will be protected following the Budget; and what estimate he has made of the cost of this protection to the Government. [8352]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The pensions of employees of the House who are members of the House of Commons Staff Pensions Scheme (HOCSPS) should not be affected by the budget proposals. The HOCSPS is analogous to the Principal Civil Service Scheme and is operated on a pay as you go basis. Since it is not a funded scheme and consequently has no investments the abolition of tax credits should have no effect on the value of pensions payable.

  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Council if the final value of the pensions of hon. Members' staff will be protected following the Budget; and what estimate she has made of the cost of this protection to the Government. [8353]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  The final value of the pension in respect of any individual on any honourable Member's staff will depend on a wide range of factors, including the level of contributions paid to the individual's pension arrangements, the choice of investment vehicle selected from time to time by the individual, and the level of annuity rates prevailing at the time when the individual
  153
  elects to draw pension. Whether or not the Budget will affect the final value of the pension will depend on all of these factors, as well as on economic variables such as the future progress of the investment markets. The ultimate pension levels are not guaranteed, either before or after the Budget.

  Chamber (Structural Changes)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the President of the Council what proposals she has to make structural changes to the Chamber of the House. [6731]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  I have no such proposals.

SCOTLAND

  Enterprise Companies
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will review the strategy of(a) Scottish Enterprise and (b) the local enterprise companies. [6704]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend announced on 6 June that he had asked Scottish Enterprise to bring forward their planned review of strategy. Local enterprise companies will be covered by that review. The review will be carried out by Scottish Enterprise in close co-operation with officials from The Scottish Office.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about central Government funding of Scottish local authorities. [6705]

  Mr. Chisholm
  Central government is providing Scottish local authorities with almost £6 billion in the current year.

  A96 and A92
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on future plans for upgrading the A96 and the A92. [6706]

  Mr. Chisholm
  As I made clear to the hon. Gentleman at the Scottish Grand Committee last week, the current construction work on the Blackburn and Kintore Bypasses on the A96 will provide a further 10km of new dual carriageway by autumn 1998.

  Work on minor improvement schemes, and on measures to promote safety on the A90, formerly the A92, will continue. No further procedural work will be carried out on the major scheme to dual the A90 between Balmedie and Tipperty until the conclusions of the strategic roads review are known.

  National Health Service Expenditure
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he is considering to increase expenditure on the NHS in Scotland 1997–98. [6707]

  Mr. Galbraith
  None, by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland, has instructed Health Boards to use £10 million of savings being realised in 1997–98 from reducing bureaucracy, to reduce waiting times and relieve winter pressures.

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. Brook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the Skye bridge. [6708]

  Mr. Dewar
  As I announced to the House on Friday 4 July, columns 288–89, I intend to introduce measures to alleviate the impact of the Skye Bridge tolls on frequent users.

  Alcopops
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he will introduce to stop retailers selling alcopops and designer drinks to young people. [6709]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The Ministerial Group on Alcopops is considering a range of possible industry and Government measures to tackle underage drinking. These include how alcohol is promoted to appeal to young people and how it reaches them. We will be making a statement shortly.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what meetings he has had with representatives of Scottish fishermen concerning the conclusions of the Amsterdam conference. [6710]

  Mr. Chisholm
  Representatives of Scottish fishermen were invited to participate in high-level talks on the industry's future, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 19 June. The meeting took place this morning and was attended by my noble Friend, the Minister for Agriculture, the Environment and Fisheries at The Scottish Office.

  Acute Care
  Mrs. McGuire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to review strategies for acute care in Scotland. [6711]

  Mr. Galbraith
  We are undertaking a strategic review of Health Services in Scotland. It will set the principles on which Health Boards will continue to develop the acute services in their area.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many public appointments he is responsible for making. [6712]

  Mr. Dewar
  I am responsible for 3,652 appointments to public bodies in Scotland of which 2,014 are to children's panels.

  Government of Scotland White Paper
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Government's White Paper on the future government of Scotland. [6713]

  Mr. McLeish
  The White Paper will be published on 24 July. This will allow both Houses proper opportunity to debate the White Paper before the summer recess.

  Small Towns Initiative
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what new resources are to be made available in the current year under the small towns initiative being mounted by Scottish Enterprise; and if he will make a statement. [6714]

  Mr. Wilson
  The allocation of resources within the budget adopted by Scottish Enterprise is an operational matter for that organisation. I shall ask the Acting Chairman of Scottish Enterprise to write to the hon. Member.

  Milk Quotas
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to reform the system of milk quotas. [6715]

  Mr. Chisholm
  The Government's policy on milk quotas and other elements of the dairy regime will be assessed in the light of the European Commission's proposals for reforming the CAP which are expected to be announced shortly.

  Agriculture
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next attend an EC Council of Ministers meeting to discuss Scottish agriculture. [6716]

  Mr. Chisholm
  My noble Friend, the Minister for Agriculture, the Environment and Fisheries attended the May meeting of the Agriculture Council and will attend subsequent meetings as appropriate.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with private sector institutions regarding PFI for new hospitals in Scotland. [6717]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The Secretary of State has had no discussions with private sector institutions regarding PH for new hospitals in Scotland. I had my first discussions with private sector institutions regarding PFI when I met the preferred bidder for two PFI projects last week and Officials have frequent contact with the private sector bodies involved in PFI hospital projects.

  Scottish Assembly
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to take account of public opinion in England in drawing up his proposals for a Scottish Assembly. [6718]

  Mr. McLeish
  The Government's proposals for the establishment of a Scottish Parliament were included in our UK manifesto, and were endorsed by the electorate throughout the United Kingdom. We will continue to take account of public opinion in all parts of the UK in working up the detail of the proposals.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the prison population in Scotland. [6719]
  156
  Mr. McLeish
  The average daily prisoner population in Scotland in 1996–97 was 5,992 compared with 5,632 in 1995–96 and 5,395 in 1992–93. During 1996–97, the average daily remand population increased by 3 per cent. to 1,021, the highest number recorded in the past five years. The number of adult prisoners and young offenders sentenced increased by 6 per cent. and 10 per cent. respectively. The rise in the number of adult prisoners in 1996–97 can be attributed to the increase in the number of short-term prisoners from 2,022 in 1995–96 to 2,183 in 1996–97.

  The projected average daily prisoner population for 1997–98 to 1999–2000 are 6,400; 6,600 and 6,750, excluding the potential effects of the early release provisions in the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997.

  Voluntary Sports Clubs
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his assessment of the cost of granting mandatory rate relief to voluntary sports clubs in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [8006]

  Mr. Chisholm
  Rate relief provided to qualifying sports clubs in Scotland is entirely at the discretion of local authorities. Although detailed information on reliefs provided by local authorities to sports clubs is not held centrally, total discretionary relief provided in 1995–96 amounted to £4.4 million.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what Government proposals exist to harmonise rate relief for voluntary sports clubs in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [8005]

  Mr. Chisholm
  Rate relief provided to qualifying sports clubs in Scotland is already harmonised. Non-profit-making sports clubs in Scotland are eligible for mandatory relief. If relief is granted 100 per cent. of the cost is borne by the Exchequer.

  Judicial Reviews
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many decisions by his Department were challenged by way of judicial review in each Parliamentary session since 1994–95; and if he will list in how many cases(a) the Department's decision was upheld, (b) the court found for the applicant, (c) the Department submitted to the judgment and (d) the Department appealed successfully against the judicial review decision. [7845]

  Mr. McLeish
  During Session 1994–95. 10 decisions were challenged by judicial review in the Court of Session; and(a) four decisions were upheld by the Court;(b) and (c) the Court did not find for the applicant in any case; and (d) none were appealed by the Department. Of the remaining six cases, four judicial review petitions were withdrawn and two are yet to be decided by the Court.

  During Session 1995–96, 10 decisions were challenged by judicial review in the Court of Session; and (a) five decisions were upheld by the Court; (b) and (c) one decision was not defended by the Secretary of State and accordingly the judicial review petition was successful;

  157
  and (d) none were appealed by the Department. Of the remaining four cases, three judicial review petitions were withdrawn and one has yet to be decided by the Court.

  During Session 1996–97, four decisions were challenged by judicial review in the Court of Session; and (a) one decision was upheld by the Court; (b) and (c) one decision was settled in such a way that the judicial review petition was successful; and (d) none were appealed by the Department. Of the remaining two cases, two are yet to be decided by the Court.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions since 1994–95 legislation has been introduced by the Department(a) to remove effects of judicial review decisions and
  (b) to implement them. [7844]

  Mr. McLeish
  On no occasion since 1994–95 has legislation been introduced by the Scottish Office(a) to remove the effects of judicial review decisions and (b) to implement them.

  Murder and Manslaughter (Convictions)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were convicted of(a) murder and (b) manslaughter in each year since 1967; and in each case what proportion this represented of the population. [8126]

  Mr. McLeish
  The following table sets out the number of persons with a charge proved for a main charge of murder and common law culpable homicide in Scotland in each of the years 1967 to 1995. Convictions for statutory culpable homicide (causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs) are excluded from the table.

  Persons with a charge proved for a main charge of murder and common law culpable homicide in Scotland, 1967–1995

  Number Main charge

  Per 1,000,000 population1 Main charge

  Year of conviction

  Murder

  Culpable homicide (common law)

  Murder

  Culpable homicide (common law)

  1967

  26

  23

  5.9

  5.2

  1968

  25

  21

  5.6

  4.7

  1969

  22

  27

  4.9

  6.0

  1970

  26

  29

  5.8

  6.5

  1971

  49

  10

  10.9

  2.2

  1972

  36

  27

  8.0

  6.0

  1973

  33

  30

  7.3

  6.6

  1974

  36

  28

  7.9

  6.1

  1975

  38

  20

  8.3

  4.4

  1976

  45

  41

  9.7

  8.9

  1977

  52

  30

  11.2

  6.5

  1978

  41

  30

  8.8

  6.4

  1979

  35

  30

  7.5

  6.4

  1980

  49

  41

  10.5

  8.8

  1981

  27

  43

  5.8

  9.2

  1982

  42

  36

  9.0

  7.7

  1983

  37

  45

  8.0

  9.7

  1984

  37

  31

  8.0

  6.7

  1985

  26

  50

  5.6

  10.8

  1986

  29

  27

  6.3

  5.9

  1987

  26

  46

  5.7

  10.0

  1988

  42

  38

  9.2

  8.3

  1989

  26

  50

  5.7

  10.9

  1990

  21

  43

  4.6

  9.4

  1991

  21

  43

  4.6

  9.4

  1992

  38

  53

  8.3

  11.5

  1993

  40

  47

  8.7

  10.2

  158

  Persons with a charge proved for a main charge of murder and common law culpable homicide in Scotland, 1967–1995

  Number Main charge

  Per 1,000,000 population1 Main charge

  Year of conviction

  Murder

  Culpable homicide (common law)

  Murder

  Culpable homicide (common law)

  1994

  38

  40

  8.2

  8.7

  1995

  41

  44

  8.9

  9.5

  1 Persons aged 8 and over.

  Catholics (Education)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on what guarantees have been given to the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland in relation to the devolution proposals on the right of Catholics to a separate education enshrined in the 1918 Act. [8135]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 11 July 1997]: The Government's detailed proposals, including those for education, will be set out in the forthcoming White Paper.

  Departmental Budgets
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, 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. [8299]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 14 July 1997]: The figures requested for my Department's spending plans within the Control Total are as follows: (a) £13,578 million (b) £13,475 million (1) £13,707 million (2) £13,523 million.

  In addition Scotland 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 Scotland 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. [8300]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 14 July 1997]: All Departments are reallocating spending within their Departmental ceilings as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Crime and Disorder Bill
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with Home Office ministers regarding the contents of the planned bill relating to crime and disorder. [6698]

  Mr. McLeish
  There is regular contact between the two Departments, at both Ministerial and official level, on this and other matters of mutual interest.
  159
  In Scotland we have announced our commitment to introducing Community Safety Orders, after proper consultation with the relevant agencies, and to consulting on the introduction of new offences of racial harassment and racially motivated violence.

WALES

  Welsh Assembly
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to review the Barnett formula in the event of a Welsh Assembly being created. [8493]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The Government believes that the Barnett formula has played a very important part in the allocation of public expenditure. I shall set out the financial arrangements for the proposed Welsh Assembly fully in the White Paper.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales by what mechanisms other than the White Paper and its summary information relating to the Welsh Assembly will be disseminated prior to the Referendum; and if he will make a statement. [8587]

  Mr. Davies
  A telephone helpline will be established to answer queries from the public about the Government's proposals. In addition, I am considering making available summary information on particular aspects of the Government's proposals.

  Welsh Sport
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his Department's funding for Welsh sport in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98. [8431]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Central Government funding for Welsh sport is channelled through the Sports Council for Wales. Welsh Office grant in aid to the Council over the three years has been as follows:

  1995–96: £6.624 million

  1996–97: £6.624 million

  1997–98: £6.596 million.

  The Sports Council also receives income from the National Lottery as the body responsible for distributing Lottery proceeds to sport in Wales. Since the Council started distributing Lottery grants in April 1995 almost £24 million has been awarded to support 246 projects throughout Wales.

  Obesity
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new initiatives his Department is planning in respect of obesity; and if he will make a statement. [8743]

  Win Griffiths
  Action in pursuit of the new Health Gain Targets for Wales published on 11 June 1997 is likely to include programmes to reduce the incidence of obesity.

  In addition, the Health Promotion Authority for Wales' current strategic framework provides specifically for work to be undertaken to combat obesity by increasing physical activity in both adults and children and encouraging healthy eating in the population.

  Youth Unemployment
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each county council, and for Wales, the latest estimates of youth unemployment, and comparable figures for the United Kingdom. [8219]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  At April 1997 there were 23,000 persons in Wales and 421,700 persons in the UK aged 18–24 on the claimant unemployment count. These figures are not seasonally adjusted. The comparable date at county council level are available from the NOMIS database which can be accessed by the staff of the Library of the House.

  Poor Housing Conditions
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each county council, and for Wales, the latest indicators of poor housing conditions, and comparable figures for the United Kingdom. [8220]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The latest Welsh House Condition Survey was conducted in 1993. From this, it is estimated that 151,200 occupied first homes, 13.4 per cent. of the total, in Wales were unfit. Information on individual local authority areas is not available from this survey. A further house condition survey, which will provide results for local authority areas, is underway. Information from this survey will be available in 1998. Comparable figures for the United Kingdom are not available because of differences in the timing and detail of the surveys. However, the 1991 English House Condition Survey identified 7.6 per cent. of all dwellings in England as being unfit. The Northern Ireland 1991 survey identified 8.8 per cent. of dwellings as unfit. In Scotland in 1991, 4.7 per cent. of the stock was assessed as being Below Tolerable Standard.

  Sickness
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each county council, and for Wales, the latest indicators of relative incidence of sickness, and comparable figures for the United Kingdom. [8221]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Information, by unitary authority area, on various indicators of health in Wales is published by the Welsh Office in "Health Statistics Wales 1996" and "The Welsh Health Survey 1995". Information on the health of people in the countries and regions of the United Kingdom is published by the Office for National Statistics in "Regional Trends 32". Copies of these publications are in the Library of the House.

  Relative Poverty
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each county council, and for Wales, the latest indicators of relative poverty, and comparable figures for the United Kingdom. [8226]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on 5 June 1996,Official Report, column 251.

  Exports and Imports
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 24 June,Official Report,

  161
  column 495, when the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Neath, (Mr. Hain) intends to write to the right hon. Member with an explanation and to place a copy of his letter in the Library. [8791]

  Mr. Hain
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 10 July. A copy of my reply has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Taff-Ely SSSI
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the Government intends to designate the Taff-Ely site of special scientific interest as part of the Lower Severn Estuary Special Protection Area. [8774]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  A decision as to the boundaries of the Lower Severn Estuary Special Protection Area was taken in 1991 and my right hon. Friend has no plans to reconsider the extent of that area.

HEALTH

  Black Report
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to implement the recommendations of the Black report of 1980 on inequalities in health. [7820]

  Ms Jowell
  The Black report was published in 1980. We have asked Sir Donald Acheson to chair an independent review into health inequalities in England in the 1990s. He will assist the Department of Health and the Office for National Statistics to carry out a review of the latest available information on inequalities in health and expectation of life in England. He will then conduct an independent review to identify priority areas for future policy development which will contribute to the development of a new health strategy. The Terms of Reference for the review have been placed in the Library.

  Health Status Indicators
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what indicators his Department uses to monitor the health status of(a) infants and children, (b) adults and (c) pensioners; and if he will make a statement. [8875]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department makes use of a wide range of information on births and deaths registrations, population surveys and health service information to gain an understanding of the health status of different groups in the population.

  Sources available in the Library include:
  the Chief Medical Officer's Annual Report, a key element of which is a review of the health status of the general population;
  the Public Health Common Data Set, which includes a wide variety of indicators;
  Health of the Nation Briefing Packs, which include information on progress towards a limited range of targets.

  I announced on 7 July our intention to develop a new strategy for a healthier nation. It will take account of population groups—children, the working age population and elderly people—and priorities will be chosen where there is clear scope for measurable progress.

  NHS Estates
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the annual report and accounts 1996–97 of the NHS Estates Executive Agency. [9001]

  Mr. Milburn
  I have received the report and copies have today been laid in accordance with section 5 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921. Copies are also available in the Library.

  Dementia
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department will introduce a national protocol on(a) diagnostic tests and (b) new treatments for Alzheimer's disease. [7748]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have no plans to introduce a national protocol for diagnostic tests; however, we are considering whether to issue guidance to the National Health Service on new medicines for Alzheimer's disease.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will issue new guidance to health authorities on how they should assess the needs for people with dementia and their carers in their area. [7749]

  Mr. Boateng
  In March this year guidance was issued to assist managers in purchasing authorities in their responsibilities for meeting the needs of older people, including those with dementia, and their carers. It is entitled "A Handbook on Mental Health for Older People" and copies are available in the Library.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has provided to health authorities on the prescribing of donepezil for people with Alzheimer's disease. [7750]

  Mr. Milburn
  We are considering whether it would be useful to health authorities to issue guidance on the introduction of donepezil for patients with mild to moderate forms of Alzheimer's disease.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will issue guidance to health authorities for the establishment of dementia care management units to assume organisational responsibility for the planning and provision of services for people with dementia. [7753]

  Mr. Boateng
  Old Age Psychiatry Services are the core National Health Service service for assessing and managing dementia as well as other health problems in older people. Purchasing authorities have been given guidance on the provision of services for people with dementia in the "Handbook on the Mental Health of Older People" which was published in March this year and copies are available in the Library.

  Long-stay Facilities
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the extra costs to local authorities caused by the closure of NHS long-stay facilities. [7751]
  163
  Mr. Boateng
  No such estimate has been made. Where substantial changes in service provision, including the closure of part or all of a hospital, are proposed they are always the subject of public consultation. Proposals would not be agreed unless acceptable alternative services were available. There is no direct link between a reduction in the number of long-stay hospital beds and costs to local authorities.

  The Department monitors the average daily number of available beds in the three main service areas where long-stay provision is concentrated. The latest figures on the number of beds available are set out in the table.

  Average daily number of beds available

  Speciality

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Geriatric

  40,000

  37,000

  37,000

  34,000

  Mental Health

  47,000

  44,000

  42,000

  39,000

  Learning Disability

  19,000

  17,000

  14,000

  13,000

  Total

  106,000

  98,000

  93,000

  86,000

  Year-on-year change

  —

  -8,000

  -5,000

  -7,000

  NHS Finance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will require health authorities separately to identify expenditure on specific clinical needs. [7752]

  Mr. Milburn
  Health authorities already identify and report expenditure on a range of broad areas of activity as part of regular performance monitoring. Expenditure on specific clinical needs is not identified.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each of his approved PFI hospital projects the outstanding contractual issues which have to be resolved. [7789]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 10 July 1997]: Two Private Finance Initiative schemes, at Dartford and Gravesham National Health Service Trust and Norfolk and Norwich Health Care NHS Trust, have reached agreement to proceed to financial close. Although both trusts have signed commercial contracts with their partners, the consortia have yet to agree final terms with their respective financiers. To disclose this information at this stage may affect the negotiating positions of the trusts.

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

Prisoners: Executive Release
Lord Hyltonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What consideration they are giving to executive release of non-violent prisoners nearing the end of their sentences, in order to bring the prison population into balance with prison capacity.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the Government have no plans to use their executive powers of release. Executive release from prison is designed to be used as a last resort.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the Government bear in mind the example of Sir Winston Churchill when he was Home Secretary? Can they say whether they will also exclude from prison certain categories such as the mentally ill; political asylum seekers; young persons aged 16 and 17 years; and those on remand who have been held for more than 110 days?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am not entirely certain what aspect of the late Sir Winston's conduct the noble Lord has in mind—whether it is an invitation to cross the Floor.
Noble Lords: Twice!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I certainly offer that to the noble Lord. The questions raised by the noble Lord are extremely important. It is not our policy that mentally disordered offenders should be imprisoned. Wherever possible they should be in hospital having specialist treatment. The question of remand is very much in the Home Secretary's mind. If we can reduce remand delays, we shall immediately, first, improve the judicial system and, secondly, relieve some of the pressures on accommodation. On an earlier occasion the noble Lord made the useful point about asylum seekers. I reassured him that detention is used sparingly and only in cases where it is felt that the person in question might abscond.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the continued remorseless rise in the prison population? Is he further aware that one London local prison last night had precisely one space? Beyond that, it would have faced a crisis situation. Is the Minister aware that we appear to be moving once again towards the use of police cells? Can the Government take no action to deal with this situation as soon as possible?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an extremely important point. As of yesterday, the
904
prison population was 61,862. With his expertise the noble Lord will know that the prison population has been growing at the rate of 300 prisoners a week. We are taking action. We have to deal with the situation that we discovered. We are providing more places. Three new prisons are to be built. Four hundred new places were provided by refurbished wings coming back into use at Liverpool and Preston. New house-blocks have opened providing over 800 places. But I say quite categorically to the noble Lord that it is a difficult and serious situation and not one that the Home Secretary puts out of his mind.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, why is it that the previous government accepted an enormous increase in the prison population in years to come while claiming that there had been a reduction in crime during the past few years of their regime? Is the noble Lord going to tell us that, despite no evidence that crime is increasing, we have to accept this colossal increase in the prison population in the next few years?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords. I have quite a number of responsibilities, but giving excuses and explanations for the conduct of the last government is not one of them, happily, since there are only 24 hours in any given day. There is a plain constitutional matter here. It is for the judiciary, including the magistrates, to sentence as they believe appropriate. The Prison Service and the Government have a duty to provide accommodation. There are matters that we can attend to, not least the aspect that I referred to a moment or two ago; namely, the question of remand prisoners. It is not an easy task: one has to balance a fair number of different aspects. The House can be in no doubt at all that the Home Secretary is well aware of these matters as he has now said on a number of occasions in public speeches.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, as regards the independence of the judiciary on the one hand and the prison provision on the other, does the Minister agree that there is a stark choice for the Government and the country—that is, that we provide very much greater resources for the Prison Service or we have a complete review of sentencing policy? Is it not the Government's duty to co-ordinate these matters?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is; but the question is not quite as simple as the noble Lord implies. Prison is one way of dealing with offenders; it is not the only way. There are finite resources which need to be used as efficiently as possible. Plainly, the Government have an interest in sentencing policy. I have said previously—and I repeat happily now—that this Government at least believe in the closest co-operation between the Government and the judiciary, who have to deal with sentences in practice.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, does the Minister recall saying last week:
"The Government are determined to ensure a coherent and strategically focused approach to sentencing"?—[Official Report, 9/7/97; col. 620.]

905
Will the Government give earnest consideration to the recommendation made by the Lord Chief Justice in two major speeches last month that a Royal Commission should be appointed or that at least the Advisory Council on the Penal System should be resuscitated to make a detailed reinvestigation of a rational penal policy in order to restore public confidence in the administration of justice?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do remember what I said last week because I always furnish myself with a reminder of what I have said in the previous week, particularly when the noble and learned Lord is likely to remind me of it—for which I am, of course, regularly grateful. The views of the Lord Chief Justice are of enormous public importance—not simply to the Government, but to anyone who wants to inform themselves as to the rational approach to crime and punishment. Anything that the Lord Chief Justice says is given the most careful attention in the Home Office.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I ask the Minister—
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Cross-Benches!
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I shall keep it very short. I should like to ask the Minister whether he is aware that the firm stand that he is maintaining as to judicial discretion in sentencing is very much appreciated by some of us on this side of the House?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there is an expression, "the kiss of death" and I very much hope that I have not just heard it. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that he and I have participated on many occasions in discussions on such questions. I believe that judicial independence is a cornerstone of our system. It is a founding principle of the way in which we conduct ourselves in this country and ought to remain so—and in so far as I have any small input to that, I shall continue to make it so.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, is it the Government's intention to implement the Crime (Sentences) Act, and particularly the provisions relating to minimum sentences? If not, what plans do the Government have for toughening sentences for persistent burglars and for persistent dealers in hard drugs?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most obliged for that question. The Home Secretary's intention is to make an announcement on those matters within the reasonably short future.
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, will my noble friend give the House an assurance that despite all the
906
difficulties of housing the exploding prison population, this Government will not waste any further public money on purchasing any more prison ships?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, any Home Secretary, in holding that extremely responsible task, has constantly to focus on two questions: first, what is the demand on prison places; and, secondly, how is it to be fulfilled? Some responses to those questions are bound to be short term. As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, this is a question for the long term as well as for the immediate future.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, at the risk—
Noble Lords: Next Question!

Debt Defaulters: Imprisonment
2.47 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Bromptonasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there has been any recent reduction in the number of people in prison who are debt defaulters.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the most recent figures available indicate that, on 31st May, there were 15 people in prison for non-payment of civil debt. This represents a fall of approximately 30 per cent. compared to the figure of 21 debt defaulters in prison on 30th May 1996. Civil debtors are classified as people who have been imprisoned for non-payment of maintenance, local government taxes and other debts.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, that is a hugely satisfactory Answer. The figures are greatly improved since I last asked a Question on the subject. Do I understand, therefore, that the Minister is of the same persuasion as I: that it is a waste of public money to use this very expensive accommodation for small debtors? If there are any procedural or statutory bars against imprisoning such offenders, will the Minister take the earliest opportunity that is provided either by statute or otherwise to ensure that this waste of money and of human lives is brought to an end?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful for the tone of the noble Lord's question, as well as for its content. In this context, imprisonment is the sanction of last resort—and we believe that it ought to be. As a result of the decision of Lord Justice Simon Brown in R v. Oldham Justices ex parte Cawley in 1995, it has been made perfectly plain that any court considering the sanction, which I repeat is the sanction of last resort, is obliged to consider all other enforcement measures prior to imprisonment. We believe that a most useful discipline is that the court is required in open court to state its reasons for not using any other enforcement measure. This chimes with the earlier Question. Prison spaces are extremely scarce. As the noble Lord has rightly said, they are extremely expensive. It is a source of

907
some satisfaction that the numbers are now quite small—perhaps rather lower than is sometimes implied in public discussion in the newspapers.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful that the noble Lord has just given the proud record of the previous government. The statistics that the noble Lord has referred to were achieved by the previous government. I agree that we should continue to try to find effective alternative methods to penalise those who default on debt. Does the noble Lord agree that other alternatives should include, for example, curfew by electronic tagging which can be very successful and effective, but that at the end of the day for the most persistent debt defaulters and the most serious cases prison must always be a last resort?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware that the technology on electronic tagging has become more sophisticated. It is therefore available as a more flexible control than the earlier rather cruder technology. The Home Secretary has made it plain that his mind is always open to alternatives. In so far as the former government claim credit for the reduction in the imprisonment of debt defaulters, I am more than happy to lay credit where it truly lies.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, in the related category of fine defaulters and those who do not pay their television licences, can the noble Lord say what progress is being made in the use of non-custodial sentences, such as community service orders, instead of imprisonment?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, certainly this question exercises a large number of people. The truth is that to watch television without a licence is a criminal offence. However, I am bound to say that, given some of the programmes on television, watching television with a licence…! Of course, imprisonment in this case must be a measure of last resort. Alternatives include a money payment supervision order, an attachment of earnings order, an attachment of benefits order and a distress warrant. My experience, such as it is, is that courts are very reluctant to sentence people to imprisonment for the non-payment of television licence dues. I believe that that is a matter that all courts have carefully in mind.

Murder: Mandatory Life Sentence
2.53 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stokeasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take steps to abolish the mandatory life sentence for murder.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the Government have no plans to abolish the mandatory life sentence for murder.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some noble Lords believe that the
908
real reason why the Tory Government would not end the injustice of the mandatory life sentence for murder was their fear of being perceived as weak on crime? As there is now no danger of that with our strong Home Secretary, why do the Government not end the mandatory life sentence and restore some measure of discretion to the judges?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the Secretary of State for Home Affairs has a discretion to determine tariff by virtue of Section 35(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. I believe that the scheme is well known. The trial judge gives his view and the Lord Chief Justice of the day gives his view. Subsequently, the Home Secretary has the power to decide how to exercise his discretion upon the recommendation of the Parole Board. I fully understand the views of my noble friend. There are people who hold different views. They believe that in this particular category of crime public interest and concern justify the discretionary involvement of the Home Secretary. Therefore, although the argument of my noble friend is one that is frequently put forward it is not simply one way; there are different views.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that one of our principal tasks is to reinforce rather than weaken respect for the criminal justice system? Following the recommendations of the judges in the Bulger case, how can it be said that if the mandatory life sentence is abolished there is any real likelihood that judges will pass sentences for murder that remotely equate to public expectations? Was it not said again and again at the time of the abolition of capital punishment that a unique penalty for the crime of murder would remain and the public would be reassured that the murderer would not be released except on the say-so of the Home Secretary, who would be responsible to Parliament if anything went wrong?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord was in his place when I referred to the murder of an innocent child of two years of age by Thompson and Venables. The trial judge made his recommendation. It was extremely carefully reviewed by the Lord Chief Justice. Subsequently matters took their course through the law courts and went to the Appellate Committee of this House. Those speeches are not unanimous in the route by which the conclusion was arrived at. At the moment a very careful study is being made of all their Lordships' views.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the recommendation implicit in this Question was one of those made by the Select Committee on Medical Ethics, which I had the privilege to chair some four years ago? That committee had reported to it by the Home Office no fewer than 23 cases where killings had taken place in which the motive had appeared on the basis of the evidence to be wholly merciful. It seemed to the committee that the law was in a sense being

909
manipulated. Whereas the intention had clearly been to kill in each case the charge had been amended to one of attempted murder or manslaughter because it had been clear to those involved in the prosecution that no jury would be likely to convict. The recommendation of the Select Committee was that judges should have the ability to look at this matter flexibly in order that where the motive appeared to be merciful they might be able to impose a sentence of less than life, but that in the most heinous crimes the most severe sentence could nevertheless be imposed. Is this not a case in which the judiciary may be allowed some degree of flexibility?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the regime that I have described offers flexibility. In the offences to which the noble Lord has referred—shall we say mercy killings—the sentences actually served are capable of being quite short. In offences that many would regard as the most serious—terrorist murder—it may well be that very many years will be required to be served. The present regime is not inflexible. Some people who are subject to mandatory life sentences are released quite early to reflect the general spectrum of different circumstances to which the noble Lord has referred. The average time, excluding time on remand, served by mandatory life prisoners who were released in 1996 was 13.2 years.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, despite the risk of giving the noble Lord a second kiss of death, as he put it, does he appreciate how much pleasure it gives to see the Government standing firm on matters of law and order on this Question as on the first? Does he also appreciate that people would be greatly alarmed and despondent if they believed that those who committed murder would be subject neither to capital punishment nor to life imprisonment?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not believe that it is a party political question. I know that the noble Earl agrees with me because we have discussed this matter across the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions. I would have thought it axiomatic that trust in law and order was a necessary requirement for a civil society. If it comes to standing firm on what we believe to be principle or blowing with the wind, we prefer the former.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the following three simple propositions: first, murder is not a uniquely heinous crime? He has only to consider the mercy killers who have been referred to or even the case of Trooper Clegg who was correctly convicted of murder and allowed his freedom after two years. The second proposition: if murder is not uniquely heinous, there is no justification for an automatic life sentence; and, thirdly, the existence of the automatic life sentence, in the present context, devalues the life sentence, because the public realises that it does not mean anything like what it says.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the only question not put to me is whether I have stopped beating my wife. I did not say that murder is a uniquely heinous offence. So I have been asked a question on a basis which has proved to be incorrect. However, it involves the taking of human life, which we must not devalue. It involves the taking of human life with at least one of two intents; namely, the intention to kill or to do really serious physical injury. None of those things can be overlooked. I take a view which is that even in "mercy killings" a human life has passed from us, and no society can turn its face away from that. I do not believe that the present system devalues the life sentence. It indicates the feelings of our society as they presently are, that to take life in those circumstances is extremely grave and serious. It has the additional benefit of the flexibility of approach and regime to which I referred earlier.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall not be asking the Minister whether he has stopped beating his wife, but I shall, with a wry smile, say to him that I welcome the fact that he has said that this is not a party political issue. But for 16 out of the 18 years that we on this side ruled it was very definitely a party political issue. We were opposed tooth and nail on minimum sentences, automatic life sentences, and mandatory life sentences. We welcome the tough and resolute stand that is now being taken on this particular issue. Will the Minister confirm what his right honourable friend said in another place, that they will implement the automatic life sentence as set out in the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am not sure that government should properly be described as ruling. I believe that governments are there to serve the public. One of the possible disadvantages of the previous government was that they had regarded themselves as ruling rather than serving. The noble Baroness smiles at me in her charming way, but "ruling" was the word that she used. If it was a slip, something to which we are all subject occasionally, then of course I shall close my eyes to it. I have already said that the Home Secretary will make an announcement quite soon about these matters.

Poverty Elimination: UN Report
3.3 p.m.
Lord Juddasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the suggestion of the Human Development Report 1997, published by the United Nations Development Programme, that poverty is "a denial of choices and living a tolerable life", and what action they will take in consequence.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government strongly endorse the view expressed in the report that the eventual elimination of world poverty is possible given political will in both the developed and the developing

911
countries. Like the report, our approach to poverty eradication will involve tackling it in all its many dimensions. On aid specifically we intend to sharpen the focus of our programmes so that they directly involve the people, in particular the poorest, thus benefiting them and enabling them to exercise greater choice over how they run their lives and have greater security in their lives.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Will he assure the House that the Government accept the objectives, established by the OECD last year, to halve the proportion of people living in poverty by 2015? Do they also agree that one good means of achieving that would be to accept the 20/20 proposition whereby donor governments provide 20 per cent. of their aid budgets for social infrastructure and recipient governments use 20 per cent. of their budgets for the same purpose?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, yes, I can assure the House that the White Paper on international development, to be published in the autumn, will endorse the targets set out in the 1996 OECD report, to which my noble friend refers, and, in particular, the overriding target of halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by 2015. The achievement of those targets will require the mutual commitment and partnership of recipient and donor countries which is implicit in the 20/20 concept.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, the UNDP report is somewhat critical of the development of globalisation and suggests that the poorer countries are becoming marginalised by the unequal and often protective nature of trading partnerships between the richer countries. Do the Government agree with that view? If so, what action do they intend to take through their aid and trade policy?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is undoubtedly something in that view. The position of the countries with the lowest incomes has deteriorated over the period, in part as a result of being left out of some of the development of globalisation. We do not, however, take the view that more restrictive trade practices would help those countries either on their own behalf or in terms of any multilateral arrangements. We intend to use our aid programme and our broader programmes to ensure that in some of those countries aid and trade benefits go to the poorest within them through a greater gearing of the programmes, a greater use of NGOs, and pressure on the countries themselves to ensure that the poorest benefit.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, in view of the increasing importance of the human development report, have the Government changed their definition of the poorest countries measured by GNP in the direction of the other human development indices?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have to be honest and say that I need detailed notice of that question. I shall write to the noble Earl. The definition used in the report is one that has existed for some considerable time. We have given the indices of achievement in the aid field according to that definition.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, in the light of what the noble Lord said, does he believe that the Government will put more resources into the technical assistance programmes which provide training in developing countries, which generate employment thereby, and which have proved beneficial in the past?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, yes, the whole strategy behind re-gearing programmes to meet the needs of the poorest people is to ensure that they can benefit from training and other infrastructure developments rather than to provide aid to a particular country. It is all part of the gearing strategy to which I referred.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, while quite properly pursuing the policies advocated in the international field for the purpose of the relief of poverty—poverty far exceeding anything we experience here—will my noble friend nevertheless bear in mind that within the UK some 40 per cent. of the population lives below the poverty line, as defined in Europe, and that at least one household in every five in the UK lacks an employed person within it?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I broadly accept those statistics. I assure the House that the elimination of poverty within the UK is one of our prime objectives and is in no way contrary to the achievement of the elimination of poverty in some of the poorest areas of the world.

Special Immigration Appeals Commission Bill [H.L.]
3.9 p.m.
Read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time—
Noble Lords: Bill do now pass!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I think I need welfare to work training! I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord of Mostyn.)
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that I do, too! Before the Bill passes from this place, I want to comment briefly. First, I wish to put the Minister on notice that we shall be interested to see how far the £2,500 goes in setting up and paying for the annual running costs of the Bill. We shall be vigilant in pursuing that.
However, for the record, my main point is to repeat our disappointment that the Minister has not responded more generously to the concerns which I and my noble friend Lady Anelay expressed during the passage of the Bill. Perhaps the depth of the love-in between the noble Lord, Lord Lester, on the Liberal Democrat Bench and the Minister proved too much of a distraction. But the Bill goes further than what was required to respond to the Chahal case.
Although I see some merit in the one-stop approach for any appellant whose case comes before the commission, I remain very concerned about possible bias in favour of the appellant who, after all, will be a person who has sufficiently concerned the Home Secretary of the day on the grounds of national security.
We have taken the view that the paramount consideration must be the national security interest to which other matters should be subordinated. However, in a letter sent to my noble friend Lady Anelay and copied to me, the Minister admits that in an appeal involving a decision to deport or refuse entry and an application for asylum, the commission will first address the question of the asylum application and that only if there is no Article 3 risk will it consider the national security case. It is the national security interest that is a matter of serious concern to this country.
The responses given by the noble Lord have been hardly reassuring. However, for all our sakes, I hope that the Bill will work in practice. The risk remains that under the Bill it is likely that the interests of an individual appellant will take precedence over the security of the country. I cannot believe that my colleagues in another place will be sanguine about that. Nor will public support be quite so forthcoming to this Government if the concern I express is borne out in the future by a binding decision of the commission in which the needs of a suspected terrorist are considered more important than the security needs of our country.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we are reaching the conclusion of our consideration of the Bill. I take the noble Baroness's point that she remains doubtful about whether £2,500 will be sufficient. As she rightly says, we must wait and see. She may well be right.
I am grateful for the constructive approach which has informed our debates. The amendments made by your Lordships' House are comparatively few and perhaps I may deal with them briefly. The Bill is necessary because of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Chahal, mentioned by the noble Baroness. As she said on Second Reading, a Bill along generally the same lines would have been brought forward by the party opposite had circumstances been different after early May.
914
It is not suitable that I should speak at length on this occasion. The most important amendment was made as a result of anxieties expressed on Second Reading by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. They suggested—and rightly, we thought, on consideration—that it was not clear on the face of the Bill as introduced whether the commission would be in a position to make decisions which would be binding on the Home Secretary. That had always been our intention and my amendment in Committee, which is now Clause 4, puts the question beyond dispute.
The Bill has also been improved by your Lordships as a result of a government amendment to Clause 2. That introduces an appeal right in certain entry clearance cases where Article 8 of the European convention, which guarantees the right to respect family life, may be relevant. The Bill helps us to ensure that our procedures for dealing within the immigration context with those alleged to be terrorists meet accepted standards of fairness.
As I said on Second Reading, it is fairly easy to give decent civil rights treatment to decent, reasonable people. It is much more difficult to give the same kind of treatment to those who may have behaved extremely badly. It is the mark of our society, which we hope to be civilised, that we accept the need to do so. The new special immigration appeals commission will ensure that the rights of those suspected of terrorist activity will be protected within the framework which safeguards our national security.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Wireless Telegraphy Bill [H.L.]
3.15 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Charges for wireless telegraphy licences]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 22, after ("fit") insert ("and subject to subsection (2A).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment relates to certain anxieties drawn to my attention by mobile telephone operators, in particular by two firms: Orange and One 2 One. As your Lordships will no doubt know, the mobile operators have committed billions of pounds of investment during the past 10 years or so and they have created a competitive, efficient and world-class mobile telephone sector which has contributed significantly both directly and indirectly to the fortunes of this country.
One 2 One is an operator licensed in 1993 to provide personal communications network or mass-market-type services. Since it began it has invested approximately £750 million in constructing its mobile telecommunications network. It plans to invest up to a total of £1.3 billion by 2001. Last year, One 2 One traded at a lost of £276 million and it does not expect to break even until 2001. Orange, which is owned by Hutchison, is in a similar category. Both have been operational for only three years. They face strong

915
competition in the form particularly of Cellnet and Vodafone at a time when, due to the buoyant and competitive market, the average revenue per subscriber is declining rapidly.
I do not believe that there is anything between us on either side of the House about being in favour of competition. We can agree that we wish to see the evenhanded treatment of players on this playing field—that is, those who have been allocated spectrum—in order that they can compete against each other. The anxiety which I wish to draw to the attention of the House is the problem that is inherent where the allocations of spectrum and the consequent investment necessary to utilise that spectrum are not synchronised. Rather, they are happening at different times so that there are several different business cycles in play at one time.
The previous government, which I had the honour to serve, affirmed at paragraph 4.6 of their White Paper Spectrum Management into the 21st Century that the framework of spectrum pricing to be put in place would be:
"predictable in order to help users plan ahead".
It also stated that there would be:
"transitional arrangements to avoid disrupting existing business plans and investment already committed to by users".
The personal communications network operators obtained great comfort from that statement, although they questioned whether a three-year transitional period was sufficient because they are some years behind Vodafone and Cellnet in reaching profitability.
The amendment that I have tabled to Clause 2 is intended to reaffirm what was said by the previous Administration. It places a positive obligation on the Secretary of State in setting administrative pricing to allow an appropriate transitional period. The amendment to Clause 2 (2)(c) provides for the scale of existing investment to be a matter to be considered by the Secretary of State in determining administrative pricing, thus offering all mobile operators—I hasten to add not only One 2 One and Orange—significant comfort in knowing that the scale of their investment will not, as it were, be used against them in setting the level of the prices of the spectrum.
The amendment is intended to be a probing amendment and it may well be that the Minister will say that it is not necessary. He may also tell me that it is in some way defective in its drafting. However, I hope that I have clearly made the point about which I am anxious. I hope that he will consider it to be serious and one about which he can give some comfort to the industry. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Clinton-Davis): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for putting the position as he has. He says that this is a probing amendment. I think it is right that he should have tabled it for that purpose because it gives me an opportunity to express the Government's view on the issues.
916
The noble Lord may be right in saying that I shall argue that the amendments are not necessary. However, I wish to hold the House in suspense because I know that noble Lords are awaiting my remarks with great eagerness. I should never use the argument against the Opposition that something is wrong with an amendment simply because it is defective in its drafting. I have suffered all too often from those arguments and I do not propose to inflict them on the noble Lord. He does not have the facilities for drafting that we have. That does not mean to say that there cannot be a cock-up now and then but the noble Lord is more likely to have one than I am.
The noble Lord expressed concerns which I know he has discussed with parts of the industry. Therefore, it is appropriate that I should deal with the amendments. He is right to say that operators have invested very large sums of money in their systems and, not unnaturally, they wish to be able to make a reasonable return on them. The last thing in the world they want is to have their carefully considered business plans disrupted by violent swings in the level of licence fees.
I am now able to put the minds of your Lordships at rest. The noble Lord was right to anticipate that I would say that I cannot accept the amendments. The first amendment is really introductory, so perhaps we may look first at Amendment No. 2. The main concern is that the duty to have regard to sums invested in any telecommunications system would be extremely impractical to observe and to carry out. There are large numbers of telecommunications systems. The term includes not just the networks of the large operators but tens of thousands of small private systems. Ascertaining the amount of investment made in each individual licence system would be a gargantuan task and would also be a significant burden on licensees. I am sure that that is the last thing in the world the noble Lord would want.
Even if the data could be obtained, vastly differing amounts of investment and depreciation would be shown. I know that the amendment does not refer to depreciation but I believe that that is a factor which would be highly relevant. Having regard to substantially different investments would lead to considerable difficulties. For example, should it be the case that licensees in the same licence category are charged different amounts dependent on the stage reached in their investment cycles? I am advised that that might lead to a charge of being discriminatory. The noble Lord will know that that is not acceptable under the regulations. Nor is it acceptable in terms of the Treaty of Rome which does not define the words "discriminatory" or "arbitrary". In the final analysis the courts—the European Court of Justice—decide whether discrimination is practised.
There is the further point that the aim of the Bill is to permit the value of the spectrum to be reflected in licence fees. Logically, the value of the spectrum does not depend on the amounts that the licensee happens to have invested. I hope that the noble Lord will have been carried by that argument, which is forceful and practical.

917
I turn now to the proposed new subsection (2A). We intend that fee changes should be phased in gradually so as not to disrupt business plans. But I do not consider that adding the proposed provision would be helpful or advisable. The amendment refers to "an appropriate transitional period". As I indicated, I do not wish to appear to be unduly critical of the draftsmanship, but that is a vague expression. What is appropriate? It will differ from case to case. In my submission, that suggests strongly that such a detailed matter should be left to the regulations rather than appear on the face of the Bill. For example, the proposals that are currently the subject of consultation suggest a phasing-in period of three years. I do not know whether, at the end of the day, following the consultations, that will be regarded as sufficient. That is the whole purpose of any consultations. I have underlined over and over again in the course of our debates, although I know that they have been short, that the consultation must be full and relaxed and an exercise in which people feel that their views are properly taken care of. We want them to be able to make those representations freely.
However, I do not wish to pre-empt those consultations. The Bill as amended already provides sufficient checks and balances against fees being raised too quickly. We have discussed that previously and I did not notice any sign of dissent. A statutory duty to consult has been added to augment the ongoing and extensive non-statutory consultation practised by the agency. That will provide ample opportunity to assess the effects of changes on businesses.
The Secretary of State is required to have regard in particular to factors including the economic benefits arising from the use of wireless telegraphy. That covers the effect on licensees' businesses of either the amount or the speed of fee changes and provides ample scope for licensees to make representations if they consider that the changes are proceeding too rapidly and that their businesses will suffer in consequence. The effects on businesses will be taken into account also and published before the regulations are made along with the compliance cost assessment which was published with the Bill. In fact, phasing is an issue only when there is a sizeable shift in fees. That is likely to occur only when we are moving from the present regime to the new one.
We have already made proposals in the consultative document to phase in the initial changes over three years. Thereafter, I envisage a process of rather more gradual adjustment. Phasing in such circumstances would be unnecessary. It would slow the ability to use the pricing powers to respond to changes in spectrum demand and usage, making them a less effective spectrum management tool. I believe that the noble Lord and I agree that having an effective spectrum management tool goes to the very heart of what we are seeking to do.
Businesses which feel that their interests have not been properly taken into account or that their businesses will suffer have a remedy: they can approach Members of your Lordships' House or Members of another place
918
to raise the issue in Parliament. That is not impossible. Indeed, having seen how this matter has progressed in its own small way, I perceive that it is very possible.
Finally, the drafting has some unintended effects. I do not seek to make a point about the drafting but I wish to point out that the proposed subsection (2A) appears to rule out any possibility that fees might be reduced or remain the same. In practice, the proposals on which the Radiocommunications Agency is currently consulting would involve most licence fees either staying the same or being reduced by as much as nearly 50 per cent. in many cases.
I believe that our approach to spectrum pricing so far and the proposals in the consultative document demonstrate that we are sensitive to the concerns of businesses. We have certainly not been unmindful of the representations made to us either directly or through Members of your Lordships' House. I can assure noble Lords that we shall continue to take proper account of matters such as existing investment and the phasing in of fee changes. Nevertheless, for the reasons that I have given, I hope your Lordships will agree that it is neither necessary nor appropriate to introduce such details into the Bill. Therefore, in the light of my explanation and the assurances that I have given, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment that he quite properly moved.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking such a thorough look at the problem, which I believe we all agree is, in his words, difficult. I am sure that it was helpful to your Lordships to have canvassed the legal context widely, bearing in mind the European and other considerations that must be brought into play.
I should like to make just two points before I withdraw the amendment. The first is in terms of the value of spectrum. The latter only has a value to someone if it is of some use. A person may have a use for spectrum solely by virtue of having invested an enormous amount of money in infrastructure to enable him to use that spectrum; and, indeed, may only have carried out such investment on the understanding that he would subsequently be able to take advantage of the spectrum.
Secondly, as the allocations that we are discussing were made by government in pursuance of their own policy to effect competition in a particular market place, it would be perverse for changes in the general regime to directly undercut the competition that the original allocations of spectrum were intended to bring into effect. Finally, it is important for the long-term future of the industry—and, indeed, for all industries—that there should be investor confidence; namely, that those who lay out such very large sums of money can, as the Minister said, see a proper return in due course. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3not moved.]
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 40, after ("regulations") insert ("made under section 1(3)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I suggest that we consider this amendment along with Amendment No. 5 with which it is grouped. On Clause 2 stand part in Committee, I referred to what I thought were some drafting problems to which the clause gave rise. Indeed, the Minister described it as a complex clause. I have tabled these amendments in the hope of achieving some clarity. In the meantime, I have received a helpful and courteous letter from the Minister, for which I should like him to know I am most grateful. I agree with some of the views expressed by the Minister in that letter, but not all of them.
We have before us an enabling Bill, which will enable Ministers to make regulations which will be the effective, operative part of the law. Therefore, we must try to get it absolutely clear what the scope of the regulations should be and how they are to be observed. If one looks at subsection (2), it is clear that we should not only make the drafting clear to capable lawyers, like the Minister, but that we must also make it clear to those lay people who may have to administer the law and, indeed, even more so, to those who will have to observe the law.
The Minister has pointed out to me that Clause 2 begins by saying:
"In exercising his powers under section 1 to prescribe sums payable in respect of wireless telegraphy licences of any description, the Secretary of State shall have regard, in particular, to the matters specified in subsection (2)".
I should explain that that means subsection (2) of Clause 2, not of Clause 1.
Before I proceed any further, I should like to point out to the House that there is no power stated in Clause 2 to make regulations: there is merely a reference to the regulations which can be made under Clause 1. That brings me to ask your Lordships to consider subsection (3) of Clause 2 which reads:
"In this section—
'prescribe' means prescribe by regulations".
I do so because it does not say which regulations; indeed, it does not say under which clause such regulations are to be made. I shall stop at that point for one moment. Bearing in mind the fact that there is no intention here of introducing a further power to make regulations, or prescribe by regulations, I believe that we should make it clear that these are regulations made under Clause 1(3). We can do no harm by putting that simple amendment into the Bill and, as I say, it may help to remove any doubt and to make the matter clear to lay people. I suggest that that is what we should do.
I was convinced by what the Minister said regarding the further point covered by Amendment No. 5. Therefore, I do not propose to put forward any argument in its support. I merely beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble Lord is always courteous and thoughtful in the suggestions
920
that he puts forward, even when he is wrong. I have crossed swords with the noble Lord on many occasions in the past, both in this House and another place, but we have always done so on the most friendly terms. Indeed, the noble Lord is good at engaging in what this House should do; namely, to undertake the detailed scrutiny of legislation. Therefore, it is right that he should go into such drafting matters, even though I happen to disagree with the conclusions that he has reached.
As the noble Lord said, I wrote to him as promised, albeit a day before or perhaps even on the same day that he tabled the amendments, setting out why I thought that the amendments were unnecessary and, indeed, inappropriate. However, I do not say that in a pejorative way; I just do not think that they are required. I should add that I copied the letter to other members of your Lordships' House who spoke in Committee and copies of it have also been placed in the Library of the House.
I am glad that the noble Lord has given me the opportunity to share those thoughts with other noble Lords this afternoon. I hope that I shall be able to convince the noble Lord, who is always very reasonable about such matters, that his first amendment is unnecessary. If one looks at the wording of Clause 2(1), it is evident that the power to set fees derives from Clause 1. Clause 2 is concerned with the way in which the power is exercised; indeed, it does not confer any new regulation making power. The phrase that the amendment would add is therefore redundant for that purpose. Having heard the noble Lord speak on many occasions in this House, I know only too well that he shares my view that unnecessary wording in legislation is something that one ought to avoid. For that reason, together with the other reasons that I have just put forward, I believe that the noble Lord's proposed amendment is superfluous; it would not add anything to the Bill. I am glad that the noble Lord raised the matter because it has enabled me to clarify the position, although I believe that it is already pretty clear on the face of the Bill.
I note that the noble Lord has effectively not said anything about the other amendment and, therefore, there is no need for me to address it. With all his experience in such matters, I hope that the noble Lord will find the argument that I put forward points to the fact that to amend the clause in the way suggested would neither be necessary nor particularly helpful. Nevertheless, I thank the noble Lord for having tabled the amendment and enabling me to say these few words.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I have listened carefully to that explanation by the noble Lord. Of course I would not wish to divide the House on this. I merely say that there are times when it is as well for us to be cautious when drafting. Perhaps there is a slight excess of zeal on my part. In case any of your Lordships should think that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
3.40 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Prohibition of small-calibre pistols]:
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("the words "a small-calibre pistol" shall cease to have effect") and insert ("after the words "a small-calibre pistol" the words "which has a barrel length not less than 20.3 cm in length and which is incapable of holding more than one cartridge and is not derived from a multi-shot design" shall be inserted").
The noble Lord said: I was unable to take part in the debate on Second Reading due to a long-standing engagement in South Wales. However, I read the Official Report of the debate with great interest. It is evident that many noble Lords are concerned about the effects of this Bill. I fully agree with their sentiments.
I must declare an interest as a lifelong shooter, a life member and a member of the council of the National Rifle Association and also as a former chairman, now president, of the British Shooting Sports Council. My principal weapon is a rifle and I have never used a pistol in competitions. However, I have a working knowledge of many varieties of pistol. My amendment is designed to allow the continued use of a specialised kind of pistol which is known as a free pistol. It is designed solely for deliberate shooting at paper targets at a range of 50 metres. It has no magazine and is capable only of single shot fire. It has a fairly complex mechanism. Its stock is formed to fit the firer's hand almost like a glove. For greater accuracy it has an exceptionally long barrel.
The International Shooting Union, which governs the rules of the Olympic Games, lays down that the maximum overall length of a pistol is 420 mm, which is roughly 16½ inches. The rules also stipulate that the pistol should be capable of fitting inside a three dimensional box with certain limited measurements. The Committee will appreciate that the pistol cannot be described as concealable; neither can it be folded or readily dismantled. In short, the Committee can judge from this description that this pistol is totally unsuited for use as a means of assassination, being cumbersome to carry and incapable of rapid fire.
If the Government will recognise these facts and allow the continued use of these pistols that would slightly soften the blow of this painful Bill and allow our pistol shooters to continue to take part in one branch of international shooting. Practitioners of this sport pose absolutely no threat to public safety; it is pointless to pretend that they do. Public safety will not be increased one iota as a result of this Bill. A far greater danger is posed by the vast pool of underground weapons held
922
illegally by the criminal element. If the Government would only tackle that side of the matter, they would have the backing of the whole country.
It must be unique among civilised countries for a government not to trust their own citizens, even those judged fit to hold a firearm certificate, and to subject them to the humiliation of preventing them from taking part in an international competition in which they have hitherto excelled. Government spokesmen have previously said that they must apply consistency, yet they have already allowed exceptions in this Bill for veterinary surgeons, slaughter-house workmen, starters of athletic races and others. One more exception such as this can surely do no harm. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My noble friend Lord Swansea, with his enormous expertise and experience in these matters, has made the case for the amendment extremely well, as one would expect. Before we get to the meat of the amendment I wish to correct something which I said at Second Reading which has an important bearing on the Bill as a whole and to some extent on this amendment in particular.
Following the lead of the Home Secretary, Mr. Jack Straw, and, to be fair, to some extent, of much of the British press at the time of the incident, I acknowledged that Mr. Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated with a .22 pistol. That was incorrect. I, the Home Secretary and the British press were all misled. I have it on impeccable authority that Prime Minister Rabin was shot with a much more powerful weapon, a 9 mm Beretta, which is common in Israel. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will want his officials to check that with the Israeli Embassy. That revelation makes the case for this Bill, which is already weak, much weaker still.
There are few homicides committed in this country with legally held .22 semi-automatic pistols; even fewer are committed with single shot .22 pistols. I doubt whether they average as many as one in every 10 years. But where the bulky, highly specialised target pistol—which is the subject of this amendment—is concerned, I doubt whether homicide is committed with it as often as once in every 50 years. For one thing these pistols possess a hair trigger so that anyone trying to use one for assassination or robbery who stumbles or sneezes on the way to his target will find the pistol discharging prematurely. It will take him at least a minute to reload, during which time of course he can be overpowered.
As my noble friend Lord Swansea has said, these pistols are both long and bulky and hence much more difficult to conceal than any knife, axe, iron bar or even 2 litre mineral water bottle full of petrol. Not only are the latter easier to conceal, they are also more lethal. With the exception of the petrol, they can be used for a frenzied, repeated attack as clearly they do not need to be reloaded. It is true that acceptance of this amendment would save only one Olympic and Commonwealth pistol shooting sport for Britain, but surely one is better than none. I fully support this amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I, too, wish to support this amendment, particularly as my name is added to it.

923
This is a reasonable amendment bearing in mind that the Cullen Report, as we have heard, did not mention the .22 as being a really lethal weapon. What is more, I understood that the previous Bill and now this Bill were introduced as a result of the mass murder at Dunblane. However, the mass murder at Dunblane could not have been perpetrated with a single shot weapon because the person concerned would have been quickly overpowered before he could wreak mayhem upon 15 people. Under these circumstances—I should not say "spite" but I shall use that word—it is pure spite to include this form of weapon in the legislation. I should have thought that a new Government wishing to show how reasonable they were would accept the amendment. I sincerely hope that they will do so.
The Earl of Balfour: Because of the large number of illegally held firearms in this country, and the number of letters I have received, I am concerned about our police officers and Armed Forces having enough opportunities to practise in the use of handguns to protect their own lives and the lives of the general public. I therefore hope that the Government will put forward proposals to enable our police and Armed Forces to have sufficient practice with single shot handguns in order to become accurate shooters. I ask the Government to remember that our police may only have one chance to fire one shot to save a life.
I hope that the Government will have some sympathy regarding the amendment. Perhaps the Committee will also allow me to save time by saying that I hope the principles in Amendment No. 10 will be accepted by the Government in respect of an independent body studying firearms related crime, and the burden on police resources and police lives.
Lord Cottesloe: I agree with everything that has been said. I have only one point to make. At a time when Europe is moving towards common institutions, standards and practices, it seems to me strange that Britain is going deliberately in the opposite direction and for no valid reason.
In France any .22 single shot pistol can be bought across the counter with no permit or authority whatever. The proposed termination of all pistol shooting by refusing to make an exemption for these specialist single shot pistols brands Britons before the world as more immature and less dependable than the citizens of any other country. I cannot believe that that is what the Government wish.
I have one other small point. The very high value of these pistols of about £1,000 to £1,500 means that the insurance security obligations reinforce those required by the police. I support the amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As has been explained, the amendment would exempt single shot small calibre pistols with a barrel length of not less than 20.3 centimetres. We would not wish to allow such an exemption. I accept that the pistols to which the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, referred are few in number. However, the purpose of the Bill is to seek to ban all handguns. The amendment self-evidently wishes an
924
exemption to that ban. We believe that that would not be consistent with the general principle of the Bill. For the reasons given by noble Lords, it would treat one group of shooters in a way not consistent with the general approach written into the Bill. I hope that Members of the Committee will accept that it is not a question of spite but of the way in which the Government have approached the principle of the banning of handguns.
I am bound to say that we do not see the claim of this group of shooters as better than claims made by many other groups which we have accepted from the outset will be disadvantaged by the Bill. People will be disadvantaged by the legislation. That is an inevitable consequence of the Bill passing into law, if it does. We do not believe that we should impose a general ban on handguns and then make exceptions that undermine that ban.
It is probable that an exception as proposed in the amendment would mean an increase in the number of this type of single shot pistol. It would be difficult to justify why one group of people was subject to the ban and others not. Apart from that stance of principle, we believe that the noble Lord's amendment is defective. The Firearms (Amendment) Bill repeals the definition of a "small-calibre pistol" which was inserted by the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. The amendment does not change that. If it were to be accepted the amendment would mean that there was an exception for this particular type of "small-calibre pistol" but no definition of a small-calibre pistol in the Acts.
The background—I put it forward neutrally—is that a similar amendment was considered in another place and was defeated by a substantial majority of 210. I said previously that I recognise that there is a strong feeling that people are being disadvantaged, that they are losing what had been formerly a lawful activity; and I do not overlook that concern. I believe it to be a legitimate concern just as it is legitimate for the Government to come to a different conclusion. There are consequences which will be unfortunate for individuals. I do not close my eyes to those. I believe that I have said so on every occasion when noble Lords have discussed the matter. It is unfortunate. But we believe that it is a price worth paying. I therefore invite the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
Lord Gisborough: The Minister says that the objective of the legislation is to ban handguns. I thought that the objective of the legislation was to stop another Dunblane. Or is it simply to ban handguns? What good does that do? Surely it is another Dunblane that we wish to prevent, not handguns?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Perhaps I may deal with that intervention. It is well known that Dunblane focused the attention on this problem of those whose duty it is to attend to public safety. The previous government attended to it in their way. We are making proposals that attend to it in our way.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My noble friend says that we should not make exceptions; that we should not

925
allow one class of handguns to remain while others are banned. But we consistently do that in legislation. We consistently exempt groups of people from legislation. For example, virtually everyone—except perhaps taxi drivers—has to wear a seatbelt. So there are volumes of exceptions. Because of the low lethality of single shot guns why should we not give an exemption in this case? It is perfectly reasonable.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I take the point that my noble friend makes. One has exceptions in different pieces of legislation. The conclusion to which we have come is that this is a piece of legislation where it is not appropriate to have exceptions. I do not accept that single shot handguns are of low lethality.
Lord Monson: Can the Minister say why the Government believe the British people to be more unstable and prone to violence than people on the Continent of Europe where such guns are readily available?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: That is not the belief of Her Majesty's Government. A noble Lord spoke earlier of the situation which obtains in France where .22s can be bought over the counter. They do things differently abroad. We believe that as we put our plans plainly to the electorate, not only have we a duty to bring them forward but, more than that, we have an obligation.
Earl Russell: It is possible that some noble Lords who visit France during the hunting season wish that France took an attitude rather more similar to this Bill.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: The Minister mentioned the Labour Party's manifesto. Does he agree that this legislation represents a rather small part of that voluminous document and might well have been overlooked by most of the people who voted for the Labour Party?
Can he perhaps go further and explain to the Committee why this legislation, in particular the turning down of this amendment, is a price worth paying? Many people in this place, indeed perhaps the majority of people in this country, now regard this legislation as vindictive and misdirected. Will the Minister therefore tell the Committee why this is a price worth paying? How many lives do the Government estimate will be saved by this legislation in general and by turning down this amendment in particular?
4 p.m.
Lord McNally: Will the Minister in replying recall that all opinion polling on this legislation has shown overwhelming approval, and that another place, which has more direct contact with the electorate than this place, also showed overwhelming approval for this legislation?
Lord Gisborough: Will the Minister also bear in mind that, while there was 75 per cent. approval
926
immediately after the event, it then went back to 70 per cent. on the other side when people realised that the Government had overreacted?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The figure to which I believe the noble Lord referred is the figure of 83 per cent. in the recent Daily Telegraph poll for the banning of all handguns. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, indicates, rightly, that this was simply one item in the Labour Party manifesto. I respectfully dissent from his view that the public were not well-informed about the Government's proposals should they be elected. The Government set out their policy to the electorate quite plainly. We believe that we are doing the right thing. We believe it is right to ban the possession of handguns in this country. That is why we have brought forward this Bill, and that is why I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: May I press the Minister on that reply? He has not answered the question as to why he thinks this is a price worth paying. How many lives do the Government think this legislation will save?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Again, I should have thought it self-evident that no government will ever be able to say that one life will be saved; it might be two; it might be three. If the question were put to a parent who happened to have an innocent child at a primary school in Dunblane, the answer might be a good deal less moderate than the ones that I have given.
Earl Peel: If we are to consider public opinion, then perhaps we should reflect on the report in the papers today which indicated that only 15 per cent. of the population were in favour of reducing the age of consent for practising homosexuals.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I have not had the benefit of reading that report. I accept the noble Earl's remark. Governments have to pay attention to public opinion; they do not in every instance have to be ruled by public opinion. I entirely agree. It is a fact that the Leader of the Liberal Democrats in another place, the Prime Minister and the present Leader of the Conservative Party in another place, all upon a free vote, cast their vote in favour of the reduction of the age of consent for homosexual activities to 16.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My noble friend must not evade the issue. He was quite happy, as were noble Lords on the Liberal Benches opposite, to call in aid public opinion in relation to handguns. It cannot be called in aid in one respect and then be said not to matter in another respect.
Public safety, particularly that of young people, is important. Will my noble friend confirm that in 1995 no person under the age of 15 was killed by a firearm, although over 100 were killed in either suspicious circumstances or unusual circumstances?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I have never said that public opinion does not matter; it needs to be taken into

927
account. On the noble Lord's second point as to how many young people under the age of 15 were killed in a variety of circumstances in 1995, I am sorry that I simply do not have that material to hand. It may or may not be available depending on a more precise formulation of the question.
Lord Swansea: I am naturally disappointed with the reception given by the Government to this amendment. I hope that they will take careful note of the comments made during this short debate. The shooting fraternity as a body are, by definition, law-abiding people; otherwise they would not be trusted with firearm certificates. But they are an easy target; they are a sitting target, so to speak, for the Government to shoot at. But the Government are shooting at the wrong target. They should turn their attention to the vast underground pool of illegally held weapons. If they did that, instead of oppressing law-abiding, legitimate shooters, they would have the backing of the whole country.
I shall not divide the Committee at this stage. However, I shall return to this point at a later stage, when I may not be so accommodating. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Lord Howell Lord Howell moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause I, insert the following new clause—
DISABLED PERSONS: EXEMPTION
(".—(1) The authority of the Secretary of State is not required by virtue of section 5(1)(aba) of the 1968 Act for a person to whom subsection (2) applies to have in his possession or to purchase, acquire, sell or transfer a pistol chambered for .22 or smaller rim-fire cartridges if he is authorised under the Act to possess, purchase or acquire that weapon subject to a condition which complies with subsection (3) below.
(2) A person to whom this section applies shall be a registered disabled person who has a physical disability and is approved by the Secretary of State.
(3) A certificate granted under subsection (2) above shall be subject to the condition that—

(a) the weapon is stored and used only at premises designated by the Secretary of State; and

(b) possession of the weapon outside such designated premises shall be permitted only for transfer to and use at premises at which a shooting competition is taking place on such conditions as the Secretary of State shall specify.").

The noble Lord said: First, I must apologise to the Committee. When I spoke at Second Reading I forgot to declare an interest. I should establish that I am president of a shooting club in my old constituency.
The amendments standing in my name and the names of other noble Lords are there to safeguard the sport of pistol shooting, and, incidentally, the reputation and participation of this country in international Olympic and Commonwealth Games.
My noble friend talks about "a price worth paying". While I understand what he says and totally support all that he wishes to do to safeguard lives and prevent guns falling into the wrong hands, I must say that our Olympic participation and its preservation is a price worth paying. It is being undermined by this legislation.
928
This sport is traditional and has served Britain well. There have been great sporting festivals and national celebrations, and we have done extremely well.
In the last Commonwealth Games in 1994 we won two gold medals, one of which was won by Wales, two silver medals, and three bronze. That enables me to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, whom I had the great pleasure of seeing win a gold medal for his country in the Commonwealth Games in Jamaica in circumstances which I once described in this Chamber and, with the leave of the Committee, I shall mention again. The occasion is clear in my memory. The noble Lord, Lord Swansea, won his gold medal and stood on the podium, and the band played "God Save the Queen"—and he refused to get down. A message was dispatched to the far end of the stadium and the band then played some tune such as "Annie Laurie". He still refused to get down. Another message was dispatched and the band played "Land of Hope and Glory". He still refused to get down. I do not know how the devil the Jamaican band were persuaded to play "Land of My Fathers", but eventually they did; and then the noble Lord left the rostrum to greater applause from the audience, most of whom never knew what it was all about. I have to say to my noble friend—
Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I wonder whether he can help the Committee. Is he speaking to Amendment No. 2, No. 5 or No. 6?
Lord Howell: I was speaking to the amendment called which is Amendment No. 2, if my memory is right, even though I am getting old.
The Government's proposal is to abolish an Olympic sport in this country. What is at risk is the sport of shooting which is an Olympic sport and the explanations that we have had have been lamentable. In fact, we have had none. As my noble friend told us today in his opening, with complete honesty as usual, the Government oppose the amendment because they have decided to abolish everything. He said that the Government have not considered sports and the sport of shooting in that context.
Hardly more can be said about my right honourable friend in another place, Mr. Jack Straw, when he dealt with the subject. On Second Reading, he said that he would give reasonable consideration to any alternatives put to him. That is all I ask for today, reasonable consideration of the amendments put forward in defence of our Olympic and Commonwealth Games position. I am told—
Lord Gisborough: If I may intervene, unless I have got it wrong, we are dealing with the amendment on disabled persons and their exemption, not the Olympics.
Lord Howell: It is indeed Amendment No. 2 and I apologise to the noble Lord and to the noble Earl. I am getting carried away, as one does when one deals with the prejudice that one faces. I am reminded of an occasion in another place when Sir Charles MacAndrew was in the chair and my old friend Leslie Hale proceeded to speak on an amendment on the capital

929
punishment Bill which had been dealt with about four hours earlier. After that, he repaired to the smokeroom. When it was drawn to his attention that he was out of bounds, he said: "In that case, I'll drop another ball". So I will now drop another ball and deal with disabled persons.
I do not wish to make a long speech about them because the situation is self-evident. We have done extremely well and given enormous pleasure and satisfaction, particularly to paraplegics and others at Stoke Mandeville and in other centres who can follow no other sport, but they sit in their wheelchairs and follow the sport of disabled shooting. If we prevent them from doing that in the future, we shall wreak tremendous harm to their sense of pride and self-satisfaction. I know of no case of disabled shooters running amok in any sense with the weapons at their disposal. Because they are disabled, they have special supervision of their activities. Therefore, I hope that when my noble friend replies to the amendment, after other Members of the Committee more qualified than I to talk about disabled sports have spoken, he will find some consolation for them. At least perhaps he will reconsider their position if his present attempts to end their sporting activities are successful. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: I support the amendment, particularly one aspect. I understand that shooting is helpful for the disabled, especially for their balance. It is not just a sport, it is part of their rehabilitation and one is taking away from them something which helps them get better to whatever extent they can.
Earl Peel: I too support the amendment. It seems to me that in recent times the plight of the disabled has very much forged its way ahead in political thinking. I am sure that the Committee will agree that that is to be welcomed. Hardly any legislation today does not accommodate the needs of such people. This House has a particularly good record in accommodating all aspects of the problems that overcome the disabled. As has been said, the sport of shooting is one of the few events where people with physical disabilities can compete on equal terms with others. I am quite sure that that is an extremely important psychological consideration.
The amendment provides complete power for the Secretary of State, both in terms of the individual being vetted by him and in terms of the designated premises. So although I accept that it is an exception—and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, made it clear that the Government will not look kindly on exceptions—I sincerely hope that they will not maintain that position throughout the Committee stage. We have a case here which is worthy of the Committee's careful consideration.
When I move my amendment, Amendment No. 7, I shall come to the question of centres of excellence. But it seems to me that if we could establish such centres—and it has to be said that it is not envisaged that there will be many—this would be a perfect example for disabled people to continue to participate in their sport.
930
Of course they will be restricted, simply from the fact that the number of centres of excellence will be few and their disabilities will prevent them from getting to many of them. However, at least the opportunity will remain open for some. I cannot believe that the Government will not do everything in their power to accommodate such people, particularly given the proud record to which the noble Lord, Lord Howell, referred that the disabled have had in shooting sports over the years.
Lord Crawshaw: I also wish to say a few words in support of the amendment. As I do not speak often in your Lordships' House, I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I bore Members with my life story. I shall not take too long, but it is relevant to the amendment before the Committee.
During my time at Oxford University and before that, for physical recreation I indulged in or pursued every possible form of equestrian sport. In the summer, I played a good deal of cricket—not to a great standard, but nevertheless sufficient to derive great pleasure. At the time, the captain of Oxford was the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, who was a great deal more distinguished.
I then had the fall which put me in a wheelchair. Like others in the same boat, I was left wondering what on earth I could do to replace my sporting activities with which I could no longer continue. As my noble friend Lady Darcy and others will tell the Committee, in that situation you clutch at any passing straws that come along in the hope that you can find something to replace what has gone. In my case, one of those straws was the sport of archery. It was felt to be a good rehabilitation exercise and I became reasonably proficient at it.
I see that my noble friend Lord Marlesford is here today. Perhaps he will remember it all. Eventually, I returned to Oxford and met the captain of the university golf team. By way of light entertainment, I should tell the Committee that it is well known that a match between an archer and a golfer can be fairly close. I spent many a happy evening in the centre of Peckwater Quadrangle at Christ Church, with a bow and arrow, trying to put an arrow over the Kilcannon building into the Mercury Pond in Tom Quad. On occasion, the golfer would win and, on occasion, I would win. Unfortunately, that had to stop when I put an arrow through the bowler hat of the head porter. Luckily, he was unhurt and bore me no ill will. From that time on he always sent me a Christmas card which was signed "To Robin Hood from the Ancient Briton".
On leaving Oxford and having fewer people around to retrieve the arrows, which is one of the disadvantages of archery, I quickly transferred to using a shotgun and, on occasion, a .22 rifle. I happen to live in the country, where there is plenty of space for the safe use of those weapons, and I have derived untold interest and satisfaction from them. It seems to me that for anyone in a similar situation who lives in a town the sport of pistol shooting is entirely appropriate. We heard today from the noble Lord, Lord Howell, of the high standards that can be achieved.

931
Both governments have, naturally, tried to stop any similar recurrence of the appalling incident at Dunblane. But talk of a total ban on pistols, like a total ban on anything, concerns me, when I think of the kind of people who will be badly hurt. This amendment seems to incorporate a range of safeguards. I am sure that the Government do not want inadvertently to inflict such damage and I therefore very much hope that they will accept the amendment or propose some measure which will have the desired effect.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: It will be very difficult for me to follow the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw. I sincerely hope that my noble friend will take note of what he said both amusingly and movingly. In fact, he is a living example of a person to whom the sport of pistol shooting matters. It helps him with his disability.
Even though earlier my noble friend said that there should be no exceptions, surely he will now entertain the prospect of an exception in relation to disabled people. If we are not prepared to do that, what kind of people are we? What kind of people are we, if we are so rigid in our thinking and our policy that we cannot make an exception for disabled people, who, by their physical disability, are unable to cause mayhem either with a pistol or virtually anything else?
I sincerely hope that my noble friend will take note of what has been said and what he has observed in this debate. If a Labour Government means anything at all, it means that they have concern for all people but particularly those people who are disadvantaged. It is their job to ensure that disadvantaged people are comforted and not robbed of the pleasures that they now enjoy. I appeal to my noble friend under these circumstances to abolish rigidity and accept the amendment.
Lord Renton: I too should like to pay a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw. I have witnessed his skill with a shotgun and greatly admire the spirit in which he has accepted the disability that was inflicted on him in his youth. I am sure that we all do so.
I agree with those noble Lords who appealed on behalf of disabled people. That, by the way, means physically disabled people, as is clear from subsection (2) of the new clause:
"A person … who has a physical disability".
I support what has been said about enabling such people to enjoy the sport of target shooting.
But I wish to extend the theme of the new clause still further. In my former constituency of Huntingdonshire, I saw severely disabled people, mostly rather elderly, living alone in remote cottages and even down fen droves. For those noble Lords who are not acquainted with the Fens, let me say that there are very long roads, which can hardly be called farm roads but are rough roads of communication, sometimes a mile or more long and that distance from a highway. Those people are in a very vulnerable position should some aggressive person try to disturb them.
932
All the disabled people whom I have seen living in remote cottages and small farmhouses have had a dog with them. That is some protection. The way in which the present law has been administered in East Anglia means that those people have not been allowed to have a pistol to protect themselves. But I believe that under this new clause, if it were slightly redrafted, they could and should have that means of protection against intruders. Alas, we live in an age in which there is much aggressive intrusion upon defenceless people. It used not to be so in one's youth but it is so now. While we have this opportunity, we should legislate to protect such people. Therefore, I warmly support the clause but feel that we should give it further thought and perhaps at Report stage try to include the opportunity for such people to defend themselves by having small bore, single chamber pistols.
There is just one other point I would make. Subsection (2) reads:
"A person to whom this section applies shall be a registered disabled person who has a physical disability and is approved by the Secretary of State".
There will be thousands of disabled people who could obtain the benefit of what is proposed in the new clause. But the idea that the Secretary of State, or even several people to whom he delegates to give approval, should have that task is not practicable or reasonable. It is a job which should be done by the chief officer of police in each county or elsewhere. So, I hope that at a later stage we shall see the clause with that possibility borne in mind.
Lord Swinfen: I am afraid that I cannot follow my noble friend down the same road, as I cannot approve even of people with physical disabilities having a single shot weapon just for the purposes of defending themselves. It would be far wiser to make certain that their homes are properly secured and if necessary that there are grants available for that. My noble friend should also bear in mind that it may not be difficult for the weapon to be removed from a physically disabled person and then used on that person.
However, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, first, because pistol shooting can be a great aid to the rehabilitation of people with certain physical disabilities and, secondly, because young people with physical disabilities have the same urge to compete as able-bodied people. This is one of the few methods of competition where a person with a physical disability can compete on equal terms and on a level playing field with an able-bodied person. Also, though I specifically mentioned young physically disabled people, it is a sport that can be enjoyed and practised by people of all ages.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I rise to support specifically the amendment on the Marshalled List and not the extension of it.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, has been involved in the world of sport for many years. He has seen at first hand the enormous satisfaction gained by disabled

933
people competing in sport. But the one sport in which disabled people can compete on fully equal terms with able-bodied people is the sport of shooting.
This is a minority interest. The Government pride themselves on being concerned with minority interests. I do not believe that the people of Dunblane, or children or people anywhere, will be disadvantaged by the exception called for in the amendment. I rise with hope on this amendment for two reasons. The first is the Minister, who has made such an impressive start as a Minister in this House and has gained the respect of everybody in this Chamber. I know from the correspondence that flows between us at the different stages of Bills how much he listens and takes note of what is being said during debates. Secondly, his right honourable friend in another place, the Home Secretary, left a glimmer of hope that he was open-minded over suggestions that may come from debates on this issue. Given that open-mindedness, I hope that the Minister will consider carefully the points that have been made.
It has been said—I think rather glibly—by a number of people that there are viable alternatives. There are no viable alternatives, particularly for people who have honed the craft of shooting to a highly skilled level. It would be cutting off a lifeline for many of those people and we cannot therefore say that there is an alternative.
Pistol shooting is a popular sport for disabled people because it is a practical sport. We were all moved—and amused—by what my noble friend Lord Crawshaw had to say. I shall keep out of the way when he next takes to a bow and arrow. My noble friend has empathy with other people who have disabilities and knows how much any sport, but particularly the sport of shooting, means to them.
Pistol shooting provides disabled people with a quality of life. For all the reasons stated by my noble friends on this side of the Chamber, by Cross-Benchers and by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, I hope that the Minister, if he is unable to accept the amendment at this stage, will consider carefully what his right honourable friend said in another place; that is, that he is open-minded and will consider good, cogent arguments to support this very special minority interest sport.
Lord McNally: The Committee widely shares the judgment of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that the Minister has handled this Bill with great skill thus far. I suspect that there will not be a more difficult clause to demand his skills and judgment. Anybody who listened to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, will realise that. However, anyone who listened to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, also sees the wisdom of the advice the Minister gave in discussing the other clauses; that is, that we must beware of exceptions. Exceptions are then extended and used to justify other exceptions.
Those of us who have supported the Government thus far in the passage of this Bill do so in the hope and belief that they will deliver it in its full integrity as a ban on all handguns. We look to the Minister for
934
guidance, using as his judgment that that is still the Government's intention—to deliver this Bill in full integrity as a ban on handguns.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: I hope that my noble friend will not be tempted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in his thinking. In particular, I hope that my noble friend will not use that argument as a means by which to distract attention from the central purpose of the proposed amendment; that is, the use of these weapons for sporting purposes.
My noble friend may tell us that the reason why he cannot accept the amendment is one of principle. What kind of principle can it be to have a law which cannot tolerate a small amendment designed to protect the proper interests of a great number of deserving people? If my noble friend is tempted to talk about principles and of the danger of precedents being set, I for my part—and I suspect other Members of the Committee—can assure him that we will not use such a precedent in order to try to extend the exceptions to the general rule and the principles embodied within the Bill.
My noble friend may suggest that he cannot accept the amendment on grounds of practicality. What kind of argument is that? Is there a serious danger that a disabled person who was given this right after careful limitation would misuse it and go on the rampage? Surely not. Is there a danger that such a weapon may fall into the wrong hands? So far as I can see, the amendment is adequate in that respect. But if those are the grounds that my noble friend feels challenge the proposal in the amendment, I would willingly accept from him further modifications designed to put beyond doubt the chance that such a weapon could fall into the wrong hands.
I share the hope that has been expressed that the Minister will look sympathetically at the amendment, both on merit and on the grounds that it can be ring-fenced in such a way that it will not give rise to wider dangers of the sort discussed in previous debates on the Bill.
The Earl of Lytton: I rise to support the amendment moved so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. It is perhaps appropriate for me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Murray, in this because it is clear that we have a proud heritage in this country of making certain exceptions to the normal rules for disabled people. It arises in the road traffic Acts, in connection with the use of and design of vehicles, in connection with access to buildings, and so forth. Those are all departures from what would otherwise be norms and principles that are established in the general law.
If a point of principle does arise—to follow the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Murray—it needs to be carefully spelt out by the Minister. I suspect that the point of principle is that there should be no exceptions—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who has battled valiantly through the principles that lie behind the broader interests and particularly the interests that the Government are trying to pursue.

935
The Government say that on principle they cannot have exceptions because the commitment is to remove the use of handguns from these shores. Manifesto commitment or no manifesto commitment, that is not an option open to the Minister or his Government because, as we have heard before in these debates, the number of illegal weapons vastly exceeds the number of legal weapons. All that is happening is that the tip of the iceberg is being chopped off and the remaining 90 per cent. remains lurking unseen under the water. If that is the point of principle it needs to be squared with the overriding reality of the situation in that the total removal of handguns from these shores, given the lack of border controls and the circumstances of gun availability on the Continent of Europe, needs to be looked at in some considerable detail.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: One of the privileges of sitting where I do is that one has to attend to well-put, moderate arguments. It is often a disappointment to say to people who have put their arguments in that way—often understating rather than overstating or exaggerating their case—that it is disagreeable to be unable to deliver what Members of the Committee wish. I shall confine myself to the ambit of this present amendment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, did, rather than go into Olympic matters. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, said that he was looking for reasonable consideration of the case put forward. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, urged me to take particular note of what the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, said. The noble Baroness very gracefully asked me to understand the points that were being made. I do understand them. No one could have listened to the speeches—in particular that made by the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw—without both understanding and sympathy.
The Home Secretary in another place said that he would attend to matters with an open mind. I believe that it is plain that the conclusion reached is that exemptions ought not to be allowed. Small calibre pistols are lethal. I make it absolutely plain to the Committee that disabled shooters will be able to compete using air weapons, shotguns and rifles. There is no doubt at all that their formerly lawful activities will be restricted and I am not going to pretend the opposite. I am always reluctant to do anything—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: The noble Lord has just suggested that disabled people will be able to use air pistols. That is not a practical solution because the Bill will close all pistol clubs in this country. It is therefore impossible to see where disabled shooters will be able to take up air pistol shooting and practise.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I take the point that is being made. I am simply explaining the fact that air weapon shooting, rifle and shotgun shooting remain available. I understand entirely that many Members of the Committee will say that that is not a solution to the problem that has been defined. In the end it may be that the solution for which the Committee contends almost unanimously is not going to be reconciled with the principle that the Government stand for. At the end of
936
the day, giving as much good will as one can, it may be that I shall have to disappoint what I do recognise and respect as a very significant section of opinion in the Chamber.
I am reluctant to offer anything which is going to be dust and ashes when we return. However, to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, we shall give the matter reasonable consideration. But I would not wish to mislead anyone, who might be grievously disappointed, by offering any indication beyond that. Without being pompous, I believe that it is a government's duty to listen. But, equally, at the end of the day, the Government may well remain with their present conclusion that exemptions are not appropriate. So I stress that of course the matter will be thought about, but I cannot give any guarantee. If there is to be disappointment I wish it to be on the basis that the Government have stuck to their position rather than disappointment that I have misled anyone in this House.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Lord sits down, I thank him for his reply and for at least a glimmer of hope that thinking on this question will continue. Perhaps I may say to him that it is not the Members of this House who need concern the Minister as regards disappointment. We are no more than mouthpieces for those outside who will be affected by the Bill. It is their disappointment which we are addressing rather than that of Members of this House.
I rise simply to make this point, if there is to be more thinking. It is easy to say that there are air pistols and rifles, but it is very usual for pistol and rifle clubs to be mainly pistol clubs. They will not exist so there will not even be a club at which to practise air shooting or to seek an alternative sport. These people will lose their sport entirely. I make the point for the final time. I do not believe that the children of Dunblane or of this country will be disadvantaged by allowing this very honourable and law-abiding, respectable minority to continue their sport under the regulated conditions set out in the amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Of course, I take the point that the ultimate disappointment will not be for the Members of this Committee. But I have attended as carefully as I can to the speeches that have been made. Of course we are only here to serve other persons and purposes. I take very much to heart what the noble Baroness has said, but I stress that having an understanding of, and sympathy for, the way in which points have been put is no indication at all that the Government will change what at the moment is their settled conclusion.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Does the very guarded statement that the Minister has just made in response to the speeches put us nearer to, or further away from, what the Minister in the other place said? Where do we stand? Are we nearer to a possible exception? Or are we further

937
away, taking into account the statement made by the Minister in the other place at the very beginning of thinking on this matter?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The Home Secretary said that he would have an open mind on all these questions. I am not going to go further than what I have said already because if one is to attend to something with consideration, that is exactly what it means. I am not prejudging anything one way or the other except to repeat—because I believe that it is honourable to do so—that I am doing nothing more than what I have said. I am quite conscious of the fact that if the Government adhere to their presently concluded position and the Committee is speaking, as I entirely accept, on behalf of a different constituency, Members of the Committee will be unhappy.
Lord Howie of Troon: I am impressed by the firmness with which my noble friend the Minister adheres to his belief that there must be no exceptions in this Bill as a point of principle. However, looking at the last line of Clause 3 of the Bill, I notice that there is an exception; namely, that the Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland. That seems to me an exception of a quite substantial size. I believe I understand why the Government take that view although I do not believe that it is very sensible because there are more guns in Northern Ireland than there are £20 notes. That vast exception leaves a situation in which disabled shooters in Belfast will be able to continue enjoyment of their sport whereas disabled shooters in Birmingham will not. That may be sensible to the Government, but it is not really sensible to me. I believe that very serious consideration should be given to the amendment and that the Government should accept it and the fact that there ought to be exceptions on principle.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I do not know whether it is helpful if I deal with the question of Northern Ireland now. The position is that Northern Ireland has always had completely different firearms legislation.
Lord Howell: I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. Perhaps I may comment first on the Northern Ireland situation. I had intended to deal with it in relation to Amendment No. 5, to which I thought I was speaking. The fact is that if this Bill is passed, we shall be in the ludicrous position of people in Northern Ireland being able to have gun clubs and take part in the Olympics. Indeed, in the context of this amendment, Northern Ireland's citizens can participate in the handicapped or paraplegic games. Do the Government really want to be in the stupid position whereby anyone from Liverpool or Birmingham can trot over to Northern Ireland, join a club there and then possibly represent our country although they would be unable to do so if they remained in their home town? This is a matter of some importance and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Howie for raising it. I endorse his comments which make it unnecessary for me to have to say it all again.
938
We were all delighted to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw. I am sure that we were all moved by what he said. I thank him for participating.
I well remember the first time I became involved in what were then called the paraplegic games. I believe that they are now known as the handicapped games. The late Dr. Ludwig Guttman came to see me when I was first made Minister for Sport. He said that he understood the social value of using sport to help those who were handicapped and others. He was seeking money to build the sports centre at Stoke Mandeville. He wanted £40,000 to finish what has since become a magnificent success story there. He was overwhelmed when I asked my officials how much money we had left. They told me that £30,000 was available. I turned to Dr. Guttman and said, "Will you settle for £30,000?" and he did. My officials said that there would be nothing left to spend anywhere else in the country, to which I said, "The rest of the country will have to wait until 1st April when we can start again". I thought that that was the way to conduct myself as a Minister.
One must apply one's mind to social considerations and social needs, not just to economics or, as my right honourable friend Jack Straw is doing, to sheer emotional considerations, however much we may understand that, as we do in relation to Dunblane. As I have said previously, emotionalism can be met only by intellectual clarity of mind. If my noble friend on the Front Bench does not mind my saying so, none of those commodities has been applied during these deliberations. I do not blame my noble friend. He is reading out his brief and from what is agreed policy they shall not depart. Nothing shall happen. Incidentally, nobody shall be talked to either.
I am absolutely delighted that today my noble friend, whether acting on his own initiative as a sensitive and compassionate person or with the support of Jack Straw, has agreed to think again about the amendment. That is a magnificent step forward, especially given the way in which previous debates on the matter have been handled. I accept my noble friend's statement in the spirit in which I believe he made it.
Society benefits from harmonious relationships and understanding, especially between great bodies such as Stoke Mandeville with its disabled sports persons and Ministers. I took note of what my noble friend said about the Government having considered these matters previously. However, I am sure that my noble friend will accept from me that the Government have not talked to anyone during their considerations. Organisations for the disabled tell me that they have not been approached. They have not spoken to anyone at the Home Office and no one from the Home Office has asked to speak to them. That applies to me also, and, I suppose, to most noble Lords. The normal way of proceeding with regard to amendments is for there first to be a discussion between Members with an interest, organisations with an interest and the Ministers who are responsible for policy. If that process took place, even if we lost the amendment in the end, we would know that our arguments had been listened to and that our problems had been confronted. They are not being confronted at present.

939
I should like to raise a final point relating to what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said. I agree with the noble Lord opposite who disagreed with him. I refer to the point about removing power from the Secretary of State and asking the police to carry out that function. In this amendment—and in my next amendment, Amendment No. 5—we have deliberately desired to place in the Secretary of State's hands all the necessary authority. Apart from him saying, "No, I shall not consider any arguments whatsoever; on this point I am totally prejudiced" —if I may use that word, although it seems to be the position—we have said that we think that we can work out a scheme which protects the Secretary of State's public position (as we want to protect it) and stops any weapons getting into the hands of lunatics or other evil people. We believe that at the same time we can say to the Secretary of State, "With your agreement and authority and on your terms, we can produce a scheme that will satisfy us." That is what we have tried to do. I advise the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that that is why we have worded the amendment as we have. If the Secretary of State says that it is a big job and that it should be done by the chiefs of police, I would be happy with that. I am not sure of the number of disabled shooters—it cannot be many—but we are talking about 300 or 400 able-bodied shooters who are likely to represent this country, so it is perhaps not as big a task as the noble Lord thought.
It has been put to me that I should seek to divide the Committee on this amendment because we would probably win. I think that we would probably win, but I am not here to take advantage of the temporary political situation. I do not want to do that; I simply want us to think again. That seems to me much more responsible than merely gaining a temporary victory over the Government, especially when it is a government of my own party. I have no intention of trying to embarrass the Government; I am merely trying to help them. Having explained the reasons behind the amendment, and thanking again all noble Lords who have contributed, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Clause 2 [Consequential amendments and repeals]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 2A:
Page 2, leave out lines 15 to 21.
The noble Baroness said: I should first apologise to the Committee for bringing forward this manuscript amendment at such short notice. I found myself in a similar situation when I was a Minister because of the publication of a scrutiny committee report close to the date of the Committee. Such occasions usually gave rise to very lively debate, with the Opposition spending a good deal of energy exhorting me, as the then Minister, to heed the recommendations of the report from the scrutiny committee.
The Select Committee described the Bill as illogical. I agree. Sections 16 and 17 of the 1997 Act provide that the Secretary of State may not make a scheme unless the draft has been approved by both Houses and that
940
those requirements apply equally to any alteration to a scheme. Therefore, the Government's argument that 80 per cent. of firearms are already covered totally ignores the fact that any alteration—minor or otherwise—to the scheme may be made under the present Bill without reference to the parliamentary procedure. Therefore, there is no parliamentary control.
Clause 2(5) of the Bill makes amendments to Section 18. In the result, it excludes the affirmative procedure from underwriting the scheme. The scheme so limited instead must be laid before Parliament after it has been made. This does not attract the negative procedure, and there is no parliamentary control over compensation schemes relating to small-calibre pistols.
The committee did not accept the argument of the Home Office. It said that it was unconvincing, and I believe that it was right. It claimed that it was anomalous and that Parliament should have no control over the making of compensation schemes under the Bill, since even minor variations of the main scheme remained subject to the affirmative procedure but the scheme under the Bill as drafted would not be subject even to the negative procedure. The committee went on to say that the scheme was virtually the same as the original scheme, which was subject to the affirmative procedure, and that the firearms, and in some cases the equipment, referred to were different in this Bill and so therefore were the sums involved in determining their values. But the basis on which these values have been calculated is the same. The committee went on to say that it saw no reason why the provision of parliamentary control or its total absence should depend on the calibre of the weapon.
My noble friend Lord Cranborne, when speaking on this subject, advocated that it was important that the Government should make a commitment to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee that the House would listen with the greatest care to the recommendations contained in the reports of that committee and seek to respond quickly and positively to the views expressed. I am proud to say that the previous Government, who set up the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, not only found the work of the committee very helpful—as indeed it was—but had a record for always responding positively to the wishes of the House that the recommendations of the committee should be addressed.
I have spent many hours in the Home Office. I know that there is always a reluctance to submit anything to the affirmative or negative procedure. Parliamentary procedure is the enemy of officials in most departments. But I always succeeded in persuading them otherwise for two reasons: first, because I believed that the parliamentary procedure was worth invoking in many cases; and, secondly, because I believed that this House had an in-built abhorrence of the use of powers without Parliament having some control. Therefore, it is important to heed what is said.
The scrutiny committee went on to say,
"Apart from the illogicality of the Bill as drafted, the Committee has also borne in mind the fact that this issue is a controversial one, and one which has attracted considerable debate both in and outside

941
Parliament. In the light of these considerations, the House may wish to consider whether the Bill should be amended to make the new scheme subject to the affirmative resolution procedure".
I invite the Committee to consider that matter. I hope that the Committee will support me in believing that it should be subject to the affirmative procedure. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I rise briefly to support my noble friend. This is a very important matter. I remind your Lordships not only of the valuable work of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation but also of the fact that the point to which my noble friend has referred would be the first occasion on which your Lordships had either ignored or acted contrary to the advice of that select committee. In particular, the committee's comment in paragraph 4 on page 3 is very important:
"It is anomalous that Parliament should have no control over the making of compensation schemes under the Bill".
It would be most unfortunate if that principle were abandoned by ignoring the advice of that committee. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply to this short debate will provide an undertaking that the matter will be further considered. The words in lines 15 to 21 inclusive on page 2 of the Bill are inappropriate.
Lord Burton: I also support my noble friend in this matter. I believe that pistol shooters have been very hard done by anyway, but to have what may be a considerable delay in making payment to them if this matter is not dealt with promptly will be a final and quite unnecessary imposition upon them. If there is nothing else in the amendments tabled today, perhaps this is one that the noble Lord will be able to support.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As the noble Baroness has indicated, this amendment would require the details of a compensation scheme for small-calibre pistols to be subject to affirmative approval. That would mean that the Secretary of State could not make compensation payments to the owners of small-calibre pistols until the scheme had been approved by both Houses. Perhaps I may indicate why I do not believe that that is necessary.
When we debated the compensation scheme on 9th June I made clear (at col. 767 of Hansard) that the scheme for small-calibre pistols would be structured on entirely the same basis as that for the higher calibre weapons. I suggest to your Lordships that it is unnecessary to require both Houses to go over effectively the same material. I take the point made clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. It is for that reason that we do not believe that it is necessary. It is exactly the same scheme.
The ex gratia scheme which will operate for small-calibre pistols and ancillary equipment until such time as the compensation scheme comes into force has already been placed in the Library of the House. Copies have been issued to all claimants at the same time as details of the compensation scheme already approved. If the further compensation scheme consequent upon the noble Baroness's Amendment No. 2A required approval by both Houses, there would be a delay in bringing the
942
Act into force, which we believe would be unwelcome. We want to remove firearms from circulation as soon as possible. I believe that there is a strong public expectation that there will be no delay. I believe that claimants would welcome the introduction of the scheme sooner rather than later.
I read the report of the Select Committee on this matter. As the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have made plain, the language used is quite vigorous. The one point of dissent that I offer is that the report speaks about a controversial scheme. The banning of handguns is controversial, but the payment of compensation on the same model is not. That is the point of disagreement between the Government and the Select Committee. We certainly do not ignore its report; we have read it with care. It is couched in strong words.
We hope and intend that the present ex gratia scheme should become the formal compensation scheme. What we see now is what small-calibre pistol-holders can expect after enactment. This amendment would not do any favours for claimants. We have already received some claims for payment under the ex gratia scheme. Therefore, there will be some further delay.
The Government intend—I repeat it willingly—that if two individuals claim, one early ex gratia and the second for the same make and model of weapon, they will receive exactly the same amount. Your Lordships confirmed earlier the compensation scheme which accounts for 80 per cent. of the expenditure necessary to compensate the owners of handguns and related ancillary equipment. This is a further 20 per cent. on exactly the same principles as those already agreed. If one looks at the compensation scheme which has already been approved, and the ex gratia scheme which has been published, they are the same. Therefore I ask the noble Baroness not to press the amendment. I stress again that I am not disregarding any of the constitutional points—if I may describe them in that way—made by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
If it were to be of assistance, I am happy to look carefully again, in the light of what has been said (it has been said briefly but to abundant effect, which may not always be our experience) and consider—I cannot do more than give this undertaking—whether to bring an amendment on Report. We do not overlook the Select Committee's importance. It is capable of being, as it were, distinguished, but I am happy to give that undertaking if that is of assistance to the Committee and, in particular, to the noble Baroness.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend Lady Blatch replies, will the Minister bear in mind that Parliament must be assured that the compensation scheme is adequate? That can only be assured if Parliament has the chance to consider the matter.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I take the noble Lord's point. I am merely indicating that the proposed scheme is the same as the scheme that has already been approved for larger calibre weapons.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: The Minister may have overlooked the fact that one of the reasons for accepting

943
that .22 weapons could go on being used is that many thousands of people have been most unfortunately deprived of the right to use larger calibre weapons by the previous Act. Therefore the compensation possibly needs to be larger for the small calibre weapons because people will be using them who would otherwise have been able to go on shooting in some way, whereas the previous Government, much to the regret of many of us, banned the use of larger handguns. It is not on all fours to say that the compensation scheme for these weapons should be the same as for the others—even the compensation for the others was entirely inadequate—because people are now being deprived of the sport entirely, whereas before they could have gone on to some extent.
Lord Burton: Is it not right that the small bore compensation is only £100 as opposed to £150 for large bore weapons? I understand that that is what the people have been signing for.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I repeat what I believe to be correct: the scheme is the same as the other scheme. I do not know that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has ever practised at the Bar, but he has a point of philosophical ingenuity to which many lawyers would take their hat off. It is apparently attractive, and therefore on closer examination may not be perfect. When one does not go into detail, one comes to the principle, which is the principle that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, have contended for.
I repeat that I am happy to look carefully again at the committee's report in the light of everything that has been said by Members of the Committee and to consider whether to bring an amendment on Report. I hope that the Committee will think that that is an appropriate response to the concerns that have been raised.
Baroness Blatch: I shall not be pressing the amendment today, but if the Minister comes back at the next stage of the Bill with the same argument that he has used today, I shall have no hesitation in asking Members of this place to join me in the Division Lobby on the amendment. This place must be cautious about disregarding the advice of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. It will be an unprecedented act if the Government refuse to accept what is unequivocal. As the Minister said, vigorous language is used to say that the Bill in its present state is unsatisfactory. We owe it to the committee, which does such valuable work, to respond positively. It will cost almost nothing to put the Bill on all fours with the previous Act.
Without any disrespect to the Minister, we have only the Minister's word that this scheme will be identical. The powers in the Bill allow the scheme to be changed. They allow changes to take place without any reference to Parliament. There is no control over the scheme that will arise from the Bill, which is an unsatisfactory state of affairs for the shooting fraternity.
I was almost breathless with surprise when the Minister said that the scheme is not controversial. I do not know where he has been for the past few weeks, but I can tell him that there is a great deal of disquiet about the scheme. I know, from having been at the Dispatch Box on that side
944
of the Chamber, the difficulty of having to convince people that the scheme was fair and that we would play fair by those disadvantaged by the Bill. There is great disquiet about the scheme.
As my next amendment will show, there is a great deal of unhappiness about the way in which the scheme will be administered and the speed with which it will be administered. For all those reasons, changes in the timing, the way it will happen, and its administrative implementation could all take place without reference to Parliament. That is unacceptable. I accept that the Minister will go away and reflect on what has been said during this short exchange, but if he is not prepared to move on this I shall be inviting Members of this place to be joining me in the Division Lobby to sustain our record of always taking seriously and positively the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Clause 2 [Consequential amendments and repeals]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 21, at end insert—
("(3B) Payments made under this scheme relating to small-calibre pistols, or to equipment designed or adapted for use in connection with such pistols, shall he received within 40 days of agreement of the valuation".").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment would ensure that compensation payments relating to small calibre pistols or equipment designed or adapted for use in connection with such pistols will be paid within 40 days of the agreed valuation. The amendment is in line with current government policy. Indeed, in a lecture to the City of London Corporation in September 1996, the Prime Minister said that the Labour Party:
"will introduce a requirement for Government Departments and public agencies to pay their bills within 30 days".
That has my wholehearted support.
There is no reason why that principle should not apply to affected owners under the Bill. Indeed, the amendment offers a further 10 days above the limit specified by the Prime Minister. There was confusion during the debate in the other place on a similar amendment. The Minister said that it would be,
"unreasonable to include in primary legislation the requirement sought by the amendment"—[Official Report, Commons, 18/6/97; col. 371.],
because of the demands that it would place on police forces which collect the weapons.
If the amendment were to require payment 40 days after surrender of the weapon, that might well be a valid objection, but the amendment requires payment 40 days after agreement of the valuation of the weapon. So once claims have been sent to the Firearms Compensation Section set up under the firearms compensation scheme 1997 and agreement has already been reached, there is no reason why that payment should not be sent out by that department within 40 days. It is a question of just writing the cheque.
It does not matter whether the pistol in question is in option A or B, which is the flat-rate payment, or the listed pistol evaluation, or claims under option C (individual valuations). If there is any dispute, particularly under option C, the 40 days runs from the time of the agreed valuation. My noble friend Lord Attlee received a letter by fax from the Minister this morning as a result of points made by him on Second Reading. In that letter the Minister states:
"All claims will be processed as quickly as possible. Single claims submitted under Options A and B will be dealt with very quickly, as soon as they can be entered on to the Home Office computer system. Multiple claims from individuals or dealers, and those under Option C. will take longer".
That is accepted, and set aside as an argument for the purposes of the amendment.
It is only at the point of full agreement between the parties that the 40-day period commences. There should be no difference if someone is covered by an A, B, or C scheme. It is not too much to invite the Government, after all the negotiations have been completed, to take within 40 days to write the cheque. As I say, we support the Prime Minister's objective. We have given a little leeway with respect to the volume of applications, but we believe it is eminently achievable and that there should be no problem for the Government in considering it favourably. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: I support the amendment. To deprive our sportsmen and women of their pistols for reasons which have more to do with public relations than with public safety is wrong and unnecessary. To make them wait for several weeks for the minimal compensation adds insult to injury.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, pointed out, prompt payment is wholly in line with the promise made by Mr. Blair 10 months ago when he was Leader of the Opposition. Therefore, for that reason if for no other, I trust that the Minister will accept the amendment.
The Earl of Lytton: I agree with the thrust of the amendment; namely, that payment should be made promptly. However, I do not believe that it goes far enough or is sufficiently comprehensive, hence my Amendment No. 11. I support the thrust of what the noble Baroness put forward and believe it right and proper that once the amount of the payment is known it should be made promptly. Anything else would be to court a dangerous situation on which I shall elaborate in connection with Amendment No. 11.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I regret to say that I cannot accept the amendment. I do not disagree with the sentiment behind it, but on Second Reading I made it plain to your Lordships that compensation payments for small calibre pistols and their ancillary equipment would be made as quickly as possible. Your Lordships will remember that I gave the same assurance for large calibre handguns.
The noble Baroness was good enough to refer to a letter which I sent to her noble friend Lord Attlee in which I made it plain that single claims under options A and B will
946
be dealt with quickly and that multiple claims—there will be some—from individuals and dealers under option C will take longer.
It is a problem of logistics. There will be a large number of claims over a short period of time. Those which are entered and are straightforward should be dealt with if no further check is required and payment sent out in the post within a matter of days. It is not practicable to set a specific time period within which claimants will receive payment. There was a murmured question, "Why not?". The amendment requires that payments "shall be received", not "shall be dispatched", and it is not possible to have such an obligation in an Act of Parliament. It simply is not possible. I am not taking that purely as a drafting point because it is not an issue between us, but obviously the amendment is defective in any event.
I turn to matters of substance and principle. We expect that there will be more than 60,000 claimants under the scheme for large calibre handguns. It is a matter of practicability. I ask the Committee to accept my indication that simple cases ought to have payment within a matter of days. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, originally invited me to consider 60 days. The amendment asks for 40 days and other views for 30 days. The fact is that simple cases will be processed before others. Some cases may take longer than others, certainly under option C. Interestingly, in respect of the compensation scheme for large calibre weapons there is no time limit. We suggest that one is not practicable in the scheme for small calibre pistols.
As the noble Baroness indicated, the matter was considered in another place in the context of a 30-day time limit and it was rejected resoundingly. We will do what we can to make payment promptly, but we cannot accept any amendment, particularly a defective amendment, which imposes that limit. It simply is not practicable.
Lord Burton: Is there not in preparation a commercial debts Bill giving a right of payment of interest on commercial debts? If the Minister believes that his administration will be unable to pay out in time, should not interest be payable after a certain period of time? That could be 40 days, as mentioned by the noble Baroness. I believe that it is unjust that the weapons should be confiscated and that the owners should receive no redress.
Baroness Blatch: I am not sure why my amendment is defective and I shall be interested to know. These days we write many of our own amendments and seek advice wherever we can, so it would be helpful to know where the amendment is defective.
Again, the Minister has concentrated on how complicated multiple applications will be and how difficult it will be to reconcile an application under option C rather than options A and B. I have disregarded all of that. I am saying that at the point when differences have been reconciled under option C and when agreement has been reached between the parties concerned, whether it is a simple or a complex application, there should be no difference whatever. From that point onwards, it is merely a matter of writing a bank transfer or a cheque and of getting that money to the owner.

947
No less a person than the Prime Minister has spoken of making it a requirement for government departments to pay their bills within 30 days. He does not mention the point when the agreement has been reached, or when the work has been carried out, or after people have negotiated; he suggests that people should be paid their dues within 30 days. I have suggested 40 days at the end of the process when agreement is to be reached. I cannot accept the Minister's retort because he used the old argument which I have taken into account in my amendment.
I believe that 40 days is a reasonable time following agreement. If the Minister is going to be intractable on the matter I shall return to it at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Baroness asked me to deal with a specific point. The amendment states that payments "shall be received". Any paying department or organisation cannot ensure receipt within 40 days, but it can ensure dispatch. That is the point that I am making and it is simple and straightforward. The difficulty will arise in respect of multiple claims. However, I believe that I heard the noble Baroness withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I thank the Minister for pointing out the difference and will immediately address the defect in the amendment. He also mentioned higher calibre pistols and I wish to include them when I return to the matter at the next stage of the Bill.
I was most disturbed by the Minister's final point. Am Ito believe that if a multiple application is made—in other words, a person submits small calibre weapons under options A and B, which are fairly straightforward, and other weapons under option C—not until perhaps a lengthy process under option C has been completed and agreed will even the smaller claims be settled? If that is the case the shooting fraternity will be most concerned. Each weapon is a single entity in terms of whether it falls within options A, B or C. Once the matter has been agreed, I hope that those people who will be seriously financially disadvantaged will be sent cheques. I accept that one cannot guarantee receipt of the cheques, but I hope that they will be dispatched within 40 days following agreement under options A, B or C.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I agree entirely with the thrust of what the noble Baroness is saying. We want the bills to be paid as promptly as possible, as I have said on several occasions now. But we want a degree of flexibility which 40 days does not allow.
Baroness Blatch: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No.:
Page 2, line 21, at end insert—
("() At the end of section 32 (transfers of firearms etc. to he in person) there shall he inserted—
"() This section shall not apply to transfers of small-calibre pistols to people who are exempt from the provisions of section 5 of the 1968 Act.".").
The noble Lord said: I should declare an interest as an owner of a gun. This amendment seeks to exempt from the ban on mail order sales those people who are exempt from the prohibition in relation to smaller firearms.
Registered firearms dealers are not exempt from the prohibition. Therefore, only dealers with prohibited weapons' authority will be able to deal in small firearms. In view of the small number of such dealers, it will be extremely difficult for the vets, slaughter-house workers, race starters and so on to acquire small firearms, even though they are exempt from the prohibition as the nearest dealer may be hundreds of miles away. This amendment proposes that they should be able to acquire guns by mail order, or more particularly through a reputable carrier.
The Firearms (Amendment) Bill will increase the size of the problem created by the 1997 Act. That is because many vets and slaughterers use .22 pistols. Under the 1997 Act, ordinary registered dealers could still stock .22 pistols as Section 1 firearms and deliver them to vets and other people allowed to have them. However, if those are banned, a slaughterer who works on a farm in a remote area will potentially have to travel a vast distance to acquire a pistol from a registered dealer with a Section 5 authority.
Given that captive bolt pistols and slaughtering instruments are fairly esoteric pieces of equipment, it is quite likely that there may be only two or three dealers in them in the whole country because prohibited weapons' authority will be required. Effectively, a knackerman in scotland may well have to travel personally to Birmingham or London just to buy a captive bolt pistol. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My noble friend Lord Gisborough has moved an amendment which fills what could become a gap in the law. I think that it is something that we should not ignore and I hope that the noble Lord will give this sympathetic consideration.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I cannot accept the amendment. Section 32 of the 1997 Act was introduced in response to a case only last year in which a man obtained firearms and ammunition through the post by deception. He used a firearms certificate which he had acquired fraudulently. Having obtained the firearm in that way, he killed someone with it.
The provision applies to all firearms and shotguns and it is intended that it should apply to small calibre pistols in addition to hand guns. The amendment would allow those who are exempt—and the noble Lord gave examples of vets, slaughter-house workers and RSPCA officials—to obtain small calibre pistols by mail order.

949
They would not be able to obtain other handguns, shotguns or rifles by mail order and would have to appear in person to complete the transaction.
I do not see a proper reason for such a distinction. Small calibre pistols are lethal and easily concealable. Last year's example is very much in our minds. In fact, there would be inconsistencies. Perhaps I may say with great respect that this amendment would open up rather than close a dangerous loophole, and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gisborough: Clearly, I shall have to do so. However, the logic of the Minister's answer seems extraordinary to me. Some people steal motor cars and crash them. The logic would be that nobody should be able to own cars because some people steal them. Therefore, there is no logic in the fact that my amendment cannot be accepted because some people break the law. However, I must withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Lord Howell Lord Howell moved Amendment No.5:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
SAVING FOR COMPETITION PISTOLS
(".After section 7 of the Firearms Act 1968 (police permits) there shall be inserted the following section—
"Permits for competition pistols.
7A.—(1) A person who has obtained a permit in the prescribed form from the Secretary of State may, without holding a certificate under this Act, have in his possession a competition pistol in accordance with the terms of that permit.
(2) An application for the grant of a permit under this section shall be made in the prescribed form to the Secretary of State and shall state such particulars as may be required by the form.
(3) The Secretary of State shall not issue a permit under this section unless he is satisfied that the applicant—

(a) is a fit and proper person who may be permitted to possess a competition pistol without danger to the public or to the peace: and

(b) is, or has been invited to become, a member of the group of persons selected by a recognised sporting body from which competitors will be selected to compete in a designated international competition.

(4) A permit issued under this section shall contain conditions which provide that—

(a) the permit holder may only possess the competition pistol for the purposes of training or qualifying for or competing in designated international competitions;

(b) the competition pistol shall be kept and used only at designated premises;

(c) the permit holder may only possess the competition pistol outside designated premises for the purpose of transferring it directly from one designated premises to another.

(5) A permit issued under this section shall be valid for a period of one year or such lesser period as the Secretary of State may determine.
(6) A copy of any permit issued under this section shall be sent to the chief officer of police for the area in which the permit holder resides.
(7) It shall be an offence for a person to make any statement which he knows to be false for the purpose of procuring, whether for himself or for another person, the grant of a permit under this section.
(8) In this section—
"competition pistol" means a .22 calibre pistol of a description specified by the Secretary of State constructed for use in a shooting discipline which forms part of a designated international competition, and includes ammunition for such a pistol;
"designated international competition" means an Olympic Games, Commonwealth Games or other international sporting competition designated for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State;
"designated premises" means a place designated for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State.".").
The noble Lord said: I shall resume the speech that I was making two hours ago—and I apologise again to the Committee for my difficulty.
I shall not repeat all that I was saying up to the point that I switched courses, except to say very simply that if this Bill is passed the Government, my Government, will be seen to be in opposition to the British Olympic Association and the Olympic Movement.
Some figures were given about polls earlier. One of the wonders of debate in this Chamber is that as you sit here contemplating what might happen, information reaches you. New information has reached me about the state of public opinion on the question of handguns. The National Small Bore Rifle Association tells me that it commissioned two MORI polls: one in February of this year and the other in May of this year. One question identical to both polls was:
"Are the target pistol shooters being unfairly treated by the firearms ban?".
To that question, 55 per cent. said yes in February and 53 per cent. said yes in May. Therefore, it is quite clear that in spite of the earlier polls public opinion is moving. It is moving as people contemplate the gross injustice that we are doing to an Olympic sport and to the people who participate in it.
My judgment—and the Government would be wise to bear this in mind—is that as we move nearer to the holding of the Commonwealth Games in Manchester in 2002 and as we attempt to secure the Olympic Games for this country, which is the declared policy of both the previous government and this Government, public opinion will harden further against the Government's position. People will not see why the British Olympic movement should be put into such a difficult position.
I believe that starting pistols are exempt from the terms of the Bill. I hope that that is correct. If my noble friend does not know, perhaps he will kindly write to me to confirm whether that is so. As I went to Perry Barr in Birmingham at the weekend to see the international athletics there, I thought about the problem of how to start races, which must be timed on the basis of hundredths of a second, unless it can be done, as it is done now, with a gun which fires. The flame of that gun can be seen by some of the timekeepers and can also be communicated to the athletes. It is a very important point.
But in any event, I have discovered that as Olympic movements in other countries learn what is proposed by us, they think that the British are a very peculiar race. We are imposing upon ourselves great handicaps in relation to attracting the Olympic Games or the Commonwealth Games to this country in the future. We are giving an enormous boost to the lobbyists of other countries who not only produce their own schemes but attempt to denigrate other schemes in order to win the vote. Nobody will understand that you can hold such important sporting festivals with one of the central sports being unable to take place. Therefore, we are severely handicapped.
When we last discussed this matter my noble friend and I had a small difference of opinion as to whether, if we put in a hid for the Olympic Games, we should be required to declare that all the sports approved by the international Olympic movement would be able to take place. I said that that was the case and that I had had to do it myself on at least two occasions when I had been promoting such bids.
The British Olympic Association has now sent me a statement, which I hope it has sent to other noble Lords. It reads:
"A total ban on handgun shooting could adversely affect any BOA hid for a future Olympic Games. It is most unlikely, given the highly competitive nature of the bidding process, that we could mount a successful bid for a Games where three of the six target shooting events within the programme would have to be excluded. The BOA hopes that suitable exemptions will be built into the Bill to cover this eventuality. There is no doubt that a successful Olympic bid would be dependent upon the total and absolute support of the government and this will include effecting such an exemption so as to allow all necessary shooting disciplines to take place".
I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will check what I have said. However, I hope that people in the Home Office and, indeed, those in the department responsible for sport—the title of which I cannot pronounce this afternoon, because I have not as yet got used to it—will consider such matters and the effect of the legislation. As I said, if we persist in it, the public will greet with growing incredulity the fact that we are handicapping ourselves not only in seeking bids but also in putting restrictions on people participating in sport.
We know that the Secretary of State has some powers in regard to the Commonwealth Games to exempt shooting at the games. The effect of what he can do under the Bill is to say, "I will allow Commonwealth countries to come to Manchester in 2002 and have a shooting competition, but I will not allow any British shooter to train for that competition". That is the position in which we now find ourselves. I do not believe that it will be acceptable to the people of this country who, by and large, like to see us do well at sport. Indeed, they regard it as rather important and they all want us to attract the Olympic and Commonwealth Games again.
I spoke earlier about my amendment in response to an interjection by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. We have taken the view that the responsible thing for us to do is to give the Home Secretary every conceivable power that he would need to control sensible gun clubs, if, as
952
we all want to do, we seek in every other case to deprive citizens of the opportunity to have private guns. That is what we seek to achieve.
The amendments would give the Home Secretary the following powers. First, they would give the Home Secretary full authority to make the decisions as to who may hold a permit and how, where and when any authorised shooter may practise, take part in competitions and keep a .22 single shot competition weapon. All those very important and vital matters will be totally within the discretion of the Secretary of State.
Secondly, we are saying through the amendments that all such persons to whom the Secretary of State would grant such permission must be fit and proper and must have been chosen by the regulatory body, which will be the governing body in control of the sport in question. Thirdly, the amendments provide that the Secretary of State would designate where the pistol must be kept and when training at a designated range will occur.
Let us be in no doubt. We are talking about 300 or 400 dedicated pistol shooters in shooting clubs; in other words, people of excellence who are eligible to compete for their country. As I said when we discussed the situation with regard to the disabled, as far as I know no such person has ever run amok in the history of competition shooting either at the Olympic or Commonwealth Games, except in Munich where evil took place during the course of an Olympic Games. That had nothing to do with the British, but it concerned other countries which will be taking part in future Olympic Games and which will, as I understand it, have no restrictions imposed upon them.
I should like to say a few words on the next amendment so as to save me making another speech, although I know that it is not included in this grouping. I refer to Amendment No. 6 which seeks to give the Government a three-year power of review. That amendment has been tabled in the same spirit as the amendment now under discussion. It is a back-up amendment—a safety-first measure. If I am right about the movement of public opinion, it could be said that the amendment is designed to save the Government's skin in three years' time if they suddenly find that the wish to keep Britain out of the Olympic arena is totally unacceptable to the majority of people in the country. In that case, I should tell my noble friend the Minister that there would be no harm in saying, "Well, even if we don't listen to you now we should at least give ourselves the opportunity to look at the matter again in three years' time to see how it is developing and how the reputation of this country in the world of sport is progressing as a result of this measure". Indeed, the Government could possibly reconsider the matter when public opinion is much more rational on the matter.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take the same attitude about the amendment as he took on the situation relating to the disabled. I understand that he cannot give any commitment at this stage. However, even allowing for the fact that he may be profoundly disappointed if the public's decision is the same, my noble friend could say, "In the spirit of what Jack Straw said on Second Reading, we will look again at the

953
matter". I hope that my noble friend the Minister will consult with our friends when doing so to see whether some common agreement can be reached in the interests of British sport. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Peel: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, to which my name is also attached. In the process, perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 7 which pretty well covers the same points, although there is a slight difference between the two amendments, which I shall explain. Considerable concern was expressed in your Lordships' House on Second Reading, and elsewhere, at the extreme restrictions that this legislation is likely to put on this country's ability to hold international games and, in particular, its effect on those individuals who wish to participate in the various shooting disciplines.
I am very much aware that the Bill is part of the Government's manifesto. However, the fact that the Government allowed a free vote in another place gives a greater degree of latitude for change than might otherwise be the case. Further—and perhaps more importantly—I do not believe that either my amendment or that of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, would undermine the basic principle of the legislation in any way.
No one who listened to or read the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, at Second Reading, or indeed listened to the words that he has spoken this afternoon, can fail to have been impressed by his arguments. Apart from identifying the absurdity of precluding a few people from participating in three out of the 15 shooting disciplines within international competitions, the noble Lord drew attention to another matter which I regard as being of particular note and importance. The noble Lord has great experience in these matters. He was a Minister of sport and he did his best for this country. I remember particularly that he said in his Second Reading speech how difficult it was to persuade people that Great Britain was the place to hold international games—anyone holding a similar position would no doubt experience the same difficulties—and that if we put any further barrier in their way that would be it. It seems to me that we are putting a major barrier in front of our competitors. Unless we get rid of it in a comprehensive fashion there is a danger that this country's capacity to hold international games will be severely interfered with.
The effect of my amendment is to establish national pistol shooting centres of excellence to allow competition shooters, identified by the national bodies as suitable to train for Olympic disciplines, to continue to train and compete for national and international .22 calibre pistol competitions. A certificate granted for this purpose would be subject to the most stringent conditions. Those conditions are laid out in my amendment and I do not propose to go through them, but I believe that they cover all contingencies.
Where Amendment No. 7 differs from Amendment No. 5 is that the latter does not require an individual to have a certificate in the first place, thereby eliminating
954
initial police assessment of the candidate. Also, I believe it is not clear on what basis a Secretary of State can decide whether an applicant is a fit and proper person, as this is assessed by the police when an individual applies for a certificate. However, I fully accept that these are matters of detail. I am sure that, if necessary, they can be overcome at a later stage. If Amendment No. 7 or Amendment No. 5 are not accepted by the Committee, as I have said, Britain will be the only country banned from international pistol shooting competition. The 1997 firearms Act would at least have allowed people in this country to compete in the Olympic and Commonwealth Games in the three .22 calibre events.
There is no doubt that this country has a long and honourable tradition in the sport of pistol shooting, a sport which Britain invented and has dominated for well nigh 100 years. It is a sporting success story for this country. In the past 10 years of Commonwealth competition—the noble Lord, Lord Howell, may have made this point—our competitors have brought back 23 pistol shooting medals in the .22 calibre events alone.
At Second Reading the Minister said that the Bill affects only three out of a total of 15 shooting competitions in the Commonwealth Games. However, the vast majority of pistol shooters who reach international level are specialist competition shooters. Many will have no interest in other disciplines. It is simply not true to suggest that a competition pistol shooter could convert easily to, say, rifle shooting. In fact there is no pistol shooter who represents the British team in pistol and rifle events. They are completely different disciplines. That is an important point. It is rather like suggesting that a 100 metre sprinter could suddenly turn into a marathon runner. For that reason, and as one of the original 12 modern Olympic disciplines, this is a sport which deserves the same recognition as other more visible sports and it should not be lightly destroyed.
The men and women who represent their country in this sport have done so with tremendous personal commitment. A refusal to accept this new clause would mean that Parliament is not prepared to trust this small number of highly motivated competitors who are identified at the end of a long process not to commit an outrage such as occurred at Dunblane. This step would not only be implausible, it would also be insulting.
I have a letter which I believe a number of Members of the Committee will have already received from the British Olympic Association. I wish to quote from one paragraph which states,
"The legislation, as it stands, will effectively preclude representation by British athletes at future Olympic Games in the three Olympic shooting disciplines concerned. With 135 national federations competing for 20–30 places in each discipline there is a significant level of training and commitment necessary to achieve an Olympic quota place. Forcing competitive pistol shooting abroad will kill the sport and with it the necessary depth to ensure international representation at the highest level".
I do not know if that is what the Government want, but if we do not heed the British Olympic Association, it looks as if that is what we shall get.

955
I am glad to see that the Government have declared their intention of ensuring that the Bill will not be used in a way which will preclude the United Kingdom hosting the Commonwealth or indeed the Olympic Games. As the host country is required to provide the facilities for those sports demanded by the International Olympic Committee, not just those chosen by the host country, that must mean providing facilities for all the shooting sports and allowing all foreign competitors to come and take part without hindrance. I appreciate that there are several practical issues which need to be sorted out. However, as I understand it, the Home Secretary has committed himself to overcome these. The decisions emphasise the injustice of a situation in which all these overseas competitors can take part, but not United Kingdom citizens. It is quite ridiculous. The position has only to be stated for us to understand why so many people, not only shooters, feel insulted at the injustice and the unreasonableness of this situation.
I should have thought that the next stage must be to find a way to allow British participation to continue. I do not believe that that is in any way an unreasonable objective. The Home Secretary made a distinction. He said in another place,
"There is a world of difference between controlling and securing the safety of the public at specific games such as the Commonwealth games in 2002 and allowing handguns to be held generally by civilians on a licensed basis.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/6/97: col. 1166.]
We have something to build on there. I am sure we can develop that.
Under my amendment, no pistols will be held or used outside those centres of excellence. A centre of excellence would be a site which would be approved by the Secretary of State for all Section 5 weapons, including really dangerous guns. Its security is therefore of the highest level. A precedent for such a site already exists at Bisley where exempted historic firearms are to be stored and indeed fired. After the Commonwealth Games a centre which will be created at Altcar could also be used. One or two sites may develop throughout the country, geographically spread, and almost certainly based on Army facilities. There can be no fear about this proposal since the power to approve or not approve the site for this purpose lies with the Home Secretary. If he approves, the .22 will be the least of his worries compared with the other guns that will be stored in those places—machine guns and other heavy weapons. Quite frankly, .22 guns fade into insignificance.
The new clause provides that shooters can use a .22 at that place only if they have a certificate and therefore have passed the chief constable's vetting; have the special approval of the Secretary of State; and have been vetted by the shooting organisations which run the Olympic sport. I do not believe that we could devise any more stringent and more safety-conscious provision.
Even such a person would be able to fire a .22 only at a designated site. It is far fetched in the extreme to suppose that such a procedure represents any danger whatsoever to the general public. I believe that the Government have a duty—I have always said so—to legislate in this case for the best interests of this country as a whole. But it is one thing to attempt to reduce the
956
danger of handguns getting into the wrong hands; it is quite another to discriminate against the ability of this country to participate on equal terms in international events. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord the Minister will look carefully into these matters. I do not believe that we can risk the consequences if he does not. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: I fully support every word that my noble friend Lord Peel and the noble Lord, Lord Howell, have said.
Amendment No. 9 is grouped with the two amendments as it also refers to the Olympic Games. One point has not been mentioned. The 1997 Act is draconian, but there has not been time to prove whether or not it is adequate. We are piling on legislation without even trying out the legislation which already exists.
Amendment No. 9 codifies the comments of the Home Secretary that he would allow competitors to bring pistols into Great Britain in order for people to compete at the Commonwealth Games of 2002. It is possible that a future Home Secretary could have a different view. The amendment refers to the Olympic Games in the event that Great Britain is a future venue for them.
There will no doubt be arguments from the Government that the Secretary of State will be unable to exercise adequate control over competitors' firearms if the amendment is carried. That is because Section 5(4) of the Firearms Act 1968 enables the Home Secretary to attach conditions to a Section 5 authority setting out various requirements as to the movement, possession, storage and use of firearms.
However, a chief officer of police is also empowered to attach similar conditions to any visitor's permit that may be issued governing the possession, use, and so on, of any firearm, so there is no real argument. The chief constable of Manchester is in a far better position to determine the conditions for people bringing firearms into Manchester than is the Home Secretary.
In the House of Commons, the Home Secretary stated that he would have to have been the longest serving Home Secretary in the past 200 years if he were to be the person to set the conditions. Therefore there can be no guarantee that a future Home Secretary will be similarly disposed towards allowing competitors to bring their guns into Great Britain to compete. It is one thing to stop our own people using shooters, but it is another to stop others from another country competing.
That is the reason that the amendment is necessary.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I listened carefully to the amendments moved so ably by my noble friend Lord Howell, the noble Earl, Lord Peel, and the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough. It is clear that they have a great deal of expertise and that they have moved reasonable new clauses which would enable the Government to get out of the mess into which they have got themselves.

957
I listen carefully to what the Prime Minister says. He does not listen to anything that I say; but I listen closely to what he says. As I understand the Prime Minister's message to Britain both during and since the election, he wants Britain to succeed in everything. He wants Britain to lead other countries. He wants Britain to be a leader in Europe and throughout the world. He wants us to shine in everything we do. During the election he draped himself and the Labour Party in the Union Jack. Wherever we went, we saw the Union Jack draped around Labour. Jolly good, I say, because it indicated that the Labour Party was a great patriotic party and believed in Britain.
That is until we see this Bill. It seems that in respect of pistol shooting with .22 ammunition the Prime Minister and the Government do not want us to succeed. They will take away the opportunity from people who wish to succeed in this sport, although in the past we have excelled at it. That seems a peculiar thing to do, in particular when the opportunity exists through these amendments to ensure that that does not occur.
No wonder people think that we in this country are crazy. It will be possible for people who are denied their sport of shooting in this country to nip on Eurostar, go to France, buy a .22 pistol off the shelf, join a French club, practice the sport over a long period of time, and compete anywhere else in the world—in the Olympic Games and other events. But if the Olympic Games are held in Britain, those people will not be able to compete in Britain. That really is stupid, is it not? How can the Government have got themselves into that position? I hope that they will take advantage of the amendments to get themselves out of it.
Even so, is it not absurd that British people may not practise a sport in their own country—they have been able to do so for decades, perhaps over 100 years—but they can get on a train and practise 20 miles away across the Channel? I believe that sometimes we go over the top; and we have gone over the top in this respect, and quite unnecessarily so.
The amendments before us track a way forward. They provide the Government with the opportunity to build on them. I sincerely trust that we shall hear from my noble friend the Minister as to how he intends to take this matter forward, prevent this country from looking foolish and ensure that Britain can still excel in a sport in which it has previously excelled, not only abroad but in our own land.
The Earl of Lytton: I support this group of amendments for very much the same reasons as those enunciated so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. If the object is to ban all legally held handguns, then to be consistent the ban ought logically to apply to everyone within our territorial limits. But these proposals represent some sort of halfway house whereby foreign and Northern Ireland residents have a facility that is denied to English, Welsh and Scottish citizens. That proposition is decidedly wobbly. It makes an exception, as it were, in negative form. It is not a credible position to take. It is discriminatory, as I said
958
at Second Reading. The message it gives out is one of national self-mutilation. I cannot hold with that. I cannot fail to stand up and say how fundamentally I disagree with that in terms of promoting this country abroad. The Minister did not answer the point when I raised it at Second Reading. I hope that he will do so, if not today, then at some later stage of the Bill. This inconsistency needs to be dealt with. It has to be answered. I support these amendments as a logical and reasonable way out of the problem.
Lord Swansea: I support these amendments, too. Anyone who aspires to be at the top-flight end of international competition must be in a high state of training. He has to practise daily and must therefore have daily access to his pistols. It has been suggested that a person may park his pistols in another country—in France, Germany, Switzerland or wherever—and get round the legislation in that way. But that would entail having a very long purse. I cannot think of anyone who would be able to afford that. It is essential that such a person has daily access to pistols in order to practise continually. If our nationals are disqualified by the Government from taking part in international competition, we shall be the laughing-stock of the world. We shall be held up to ridicule, and that will be entirely the fault of the Government.
Lord Gisborough: I wonder whether it is in order for me to ask a question regarding a point that the noble Lord raised. When an English national travels abroad to practise in another country, will he be entitled to bring in a pistol to shoot as if he were a foreigner even though he does not keep a pistol in this country?
Baroness Blatch: I rise simply to offer brief support—although that brevity does not in any way indicate the strength of my support for this amendment. I support it very strongly. The case was put most cogently by my noble friend Lord Peel, by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, in his imitable way. Certainly I support the establishment of centres of excellence to allow shooters, properly identified by the national bodies, to train and compete in national and international competitions. The amendment makes it absolutely clear that the Secretary of State will have absolute control over this measure. The amendment requires the weapons to be stored and used at premises designated by the Secretary of State, and the controls over the centres are strengthened even further by requiring that the transfer of pistols from designated centres shall be permitted only for transport to and from the premises at which a shooting competition is taking place during the Olympic Games or some other qualifying national or international games. As has already been said, the proposal has the full support of the British Olympic Association.
Perhaps I may return briefly to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. During the course of the day, the Minister has prayed in aid public support not merely for this Bill but in many other matters that he has had the onerous job of discussing since Question Time. If

959
public opinion is to be prayed in aid, it is true that public opinion appears to be sympathetic to the needs of the minority shooting group. That would include the disabled, as recognised by the previous amendment, and, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, some 300 to 400 shooters who fall into the category of being crack shooters for the purposes of international competition. I hope that, again, the noble Lord will continue with his open-mindedness and will reflect further on the comments made today. The most powerful case has been put, and very ably put, by my noble friends.
6.15 p.m.
Lord McNally: I also hope that the Minister will continue to keep an open mind in these matters. Many powerful and passionate arguments have been put to him today. However, I hope that in keeping an open mind, he also keeps a sense of proportion. The Bill has not appeared from nowhere simply to seek out Olympians for discrimination. It is a rather belated reaction by Parliament to a truly dreadful deed. The central point of the Bill is to provide this country with—yes—draconian gun control laws.
There is a responsibility on the Minister—a responsibility that he spelt out when responding to an earlier amendment. It is to test these hard cases against whether, given all the expert advice available to him, these exceptions being pressed upon him will undermine and weaken the integrity of the Bill. If he believes that they do, and in that consideration needs support in the Lobby, I for one will give it to him.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and to others that I would not want an extra Olympic medal at the price of weaker gun control law. If we have waited 50 years since the last Olympic Games, we can wait another 50 if the price is weaker gun control. This country wants the Bill. Although the Minister may keep an open mind and listen to the hard cases, I hope he will remember that, at bottom, we want gun control.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Lord sits down, can he give a realistic estimate as to how many lives will be saved over the next 100 years if these amendments are resisted? Is it one, two, or possibly three?
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Lord replies, perhaps I may add to the question. What dangers does the noble Lord believe are presented by disabled shooters and the very small number of top-quality athletes who have represented this country over many years, operating under the most stringent regulations, entirely under the control of the Secretary of State?
Lord McNally: What I said is that when the Minister examines this matter I will listen to his expert views. In circling the Bill looking for hard cases and exceptions, I am concerned about the whole integrity of the legislation and how these exceptions are to be policed.
It may well be that the Minister, with his open mind, will examine some of these proposals, and return saying that they can be so ring-fenced that we can accept them.
960
But if he cannot, if he says that they open up chinks and weaknesses in the Bill which will undermine the basic thrust for gun control, then I hope he will resist them.
I believe that this country wants to set an example to the world on gun control. It is simple. Before somebody else mentions legal guns, if the Minister wants to bring forward harsher penalties for using illegal guns, he will have my support as well. It is what we do with legal guns that we are talking about here. All I am saying is that I support the integrity of the Bill as a strong, draconian gun control measure. That wish was expressed in the general election; it has been expressed in public opinion polls and, from what I can see, in general opinion in the country. If that is to be undermined by these hard cases, then I hope that the Minister will have the courage to resist them.
The Earl of Lytton: Before the noble Lord sits down, I understand that it is possible for someone in France to have a European firearms pass which enables them to travel through any two other countries in order to get to a competition. While I recognise the strength of his feeling on the matter, will the noble Lord accept that there is an anomaly in what is proposed in the Bill, given that the facility, as I understand it, already exists? In other words, it will be possible for a French pistol shooter to come to this country perfectly legally with a European firearms pass, and with the pistol, in order to travel on to Stockholm or somewhere else.
We are part of the European Community and it worries me very much, for the reasons I gave earlier, that we are putting ourselves out of sync, if I may use the vernacular, with what is happening elsewhere in Europe. That is both in terms of legally and illegally held guns. I wonder whether the noble Lord would care to comment.
Lord McNally: With the utmost respect to the noble Earl, I am not dodging the question, but those are precisely the kind of details with which he and his noble friends have been bombarding the Minister all afternoon. I am sure that, with his usual skill, the Minister will now respond.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The integrity of the Bill is important to us. I have listened with great care to the differing arguments put forward, by and large with a common theme, indeed, almost without exception. I have to say that I am not persuaded. Before introducing the Bill, the Government were well aware of the effect that it would have. The Home Secretary, in another place, made it absolutely clear that he knew what the consequences would be in terms of competitive shooting. It is a responsibility to prohibit actions that were formerly lawful. The decision to ban all handguns was not taken lightly.
On Second Reading on 30th June, at col. 11 of Hansard, it was made clear that powers available to the Secretary of State, under Section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968, allow special dispensation to be granted to allow competitors to take part in shooting competitions in the Commonwealth Games in 2002 and in any future Olympic or Paralympic Games which may be held here.

961
The Home Secretary announced in another place that he believed that the Section 5 powers would be used for the Commonwealth, Olympic or Paralympic Games although the final decision would be for the Secretary of State of the day. Dispensation could be granted to any competitors, whether from this country or elsewhere.
There is the consequence, which has been recognised by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State from the early stages, that for a few events involving small-calibre pistols British competitors could compete in the Games but could not train for them beforehand. I entirely take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, that if you cannot train it is virtually impossible to compete. That is not something we have dodged. The Secretary of State has made that plain throughout.
If an exception is made for international competition shooting, the next argument will be to ensure that there is a pool of people from whom the top shooters will be chosen. We will then increase the number of people who are exempt from the ban and it becomes increasingly difficult and, I believe, wrong to try to justify why some people are subject to the ban and others are not. May I make one or two points which I sought to make at Second Reading before your Lordships? The ban will not affect the ability of this country to host the Commonwealth Games in 2002, nor to stage any future Olympic or Paralympic Games. I shall come to the views of my noble friend Lord Howell about what the Olympic Association has told him, because it entirely supports the observation I made. The contract for the 2002 Games at Manchester has been signed and can only be broken because of a natural disaster or lack of proper organisation. The Home Secretary would be prepared to use his Section 5 powers to allow the shooting competitions, although any decision would have to be one for the Secretary of State of the day.
I turn to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Howell. At Second Reading he raised a question and therefore, consistent with my undertaking, I asked officials to confirm with the British Olympic Association whether any British bid would be affected by the ban on small-calibre pistols. I understand, and my understanding is fortified by the extract which my noble friend read out, that provided that all the sports could be held—and I repeat and emphasise that with the Secretary of State's special authority they could so be held—then any bid would be unaffected by the ban. Indeed, the letter read out by my noble friend Lord Howell said exactly that, if one listened carefully.
It is not true to say that Britain will be unable to participate in the shooting events because of the ban. Of 28 competitions in the Commonwealth Games, British competitors can participate in 21 disciplines for rifles, air pistols and rifles and shotguns. It is five years before the Commonwealth Games take place. I hope that some competitors will change their discipline. It is noteworthy that the .32 centre-fire event in effect has already been banned by the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. I hope that competitors in that discipline will at least consider going elsewhere. I want to stress that I do not say that
962
in any prescriptive sense. I am sure that if I were a sportsman in a particular discipline and had a Minister telling me to do something else, my response might be quite short and possibly even brutal. I repeat, and I cannot say often enough, that I am not overlooking people's legitimate feelings. I turn to Olympic shooting.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: While we are on the subject of people's legitimate feelings, does the Minister agree that the vast majority of pistol shooters who reach international level are specialist pistol competition shooters and pistol shooters only? Very few, if any, will have an interest in other disciplines. It is not true to suggest that a competition pistol shooter would convert to rifle shooting, as the Minister's recent remarks suggest. There is no pistol shooter who represents the British team in pistol and rifle events. They are completely different disciplines. The analogy which the Minister seeks to make is that perhaps a 100-yard sprinter can easily turn into a marathon runner. It is not a defence of the Bill or a reason to refuse the amendment to suggest that people can go on shooting with an entirely different weapon.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I understand that point entirely. I was not putting it forward as a defence of the Bill. I was putting it forward as possibly an alternative for individuals to consider and to come to their own conclusions. I use my word again, it is not for me to prescribe what others do, it is simply an alternative which they may find agreeable or practical or they may not. I entirely take the noble Lord's point. I do not claim that these are matters without difficulty. They are not. But sometimes a balance has to be struck between individual desires which may be entirely legitimate to certain individuals and the wider requirements of society. I know that noble Lords think that the Government have got it all wrong. What the Government are saying is that they have made their judgment, having put it plainly in the manifesto that this is what they were about.
I continue. Of the 15 Olympic shooting competitions the Bill will adversely affect just three. British sportsmen and women will still be able to compete in the 12 competitions which remain.In the Paralympic Games—which of course one ought not to overlook—out of a total of 15 events, British teams will be ruled out of just two events.
The new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, indicates that if someone obtains a permit from the Secretary of State he can hold a small calibre pistol without having a certificate. However, if the Bill is passed into law, small-calibre pistols will be prohibited and cannot be held without the Secretary of State's authority, so that the new clause would require someone to have both a permit and authority from the Secretary of State. It does not seem to require the involvement of the local chief officer of police who, in many ways, is best placed to make those important decisions.
I shall deal now with the new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough. Under current arrangements a visitor to our country may bring with

963
him a firearm providing he has a visitor's firearm permit entitling him to have it for a specified period. If he wishes to bring in a firearm prohibited under Section 5 of the 1968 Act he must also have the Secretary of State's authority to do so. The Secretary of State considers very carefully any such applications, bearing in mind not least the views of the police and the strength of the case for the application. We do not think it sensible to weaken the powers of this section. Allowing weapons into the country only on a visitor's firearm permit would, we believe, limit the Secretary of State's powers in imposing such conditions as he thinks suitable in the public interest. We believe that it is sensible and safer to leave the arrangements for Section 5 authority as they are.
I have listened carefully to the arguments. A number of noble Lords indicated that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said that he had an open mind. This matter was reasonably fully discussed elsewhere on a similar new clause and was significantly defeated by, I believe, a majority of 169 or so.
I began by saying that I was not persuaded. I am afraid that remains my condition.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask him to address the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who referred to the European system of being allowed to travel through two countries en route to an international competition. Does the Secretary of State have the power to override that permission which might be given to European nationals travelling through two countries, one of them Britain?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness and apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for not having dealt with the point. Let me put the matter this way. I have had little opportunity to confirm that question of detail. I see that the noble Earl has the grace to smile at my unpreparedness. It was not a question, frankly, which I expected to have in such detail. My understanding—I stress that it is only a temporary piece of research—is that a European pass would not allow someone coming to our country to be in lawful possession of a weapon. But perhaps I may write to the noble Earl and, of course, copy it to the noble Baroness. I stress that I have done the best I can in limited time. I know that people read Hansard and a dot, comma or semi-colon misplaced is the subject of frequent rebuke. Therefore, I shall do further research and write within, I hope, a period of less than 60 days.
Lord Howell: My noble friend says that he listened to the arguments but is not persuaded and that that remains his condition. I am sorry to find him in such a disagreeable condition, especially as he has had a hard day. I put that condition down to the overwork to which he has been subjected today. He will understand my profound disappointment that his answer, unlike his reply about disabled persons, does not offer even a glimmer of reconsideration.
964
If that is the view of Mr. Jack Straw, who is also my right honourable friend, I am sorry that some of us will not have the opportunity to put our views to him. As I usually find myself sitting next to him at Wembley, I wonder whether my noble friend would mind telling him that his next supper at Wembley will not be quite so harmonious as previous suppers that we have enjoyed. I do not like Ministers who say, "I have made up my mind and will take no notice of what is said in another place or what is said by anyone who might happen to know what he is talking about." It is not a posture which should be taken up.
Let me deal with the main response of my noble friend. He says that the Home Secretary can exercise his powers to allow events to take place in the next Olympics, having already admitted that no British citizens can train for them. That means that they cannot participate in them. He goes a little further: not only can no British citizens train for them, they cannot act as judges or stewards. There will be no competitions held here between now and the next Olympics in which they can qualify as judges or stewards as they are required to do by international sporting law. My noble friend may care to contemplate from where we shall obtain foreign judges to officiate at competitions for which, apparently, we cannot provide qualified persons.
With great respect to my noble friend—this is my main point—he has misdirected himself, as have his colleagues and officials. Even though he can say technically, "We shall use our powers to allow these events to be held in an Olympic Games in this country", the fact remains that no International Olympic Committee will ever accept that explanation. My noble friend shakes his head. Perhaps he would like to have a discussion with President Samaranch about the matter. I wonder whether anyone in the Home Office has talked to President Samaranch or any other member of the International Olympic Committee. One of our representatives is Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal. Perhaps my noble friend will talk to her and ask her view as to what opinion or action her colleagues might take. The other British representative is the chairman of the British Olympic Association, Mr. Craig-Reidie. I do not have the privilege of talking often to the Princess, so I cannot quote her. But I have spoken to the British Olympic Association, which has consulted Craig-Reidie. What I say is absolutely right. Although technically agreeing with what the Government are saying, I am told that we shall have placed such a handicap upon ourselves in the bidding procedure against the rest of the world—cities and nations seeking to have the games—that it is totally unrealistic to think that we have any prospect at all of staging them. If my noble friend and my right honourable friend Jack Straw say that they accept that the likelihood of hosting the Olympic Games in the future is almost non-existent and that is the price that they are prepared to pay, so be it. I shall respect that because that is the position.
I have told the Chamber before that I have led at least two bids to bring the Olympic Gaines to this country, one from my own city of Birmingham. The bidding procedure is an extremely hazardous business. One is

965
confronted with all kinds of activities designed to promote other people's bids and to submerge one's own bid—all kinds of tactics, which I almost dare not explain to the Committee—not only from the competitor cities but from some very powerful commercial interests which have an interest in promoting their products in other countries rather than in this country. Those are the facts of life. So, with all the authority I can command, I tell the Committee that I cannot conceive it possible that we shall ever again succeed in a bid for the Commonwealth or the Olympic Games if this Bill goes forward unamended.
I make my plea to my noble friend. Will he please ask the Home Secretary to consult some of us and give us the opportunity to take him through the whole matter? We can tell him of the difficulties we envisage. Will he also consult the International Olympic Committee, if that will help to clarify the situation? I believe that that is the least that we can demand or expect. I invite the Committee to consider the viewing figures when the Olympic Games are held. In fact, the complaint generally from the British public is that there is too much television coverage of the games, morning, noon and night. The television companies, especially the BBC which does it superbly, have to cover the games from morning to night because some great British athlete may win a gold medal. It would be inconceivable for that achievement to occur and not to be televised for the public to see, especially at the time it happens.
Those are very important factors. We wanted to go through them. I cannot think that Mr. Jack Straw is frightened of us—I have had many discussions and arguments with him over the years. We have usually been on the same side, though not always in relation to Europe. But I have always been on the same side as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in relation to Europe. The noble Lord does not realise what he is doing to European competition sport. Are we good Europeans if we say that we will hold the European championships but will impose restrictions on ourselves when we are competing in Europe? That is a subject that has not even been discussed in respect of the competitions.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, realises the difficulty in which he has placed himself and throws himself on the mercy of my noble friend. He says that whatever argument my noble friend produces, he will adopt. And if it gets him off the hook he will be very pleased.
Lord McNally: The noble Lord, Lord Howell, keeps inviting people to go and see other people—President Samaranch and others. Will he come to the primary school of my seven year-old son and talk to the mothers of children of primary school age? He can then try to put forward his argument that sport is more important than gun control. That is the kind of audience that he should be addressing.
Lord Howell: Indeed, I address that audience every week; it happens to be my daughter who works in a nursery school in Birmingham, where I have discussed this matter. For good or ill, whenever they see my name in the paper they always discuss with her what I have
966
been up to. So they are aware of my views on the matter and they agree with me. They think that the Government are honkers. They want to do everything that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, wants to do—that is, to stop evil people having guns—as we all want. That is our purpose. That is why we support the main purpose of the Bill. But we do not go about it in an illogical and discriminatory way which upsets the whole field of sport.
So, while I am happy to talk to his seven year-old son, I shall also introduce him to my eight year-old grandson as well as my daughter. We can have a quid pro quo about the matter. The fact is, if that happened we would at least be discussing the issue. My complaint is that we are not discussing it today. The Government have not discussed it with anybody. They produced this policy—we all understand why, as did the previous government—in response to enormous outrage and emotionalism following the obscenities of Dunblane. They felt that they had to take action. We all understand that.
Nevertheless, given the passage of time and the fact that this sporting nation wants to see our sportsmen properly treated and given a fair opportunity to compete against the world—that is what we are asking—I am confident, as the two last MORI polls showed, which I quoted, that the feeling of the country will move more and more away from Dunblane and nearer to the Commonwealth Games. By the next Olympics the feeling of the country will be that we ought to accommodate reasonable, honest shooting men of integrity.
I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment in a moment. But before I do, my noble friend knows that I did not want any votes and victories today against the Government. My main purpose today was to seek to get sense out of the Government with conciliation and understanding; to persuade them to think again. But, if the Government say that they are not going to think again, that their mind is made up and that they will take not a blind bit of notice of anything that has been said in this Chamber, then when the matter comes back in October, they may well be in for a profound shock. I for one will try to administer that shock. However, I hope that it will not be necessary. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Howell Lord Howell moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
REVIEW OF THE ACT
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State shall carry out a review of the operation and effectiveness of this Act as soon as is practicable after the expiration of 3 years from its coming into force and, in the course of that review, shall consider and have regard to the effect which the Act has or may have on the holding of the Commonwealth Games in the United Kingdom in 2002.
(2) The Secretary of State shall prepare a report based on the review and shall lay a copy before each House of Parliament as soon as practicable after it has been prepared.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment earlier. I beg to move.
Lord Gisborough: I should perhaps speak to Amendment No. 6 as it is grouped with Amendment

967
No. 10. The amendment requires an impact analysis of the 1997 Firearms Acts. It is necessary to determine precisely what effects the Acts have had and whether the claimed benefits have occurred.
The lead up to the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 involved mass confusion as the Home Office sought for firearms statistics on a wide variety of subjects. It was not until Lord Cullen requested the information that the Home Office applied any effort to trying to determine which crimes were committed with illegal guns and which with legal guns. Another example is that it is now becoming apparent that the Home Office estimate that there were 57,000 firearms certificate holders was an underestimate, as the police ran out of claim forms for certificate holders.
A further example is that no one knows the proportion of handgun-related crimes committed with centrefire handguns and those committed with .22 rimfire handguns. One would think that that was fairly essential information given the nature of the second firearms Bill. The amendment is therefore needed to fill the vacuum created by the lack of information on the subject.
Lord Monson: When legislation which deprives law-abiding citizens of their rights on the alleged grounds of public safety is pushed through with comparative haste and without much real in-depth research—neither House of Parliament has yet had the opportunity to debate the Cullen Report—it is vital to monitor its effects. We need to establish whether it was indeed necessary at the time and whether it remains necessary for all time.
If one or other of the amendments is accepted and subsequently homicides involving .22 pistols decrease in any statistically meaningful way from the already extremely low levels, the Government will be vindicated, and that must be something to which they look forward. On the other hand, if, as I suggest, the figures remain virtually unaltered, the Firearms (Amendment) Bill will be seen as an act of folly.
Without question some analysis is needed, but any such analysis must be as comprehensive as possible not only to cover the crime statistics, but also the burdens imposed upon the police and upon the British economy, as well as our competitive position in international sporting events. For that reason I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, rather than that of the noble Lord, Lord Howell.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Since my noble friend Lord Howell and the noble Lords, Lord Gisborough and Lord Monson, spoke quite briefly, I hope the Committee will not think me discourteous if I too try to be brief. The amendments essentially come down to two types of review.
I have already made the points, which remain valid, about Manchester's ability to hold the Commonwealth Games. It seems fruitless for me to repeat them. On the general issue of a report, which is really the burden of Amendments Nos. 6 and 10 in this group, we have already made it plain that we intend to take a wider look at the range of firearms controls in due course to see whether they are fully effective. If the Government conclude that there are weaknesses which may require tighter controls,
968
we will bring them to the attention of Parliament. I respectfully suggest that that is a much more prudent and measured approach than focusing too narrowly on this particular Bill.
It is a duty of any government to keep under review all the legislation which it is necessary for them to administer. If there are unintended consequences or the evidence on which Parliament has based its decisions has changed, then Parliament should reconsider. But that is the general principle and it applies to each and every piece of legislation that Parliament passes.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, would bring this consequence. It would single out the effects of the present Bill alone—that is, the impact of banning small-calibre pistols. The consequence would then be that the analysis would not be required to take account of the effect of the banning of large-calibre handguns in the Act introduced by the previous Government, nor indeed of other firearms legislation. So we should be obliged, if the noble Lord's amendment were carried, to consider the impact of banning 40,000 small-calibre pistols and not to have regard to 160,000 large-calibre handguns already, I respectfully repeat, banned by the earlier Act introduced by the previous Government. There was no such provision in the earlier Act. The new clause requires analysis in five years' time or to be delivered at the end of that five-year period. I see no virtue or merit in doing that. If there were any unforeseen problems, they should be attended to in the usual way. I venture to suggest that a bureaucratic measure of review in primary legislation in this way is not needed or justified. I therefore invite the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Gisborough, not to press their amendments.
Lord Howell: As my noble friend understands, I did not intend to press the amendment in any event. Perhaps I may make one comment on what he has just said. He has put the argument forward that it is rather an unusual thing for Bills to have a review date read into them. I have sat on committees which have dealt with masses of Bills and many of them have had review dates built into them as a sensible procedure. I cannot understand why that should not be the case here. As my noble friend says, if any technical difficulties are found on the way they will naturally be brought to the attention of this House.
It may be a good thing to have the opportunity to sit back and undertake a general review after three years to see which way public opinion is moving, how the Act is working and what effect it has had on the pistol-shooting sports. We should do that particularly in view of the fact that we are driving our participants abroad to train, with the consequent effect that that might have on judges and the ability to produce judges. It might make matters a little clearer. I cannot see any objection to doing that. If my noble friend says that we do not want to do that, I listen to what he says with a degree of sadness. He is throwing overboard the clause

969
which was intended to be a lifesaver for the Government. Nevertheless, in the circumstances, I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that I have taken on board what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has said. I accept his contention that it would be better if Amendment No. 10 referred also to the effects of the Act passed earlier this year by the previous Government. However, I suspect—the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, will correct me if I am wrong—that that is due to the restrictions imposed by the Long Title of the Bill. I believe that an earlier draft included an analysis of the effects of the ban on high-calibre pistols as well. That is the only reason for Amendment No. 10 being as restrictive as it is.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Peel Earl Peel had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
CERTIFICATE GRANTED FOR PURPOSES OF OLYMPIC GAMES
(" .—(1) The authority of the Secretary of State is not required by virtue of section 5(1)(aba) of the 1968 Act for a person to have in his possession or to purchase, acquire, sell or transfer a pistol chambered for .22 or smaller rim-fire cartridges if he is authorised under the Act to possess, purchase or acquire that weapon subject to a condition which complies with subsection (2) below.
(2) A certificate granted under subsection (1) above shall be subject to the condition that—

(a) the pistol is used for training in shooting disciplines approved by the International Olympic Committee for inclusion in the Olympic Games; and

(b) the pistol is used by a person approved by the Secretary of State and on the recommendation of a recognised governing body of the sport; and

(c) the weapon is stored and used only at premises designated by the Secretary of State; and

(d) possession of the weapon outside such designated premises shall be permitted only for transfer to and use at premises at which a shooting competition is taking place on such conditions as the Secretary of State shall specify.").

The noble Earl said: I spoke to this amendment in the debate on a previous amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. Perhaps I may say a few words in response to the Minister and other Members of the Committee. I am disappointed by what the noble Lord said, but I cannot say that I am in any way surprised. But I am extremely depressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said. I sincerely hope that the Minister is also depressed by what he said. He has given this House a warning that if we do not accommodate the difficulties that we are addressing at the moment as regards the Olympic and other international games, there is a danger that this country will be precluded from participating. When that warning comes from the noble Lord who is an ex-Minister for sport, I believe that we have to take it very seriously indeed.
I cannot understand why, if suitable accommodation is to be made to allow international sport to take place in this country, with the facilities that will be required to do that, the people of this country will not be allowed to practise and ultimately to participate in those centres.
970
That is complete nonsense. I imagine that we may have situations in which people from this country will go abroad to, let us say, France where they will, as I understand it, be able to hold certificates for .22 pistols. I imagine that they then will be applying to the Secretary of State in this country to bring the gun back to compete in international sport. Is that really what the Government are looking for and the way in which they perceive this nonsense is ultimately going to be sorted out?
I believe that I quote the noble Lord, Lord McNally, correctly and that he said that this Bill has not come from nowhere. Of course it has not and we are all very much aware of that. But I can tell him one thing: it is going nowhere. It is going nowhere at the expense of this country's ability to compete at international level without—and I am sorry to come back to this point but I believe it to be true—doing anything to prevent the real dangers of having illegal weapons in this country.
Of course I appreciate, realise and respect the role of government in listening to public opinion; but surely at the same time maintaining a degree of common sense, pragmatism and fair play is also the role of government. Therefore, I ask the Minister to bear in mind all the points that we have made, because at the end of the day his Government's decision may have a fatal effect on our ability to participate in the games, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has said.
I ask the Minister one final question before not moving my amendment. I wonder what he and other members of his party really feel the public reaction would be if the Government were to announce now that secure centres of excellence were to be established to allow us to compete on even terms with others in all the competitions that make up the Olympic Games. If he were to add to that the fact that disabled people were to be allowed to practise in those same centres of excellence, I cannot believe that he would not have public opinion behind him.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
7p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
REVIEW OF COMPENSATION SCHEME
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State shall undertake a review of the operation of the compensation scheme approved under this Act and shall report to Parliament the results of the review together with any recommendations for compensating all persons affected by this Act.
(2) The report under subsection (1) shall be presented to both Houses of Parliament within 6 months of this Act coming into force.").
The noble Lord said: Before I speak to this new clause, I should like to take up the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, when he said that we must take public opinion into account. I agree very much with that. The noble Earl will know—I tell him again—that in a MORI poll in May 53 per cent. of the population polled agreed that target pistol shooters were being unfairly punished. If we are taking notice of public opinion polls, we must bear in mind that the public are not in favour of the way in which target pistol shooters are being treated under this Bill or in the previous Act.
My amendment is simple. It seeks to require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the compensation scheme under this Bill to see how it has been working and its effect on individuals, gun clubs and businesses, and to report to both Houses of Parliament within six months of the Act coming into force.
My views on this legislation and the previous Act are well known. They have not changed. I believe that the legislation is outrageous and spiteful. It unfairly treats decent, respectable, law-abiding citizens, imposing collective punishment on them for the actions of a homicidal maniac. It is a great pity that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has left the Chamber because he intervened in the speech of my noble friend Lord Howell to invite him to visit a primary school to ask about views on gun control bearing in mind what happened at Dunblane. Perhaps the Committee and the noble Lord should know that every week, week in, week out, year in, year out, 14 children are killed on our roads and 200 are seriously injured. Once in this century—perhaps in even a longer period than that—15 children are killed in a school. That is horrific. It is horrible. It is disgraceful. Nevertheless, we must keep a sense of perspective. If we are concerned about the children who were killed at Dunblane, let us also be concerned about the 14 children who are killed week in, week out, year in, year out on our roads and the 200 who are injured.
In spite of what I have said, I think that we all want to improve the Bill, particularly since the present plans would lead to gross injustice. The Bill provides for compensation on the same terms for .22 pistols as for higher calibre guns. The injustice of the scheme currently operated under the 1997 Act will also apply to this Bill but is, in fact, worse. Clubs and businesses which might have been able to continue to operate with .22s will no longer be able to do so. The point was recognised by the then Minister, Miss Widdecombe, in a debate on the 1997 Bill when she said:
"The Bill will make no difference to clubs which use .22 pistols."—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee E, 20/11/96; col. 26.]
That opportunity for survival is no longer available. The same is true for businesses. They will face the costs, not only of the value of the guns themselves, but all the other costs, financial obligations and loss of business from closing down.
Many of the worst hit by this Bill will be ordinary club members who have pitched together to run their club or range. Many of these individuals will remain liable for long-term mortgages and leases for clubs and ranges which will be forced to close by this Bill. Nothing could be more unjust than that.
A survey of 139 clubs showed that 71 per cent. would not reach the government requirements for security under the 1997 Act; 126 clubs gave details at that time of their expected losses, and it was possible to calculate that their losses could be over £64 million. The new Bill makes the situation even worse. All pistol clubs will now have to close. The 71 per cent. will become 100 per cent. The loss for which no compensation is
972
being paid to clubs could be £100 million. That loss is being placed on them by the Government and Parliament. They will have to meet it.
The British Shooting Sports Council's survey of clubs drew attention to the Derby Rifle and Pistol Club which is a non-profit-making operation which will lose (even assuming a good resale price) over £100,000 on land and facilities. It recorded the Chesterfield Rifle and Pistol Club which has land and buildings unsaleable except for shooting club premises and stands to lose £128,000. The lease of the Aberdeen Full Bore Gun Club runs for 21 years at £70,000 a year.
The case of the 10th Battalion Suffolk Home Guard Rifle and Pistol Club sums up how critical it is for the Government even at this late stage to compensate at least those individuals who stand surety for their club. The 10th battalion was founded when the Government stood the Home Guard down but instructed it—"instructed it", mind you—to establish ranges on which the public were to be admitted. The 10th battalion did so on rented land. It built a clubhouse and raised money by its own efforts. In February 1996, a few weeks before Dunblane, it bought the land. It managed this with the help of money from the Sports Council, the local district council and the National Rifle Association. The land is owned subject to a covenant that it can be used only as a shooting range. The £15,900 grant from the Sports Council is subject to the condition that the club shall continue to function for 10 years. Then there is a matter of a £6,000 loan. None of this is under the control of the trustees yet each of the four will be personally liable for the quarter of any debts on winding up. What a way to treat British citizens! What a way for the Government to treat individuals!
There is also the question of what will happen to businesses. Compensation is being offered for loss of stock but not for loss of business. Many dealers will lose their livelihoods as a result of the Bill. This is not just an occupational hazard; it is a sudden imposition by law which will take away so large an amount of trade that the enterprise could become unviable. It is estimated that some 3,000 jobs will be lost as a result.
The Government say that there are plenty of precedents for this and that this is what usually happens when governments pass new Acts: some people are bound to be hurt, including financially. However, there are precedents for compensating for loss of business. I refer, for example, to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which states, in Sections 107 and 108, that compensation can, in appropriate cases, include an amount for loss of anticipated profit which could have been earned from the use of the land in a way which becomes prohibited by reason of the revocation. That is a precedent for compensating people for loss of business.
We ought also to look elsewhere for precedents, including at the Australian scheme, which is generous. The Australian scheme was established following the incident at Port Arthur. The Australian Government have willingly accepted the principle of "fair and proper compensation" for dealers, individuals and collectors—in fact, for everyone affected. Compensation in

973
Australia is based on the value of assets one month before the Port Arthur incident not at the publication of a Bill after the incident. Obviously, that government recognise that compensation must take account of the fact that the depression in the value of such assets occurred immediately after the incident.
Dealers in Australia are being offered compensation for stock, unusable ammunition, spares, maintenance equipment and manuals relating to prohibited firearms. Importantly, this is being offered at sale price, not purchase price. There is a big difference. The dealers are also being offered compensation for loss of business; that is, the difference between the value of the business prior to the new legislation—before the incident in Port Arthur—and the value of the business following the new legislation. If the Australian Government can offer fair and proper compensation to their citizens in accordance with natural justice surely our Government—which is very much richer—can do the same. There are practical problems relating to the operation of the compensation scheme. Tonight I do not have time to go into the details. However, a review would enable the difficulties to be addressed and perhaps ironed out.
One hears a good deal from the present Ministers about individual rights and natural justice. One understands that the United Kingdom is to incorporate into law the European Convention on Human Rights. We have an opportunity here to bring about natural justice by ensuring that dealers, pistol shooters, gun club owners and gun club members are properly compensated for their losses. They deserve that. I hope that this small and, unfortunately, insignificant amendment—it is the only way to get anything at all by way of compensation because of the restriction of the Long Title of the Bill—will be accepted so that the Government must look at the matter six months after the Act, if it ever becomes law—I am sure it will—comes into force. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Zouche of Haryngworth: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. We must now live with the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. I believe that it was a rotten, rotten Bill, but that is as it may be. The noble Lord's amendment will give the Government the opportunity to rethink the issue of compensation. The previous government made excuses about precedents. That was nonsense. It was just a convenient excuse not to compensate fairly. The Australian Government looked after their citizens. Australian dealers, clubs and individuals have been paid compensation for loss of business. What is wrong with us? I am ashamed. Not only have we taken away the right of some of our citizens to partake in an honourable sport but we do not even have the decency to pay them proper compensation. I urge the Minister to take this opportunity to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and give the Government the
974
chance to put right something that is so shamefully wrong. I beg the Minister to dig deeply into his conscience before rejecting this amendment.
Lord Monson: The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has moved the amendment with his habitual skill and sensitivity to the injustices inflicted upon tens of thousands of law-abiding decent citizens by panic legislation both by this Government and the previous government. His exposition of those injustices is so comprehensive that there is no need for me to enlarge upon them, particularly at this relatively late hour.
However, it is worth examining the amendment in some detail to see what it provides. All it obliges the Secretary of State to do is to undertake a review of the operation of the compensation scheme and to report the results to Parliament—nothing more. It gives the Government the option of making recommendations to increase compensation in certain instances if they believe it right to do so, but they are under no obligation to make any such compensation. On the other hand, in the light of evidence revealed by the review they may decide that it is appropriate to introduce new primary legislation to provide extra compensation for the worst hit individuals and associations. There is nothing in the amendment that obliges the Government to do so. Therefore, the amendment is extremely moderate and responsible, and I hope that on that basis it will be accepted.
Earl Peel: I very strongly support this amendment. During the proceedings on the previous Bill I spoke at length on the whole question of compensation. I make no apology for speaking about it again, because it is a very serious question and there are undoubtedly clear examples where financial losses have been identified and those losses have led to real hardship. I declare an interest, as I always have, as president of the Gun Trade Association. Quite a number of these cases have been brought to my attention. At Second Reading I quoted the figure of £64 million as the estimate of the losses that had been incurred by clubs alone due directly to the previous legislation. That sum does not include businesses and those who took out mortgages or loans. I dread to think what the total figure may be. However, one can be sure that it comes to a very considerable sum of money. Those people were ignored.
The previous government maintained that no precedent had been set for such compensation, certainly to be met out of the public purse. But examples were given to show that in previous cases when government had legislated to prohibit a product for whatever reason there had in many cases been other products to which the particular businesses could turn. But that was not the case with many businesses and clubs which dealt specifically with specialist guns. One knows that clubs in particular suffered under the previous legislation. Furthermore, in previous cases where items had been prohibited, a phasing-out period was provided which gave those concerned an opportunity to look to other ways of maintaining their businesses. That opportunity was not afforded under the previous legislation. It was rushed through for reasons of political expediency and

975
no real concern was shown for those businesses and clubs. My concern today is that exactly the same will happen again.
There will be casualties from this Bill. Whereas I accept that the Government have said that they will pay full compensation for those who hand in their .22 hand guns and accessories, there will still be businesses, clubs and those who have taken out mortgages and loans in respect of whom nothing has been done. If the Government on behalf of the electorate consider that the measures in this Bill are in the best interests of the public at large, I believe that equal consideration and courtesy must be shown to those who have taken the brunt of this legislation.
The amendment is, on the face of it, an innocuous one. That is not an adjective I like to use to describe anything with which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is involved, but what he says is right. It is only, in effect, a small amendment. I support it for one reason only. It will help concentrate the Government's mind on the whole question of compensation and could, in time, demonstrate the plight that businesses, clubs and individuals have suffered. The Government may at that time rethink the whole question of compensation and adopt a system considerably fairer and more just than that witnessed under the previous legislation.
The Earl of Lytton: I have previously expressed an interest in compensation matters, and I have an apology to make to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. A few days ago I indicated that I did not think that I could support the amendment. Having heard what he has had to say—I had no idea at the time that he was proposing to raise the whole question of compensation—I must add a few things from my experience. That will help foreshorten what I have to say in connection with an amendment in my name.
The noble Lord referred to public opinion and opinion polls. He underlined something which I have always understood; namely, that public opinion is a fickle commodity. One minute it is borne on a tide of emotion, press comment and such things; the next minute it has moved on to something different. I hope therefore that the Government will bear in mind that feature and that, perhaps in a year's time, when the first anniversary of their success in being elected into government comes around, they will consider that they are receiving the support of the country for reasons different from the ones upon which they went to the polls in the first place. That is a necessary and desirable process. They need to be alert to it.
On Second Reading, I referred to public opinion versus public interest. I pointed out that they are not the same; that there is a role for government to make a distinction. I do not see that distinction being made here.
I come now to the question of compensation. As I say, I was unaware that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, intended to raise it. However, it is something close to my heart and my amendment relates to one aspect of it. There are severe risks involved in getting this wrong. What will happen if those who stand to lose because they are not being paid the proper sum by reference to
976
market values or are excluded by virtue of having stock in trade and business liabilities—all the matters to which the noble Earl, Lord Peel, referred—feel a palpable sense of abiding injustice? It is easy to see what sort of risks may be run when we talk about relying, to a large extent, on people's willingness to surrender handguns.
It may not be fashionable to say so, but I wonder whether a number of weapons will not disappear through loss, theft or export on whatever pretext and whether the effect of the proposed legislation will not fail to achieve the Government's objectives in terms of reducing the number of guns by getting rid of these legally held guns. I do not know what the answer to that is. I am extremely worried that it may not work in the way the Government have in mind, because there will be people who will feel that they have been short changed.
I said on Second Reading that two wrongs do not make a right. At this stage of the Bill, they still do not make a right. They are still two wrongs. There is still the risk of disillusionment and the tit-for-tat response. How many people will be left, as one sees in the light of Lord Cullen's report, like that embittered, disillusioned man who took his revenge on society? That may sound far fetched, but we are playing with fire if we do not get the matter right.
It is in the public interest that full and fair compensation is paid, and seen to be paid. If that is not done, the consequences are likely to lead to this country being a more dangerous rather than a less dangerous place. I want it to be a less dangerous place. I support the thrust of what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said. I am glad to have heard what he had to say and to have had the opportunity to contribute.
Baroness Blotch: I shall be brief. It is unfortunate that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is not in his place. He has not found one Member on the Liberal Benches to support his arguments. He strongly supported the issue of compensation, and his comments would have a far greater resonance, given the situation presented by the superimposition of the Bill onto the 1997 Act.
Under the 1997 Act, it was at least possible for clubs to continue operating, albeit, I say to my noble friend Lord Peel, under strict regulation. However, the importance of the Bill is that the opportunity for survival will no longer be available. That makes the scenario different. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, set out in considerable detail the distress that will now be suffered by clubs, shooters and the sport. It is for those reasons that I support the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As my noble friend clearly indicated, he wants a statutory requirement for a formal review and report of the compensation scheme under the Bill. It will not have escaped attention that the scheme under the earlier Bill introduced by the previous government restricted itself to handguns and ancillary equipment. On many occasions the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, raised the question of wider compensation, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Stoddart and the noble Earls, Lord Peel and Lord Lytton; that is, compensation for loss of business, for mortgage loans taken out, and loss perhaps in

977
circumstances where covenants have been entered into and where land and buildings have been purchased or leased—all losses which have been described and which I well understand.
A policy decision taken by the previous government, endorsed by another place and approved by this place, following considerable discussion, was that those would not be eligible for compensation. I always respect my noble friend's ingenuity. He says that it is a little amendment. Someone flashed out the red light that it was an innocuous amendment, so I listened carefully to what my noble friend Lord Stoddart was developing. Of course what he is doing—if I may respectfully suggest it, and I think we may be in agreement—is not asking for a formal review but for the reopening of the compensation scheme basis.
The 1997 Act had the same scheme for compensation as the Bill. I do not find it persuasive when the former Minister, now sitting opposite me, says that everything has changed because under the previous Act, which did away with so many more weapons than does the Bill, there was still the possibility of running .22 clubs. I do not find that argument persuasive in any way. Since the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, and I have agreed on changing disciplines, I should be surprised if he were persuaded by it either.
We believe that there is no need for a formal statutory review. The scheme will start—and I hope that it will be efficiently run—on the basis of the present regime of compensation. I understand the feeling of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and I understand the sense of principle which other noble Lords have adopted. If the amendment were passed we would have a statutory requirement for a review in relation to compensation for small-calibre weapons but not in relation to compensation for large-calibre weapons. I respectfully suggest that that would be distinctly unworkable and inconsistent and I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: Does the Minister agree that the amendment, if passed, does not oblige the Government to pay a single penny more in compensation than is provided for at present, if they so decide?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The answer to that question is yes.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Before the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, comes to a conclusion as to whether to press the amendment, and since the Minister was good enough to refer to me, I confirm that I did not approve of the previous Government's arrangements for their Bill. Indeed, I believe that the amendment, which your Lordships' House passed by a substantial majority with all-party support, to disassemble weapons, particularly .22s, and to keep the slide mechanisms and the chambers in the clubs under suitably secure arrangements and to keep the weapons at home, was the right amendment to meet all sides of this particularly difficult argument. Of course, it was a matter of regret that the previous
978
Government did not feel able to accept that. It was certainly a matter of regret to most of us in your Lordships' House who supported it.
I appreciate that the Minister is not having an easy time today, and I certainly admire the way in which he is holding his extremely difficult and, I would have thought, unpleasant brief. However, I cannot go so far with him as to disagree with my noble friend Lady Blatch when she said that the previous Government left us with the possibility of at least having some .22 shooting in clubs and continuing the sport. The present Government, in their lack of wisdom, have decided to prevent that.
I support the amendment because if, with the further passage of time, we were to review the compensation arrangements, or lack of them, which the Bill brings forward we might reach a more sensible conclusion than the one that we are reaching still in the aftermath of the Dunblane tragedy. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord McNally, re-entering the Chamber because he referred to the terrible tragedy at Dunblane and the children who suffered. Speaking as the father of a 12 year-old girl than whom nothing and no-one is more precious in life to me, I must say to the noble Lord that I believe that he is wrong in thinking that the Bill will do anything to prevent future tragedies of that kind or the future deaths of children. As we have said for some time, the Bill seeks to ban the instrument that was used at Dunblane, but it does nothing to alleviate the cause.
Earl Peel: Why does the Minister seem so concerned that the amendment will re-open the whole question of compensation? I understand that under the amendment there is no onus to ask the Secretary of State to do anything other than to make a report. It may initiate debate, but there is no onus on the Secretary of State or the Minister to do anything. Therefore, I do not see why he is concerned about that point.
Furthermore, do I understand that the Minister's principal reason for not paying compensation in respect of businesses, mortgages, clubs and so forth—all of which have been raised many times in your Lordships' House—other than compensation for weapons is because the previous Government did not do so? I had hoped that the new Government would take a fresh view. I am aware that the present Government are copying many of the legislative provisions which were introduced by the previous Government, whether they be fiscal, connected with privatisation or whatever. However, in this respect I hoped that the new Government would take a new and fresh look at the matter and certainly a more generous view as regards those people who were treated so badly in the past.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Of course, we are not taking this stance because of what the previous Government did. I simply pointed out as a matter of historical accuracy that the scheme introduced into your Lordships' House by the previous Government leads to the banning perhaps of 160,000 large-calibre handguns; this Bill deals with the impact of banning 40,000 small-calibre pistols. It would be surprising to me to have a compensation scheme for the 40,000 guns which was different from that for the 160,000. That is the point

979
that I was seeking to make and I hope that I have now clarified it. That policy decision was taken and ultimately it was endorsed by Parliament, which is why we have the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 on the statute book.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I thank all noble Lords who supported my new clause. We should listen closely to what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, because there could well be people who feel a sense of injustice and who may take actions which are not conducive to good order. Of course, there is always the danger that there will be a leakage of handguns to the criminal fraternity and that must be taken into account.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, was right to say that the Bill will do nothing to prevent future Dunblanes. There is no guarantee whatever that this Bill or the Act which preceded it will prevent any future Dunblanes. If I could be assured that that were the case I would not have opposed the Bill, but I know that it is not the case. No guarantee can be given and under those circumstances this Bill and the previous Act are bad legislation.
My noble friend the Minister in his reply said, fairly, that the Bill follows on from the previous Bill which was brought forward by the previous Government. He made that excuse, and I say that advisedly because it is an excuse. I must tell my noble friend and other Members of the Committee that I am a member of the Labour Party because I believe that it is fairer and understands the concerns and difficulties of ordinary people better than the party opposite—
Lord Renton: Not always!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: No, but let me explain why I am a member of the Labour Party. It states that it is fairer and that it wants a fairer society. If that is so why on earth is it following the policy—the mean policy—of the previous Government? People changed the Government because they wanted something different and yet all we have is the same. So that is my answer to my noble friend. I hope that he will understand and accept it.
Of course I want to reopen the whole issue of compensation. The problem is that my Government have drawn the Bill so closely and restricted the Long Title so badly that I have to resort to this device to try to talk to my friend, my noble friend, in the hope that they will depart from the policies of the predecessor government and bring about much more fairness to the people who are adversely affected by this Bill.
Of course, because there is a huge majority, he could while he is about it bring forward an amendment Bill so that we could have the same treatment for the people who suffered under the previous Act. Therefore, there is an enormous opportunity for my noble friend to do good for people who have been badly hurt by the previous government and now by my own Government.
I should like to press this amendment but it would be churlish to do so because everybody else has been kind enough to withdraw their amendments. They have done so in the hope and in order that my noble friend can examine what the amendment says and consider further what has been said in the debate. When the Bill comes to
980
Report stage, it is hoped that the Minister will be much more receptive and will support some of the amendments. Indeed, if they are not properly drafted, perhaps he will bring forward his own amendments which we can all support and which will improve the Bill in the way I and other Members of the Committee have suggested in relation to other matters. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.]
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
COMPENSATION: PAYMENTS
(" . In any case under this Act the Secretary of State shall—

(a) on notification in writing by any person surrendering weapons or ancillary equipment ranking for compensation, pay an amount equal to his estimate of the compensation payable on account of and without prejudice to the total amount of compensation agreed or determined: and

(b) make any such payment within 30 days of notification or other such period as is provided for by an order made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument and approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.").

The noble Earl said: I shall be as brief as I can, given the hour. I apologise also to the Minister for the relatively late tabling of the amendment, which is a probing amendment. It deals with a quite narrow, technical point but I should explain that it arises through my fear that the compensation scheme under this Bill may prove more costly than has been thought hitherto.
That is partly because of my impression that the quantum of ancillary equipment which may rank for compensation is almost by definition not known and quantifiable. I have heard some rumours that whatever the cost, it may be the case that there are no additional funds to be put towards the costs of compensation under the Bill and that any additional costs may have to be met out of existing Home Office budgets. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some reassurance about that because it worries me a great deal, and I shall explain why.
It is my general observation that, whenever there is insufficient money around, a certain amount of creative administrative practice arises. The flaw in any process which requires money which is in short supply to be paid out is that there results a tendency to draw out the process of agreeing what is due to a recipient.
The effect of that is to delay the evil day when someone has to write out the cheque. I alluded to that in relation to Amendment No. 3, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, when I said that I did not believe that that amendment went far enough. Of course, it is one thing to be paid when the compensation is agreed or within a certain period thereafter; it is another to have the whole thing snarled up because the matter is not agreed. Therefore, my amendment seeks to redress the potential for a certain amount of financial manipulation in that respect. I do not suggest that that will necessarily happen but I feel that it is a risk.
The effect of the amendment is to enable a person entitled to compensation to obtain in relatively short order a payment of that amount of the compensation

981
which is not in dispute, leaving the balance to be dealt with and picked up later. There are parallels for that in the general law of compulsory purchase and compensation relating to acquisitions of land and property for public schemes where there is entitlement to a statutory advance payment without prejudice to any larger sum under discussion.
Therefore, I commend this relatively technical amendment to the Committee and look forward with interest to the Minister's reply.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: The Minister will know that I am sympathetic to any way of speeding up and making more efficient the delivery of the system and also in relation to swift payment. The Minister has declared that he wishes to see payments made as speedily as possible. But I do not believe that the Minister appreciates properly the depth of anxiety and concern about this whole scheme, how it will work and how well it will be implemented. There are already discrepancies among police authorities as to how they are dealing with the shooting fraternity who will be subject to the measures in the previous Act and in this Bill.
Therefore, I believe that the Government should place something on the face of the Bill which reassures people that these matters will be dealt with efficiently and that timely payments will be made. People will be in need of this money and it is important that they should receive it as soon as possible. Therefore, I support the principle of including a provision of this kind in the Bill.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving me early notice of his amendment and indeed, for reiterating its purpose; namely, to ensure that claimants receive at least some money relatively quickly.
I understand that desire. On a number of occasions now I have assured the Committee that claims will be paid as quickly as possible. I understand entirely the basis on which this amendment is put forward. However, it may well make the process slower. There will not be any need for payments on account in respect of options A and B because they are determined figures. That would come into play only in relation to option C. My concern is that in talking about payments on account in relation to options A and B, there may be thought to be an opportunity for not making the full payment promptly.
I understand entirely the purpose of the amendment but I suggest that it is flawed. There is an ambiguity in that the amendment refers to,
"notification in writing by any person surrendering weapons or ancillary equipment ranking for compensation, pay an amount equal to his estimate".
It is not entirely clear whether that is the Secretary of State's estimate or the applicant's estimate. That is a very small matter which I merely point out to the noble Earl.
I agree entirely with the noble Earl about wanting prompt payment. A large number of persons are bound to make applications in the early weeks and I could not
982
guarantee that everyone would be dealt with as soon as may reasonably be expected in that early period. But in relation to options A and B there should certainly be prompt payment because the figures are set. As regards option C, I should have thought that in the end, payment on account would slow down matters. I do not think that the analogy that the noble Earl put forward is entirely perfect although I recognise readily his expertise in compulsory purchase matters.
On the basis of what I have said, which is intended to be helpful, I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Lytton: It would be churlish to prolong matters any further than is necessary. I appreciate the support for the principle of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I confirm to the Minister that the word "his" refers to the Secretary of State. The Minister is right to say also that the amendment relates primarily to the option C process.
However, that is something that is triggered by the claimant, who notifies the Secretary of State and not the other way round. Therefore, it would be for the claimant to carry the risk of any potential delay. Of course, that would be based on his perception of how matters were going and how long drawn-out and difficult it would be.
I have to say that I am not wholly satisfied with the situation. I am concerned that the Minister twice repeated the comment that there would be many claims in the early days and that there is some thought that this may be a fairly long drawn-out process as regards the sheer volume of claims. That worries me quite a lot as to whether in fact the administrative resources, never mind the actual money for compensation, are really there. While reserving my position perhaps to return to the matter at a later stage in the Bill's proceedings, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Royal Assent
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

National Health Service (Private Finance) Act,

Southampton International Boat Show Act,

Imperial College Act.

Geneva Conventions (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
7.51 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

983
The arrest last week of the two Bosnian Serb war criminals who were allegedly responsible for the Omarska and Trnopolje concentration camps was a reassuring indication that S-FOR will ultimately apprehend all those indicted by the tribunal, despite the limitations of its mandate. I hope your Lordships will join me in congratulating and offering our warmest thanks to the commander of S-FOR and to the brave soldiers who carried out the operation. My only regret is that we did not conduct operations of this kind while I-FOR were still there, when we had many more troops to resist the opposition of the Serbs, who apparently support the war criminals in their midst.
Yesterday the Bosnian War Tribunal also handed down the first sentence on an indicted criminal for crimes against humanity. It is the first time that that has been done since the Nuremberg Tribunal. Thus the tribunal sent a message to all the others indicted that retribution awaits them in the end. But we are also reminded that crimes just as dreadful as those committed in Bosnia have been reported from other countries where there is no mechanism for bringing the offenders to justice. I have in mind, for example, Cambodia, Iraq, Liberia, Burma and Somalia. The Bill would enable us to prosecute the war criminals from those and other countries, if they come within our reach.
Your Lordships considered an identical Bill to the one before us during the last Parliament and the arguments for it are still the same. The Geneva Conventions Act 1957, which the Bill seeks to amend, already makes grave breaches of the conventions a felony, and "grave breach" is defined in the first Geneva Convention as being,
"wilful killing, torture and inhuman treatment … causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health".
But those provisions apply only in the case of international armed conflicts. Breaches of Common Article 3, which is concerned with the same conduct in internal armed conflicts, are not caught, though, as your Lordships will be aware, all the 30 or 40 conflicts now being waged across the world are internal, even if some of them have international dimensions.
Thus, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, if an Iraqi soldier wilfully killed a civilian Kuwaiti, he was committing a felony under the existing Geneva Conventions Act and could have been tried by an English court; but if that soldier had killed thousands of Kurdish civilians living on Iraqi territory—as was of course done in the infamous Anphal operation—he would not have been liable to prosecution in England or, indeed, in other states which have enacted similar laws. The Turks who kill civilians during their incursions into Northern Iraq are committing a felony, but, when they kill people in their own towns and villages, it is not an offence under our law. Yet, from the point of view of the victim, it makes no difference whether a soldier who murders or injures him belongs to a foreign army or the army of his own country.
Under the Geneva Conventions, the crime is prohibited in each case, but, where the offence is committed in non-international armed conflict, states are not obliged to criminalise it in their domestic legislation. They have the power to do so, because such crimes are
984
offences of universal jurisdiction—that is to say, offences which can be dealt with outside the state where they were committed, or even the state of which the accused is a citizen, as the experts now agree. The International Criminal Tribunal on the former Yugoslavia so ruled in its judgment on the admissibility of the charges against Tadic, who has now been sentenced.
At the Geneva Review Conference on excessively injurious weapons last May, agreement was reached on a new protocol to prohibit the use against civilians in both international and internal armed conflicts of mines, booby traps and similar devices. That protocol is binding on both sides in an internal armed conflict, and the signatories are obliged to take legislative action and other measures to prevent and suppress violations of the protocol by persons under their jurisdiction or control. They must impose penal sanctions against persons who, contrary to the provisions of the protocol, wilfully kill or cause serious injury to civilians by the use of these devices. Thus it will be an offence under our law for a person who may or may not be a British citizen to lay mines in Angola, for example, wilfully causing death or serious injury to civilians there.
I asked officials in the Foreign Office how we intended to comply with that duty and was given the surprising answer that the situation is already covered by existing law. If the Minister could explain that when he comes to reply, it would be extremely helpful. My reading is that new legislation would be required, because the 1957 Act only covers the killing or injury of civilians in international armed conflicts and thus does not fully comply with the protocol. If that is so, I suggest that it would be incongruous to accept the principle that we should deal with Article 3 offences but then only cover those perpetrated with one group of weapons. We would make it an offence to kill civilians using anti-personnel mines but not to shoot them with a Kalashnikov or slice them up with a machete.
The draft statute of the International Criminal Court proposes that it will have jurisdiction over,
"serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflict".
This means that the court will be able to try offences committed in either internal or international conflict. The interpretation is confirmed by Amnesty International in its paper of January 1997, The International Court: Making the Right Choices. However, just for the record, I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm that it is also the Government's understanding that the International Criminal Court will be able to try offences committed in either internal or international armed conflict.
If it is agreed that all breaches of the Geneva Conventions are crimes of universal jurisdiction, the next question is: before what court could they be brought? There could be further ad hoc tribunals like those already dealing with the former Yugoslavia or Rwanda. It has been proposed by Indict that a new war crimes tribunal should be established to deal with the horrendous crimes committed by Saddam Hussein and his gang, if and when they can be arrested. Such an approach would be expensive; it would risk an invidious

985
competition between the victims of different internal armed conflicts about whose grievances should be given priority. It could also lead to variations in the treatment of similar offences between one conflict and another, and there are already differences between the statutes of the war crimes tribunals in Bosnia and Rwanda.
Secondly, we could wait for the International Criminal Court to get going some time in the 21st century, assuming that states can agree on the draft statute when they meet at the conference which is planned for 1998. By the time that it gets into operation there will be a huge backlog of crimes which the court would have power to try, and it will not be able to cope with more than a small fraction of them. The resources needed to collect and maintain evidence, to bring the witnesses and defendants to the court and to accommodate them during the proceedings will be a new burden on the United Nations at a time when member states are clamouring for economies.
The third possibility is that individual states themselves should assume at least part of the responsibility, as they will need to do anyway. That is what I am proposing in this Bill. In the draft code of crimes against the peace and security of mankind, published by the International Law Commission last July, implementation is based on the concurrent jurisdiction of national courts and the International Criminal Court for the crimes covered by the code. Article 8 states that,
"each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the crimes set out in Articles 17, 18, 19 and 20—"
which include war crimes and crimes against humanity—
"irrespective of where or by whom those crimes were committed".
The definition includes breaches of Common Article 3 as well as of Article 4 of Additional Protocol II, the language following that of the Rwanda tribunal's statute.
The commission, in its commentary on Article 20(f), which deals with serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the course of a non-international armed conflict, said that it considered this provision to be of particular importance in view of the frequency of non-international armed conflicts in recent years. It points out that there are two other conventions which provide for the prosecution of offenders by an international criminal court, the genocide convention and the apartheid convention, and in both those cases there was provision for concurrent jurisdiction. In the case of these offences covered by the draft code, the commission states that the international community has recognised the continuing importance of the role to be played by national courts, and the report continues,
"As a practical matter it would be virtually impossible for an international criminal court to single-handedly prosecute and punish the countless individuals who are responsible for crimes under international law not only because of the frequency with which such crimes have been committed in recent years, but also because these crimes are often committed as part of a general plan or policy which
986
involves the participation of a substantial number of individuals in systematic or massive criminal conduct in relation to a multiplicity of victims".
I have a number of questions for the Minister who is to reply. Do the Government support the code and its definition of war crimes? Do they also have a view on the alternative forms in which the code might be adopted, referred to in paragraph 47 of the commission's report? The choice lies between an international convention; the incorporation of the code in the statute of the International Criminal Court; and the adoption of the code as a declaration by the General Assembly.
The Belgian Parliament has already passed a law in June 1993 giving the Belgian courts the power to try war crimes committed in non-international armed conflicts regardless of the nationality of the perpetrator. According to a publication of the Belgian Foreign Ministry, Le Droit International Humanitaire, the extension of the application of the law of 1993 to non-international armed conflicts is a particularly remarkable expression of the determination to curb violations of humanitarian law where they are most frequently committed. This law was cited in the judgment on the admissibility of the Tadic case. The International Committee of the Red Cross strongly favours the enactment of criminal legislation to punish serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in non-international armed conflict.
When we last discussed this Bill, the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, who was then the Minister, said that we had had a thorough study of extra-territorial jurisdiction in 1996, and the then government had accepted the guidelines recommended by the Home Office Steering Committee, limiting any further extension of that jurisdiction. With respect, the study was not thorough. It contained a brief reference to crimes of universal jurisdiction in a two-page annex summarising the principles of jurisdiction under international law, mentioning piracy, hijacking, safety of civil aviation and counterfeiting, but ignoring torture, war crimes and crimes against humanity. There is no discussion of the existing Geneva Conventions Act in the Steering Committee Report, or of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, Section 134 of which makes it an offence to commit acts of torture wherever they may occur and regardless of the nationality of the perpetrator. If the committee had thought about the matter it would have concluded that in every case Britain had conscientiously enacted domestic legislation to allow us to prosecute offenders who commit crimes of universal jurisdiction, and now that Article 3 offences are clearly within that category, we ought to move against them without delay for the sake of consistency, as well as on the objective merits of doing so.
The biggest problems will always be to obtain enough evidence for a successful prosecution, and to arrest the alleged criminal. That has been the experience of the Bosnia and Rwanda tribunals, and it will be the same here. There may be few cases. One may observe that we have yet to prosecute a single torturer under the 1988 Act which I have just mentioned. However, at least 14 countries have enacted legislation authorising extra-territorial jurisdiction over torture, and in time it

987
will become risky for known torturers to leave the sanctuary of their protecting state. In time there will be successful prosecutions and that will have a deterrent effect on torturers everywhere.
The same effect could be achieved with this legislation and similar enactments in other countries on war crimes. We know the identities of some of the killers in Northern Iraq, East Timor, Kashmir, Mexico, Chechnya, south Lebanon and south east Turkey. If we had the power to prosecute the military murderers from these territories, no doubt NGOs would put resources into the collection of evidence, as the Redress Trust now does in the case of torture. Sooner or later the net would close in on the war criminals too. The first conviction in the English or Scottish courts would be a landmark, showing that even if the human race is not civilised enough to abolish war altogether, those who kill, rape or otherwise seriously injure helpless civilians in any conflict, domestic or international, will be caught and punished.
Theodor Meron points out that once the tribunals on Rwanda and Bosnia have been wound up, a mechanism for trying persons arrested in the future will have to be devised. He suggests that one option is to prosecute them in the national courts. There is no statute of limitations for war crimes and crimes against humanity, but obviously neither the Bosnia nor the Rwanda tribunals will sit indefinitely. The statute of the International Criminal Court as drafted requires the consent of the state on whose territory an illegal act has occurred, and the state where the suspect is held in custody, to the prosecution. That is a recipe for paralysis rather than an effective complement to national jurisdictions. In the case of the convention against torture, there is an obligation on signatories to make the prohibited acts offences under their domestic law, whether committed on the territory of a party to the convention or otherwise. It is logical that we should follow the same approach with war crimes, and the more so because states on whose territory war crimes are likely to be committed, such as Turkey or Afghanistan, will not accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. It would be highly desirable to remove the limitations that are contained in Article 21. I should be grateful if the Minister would assure the House that we shall try to do so in the conference which is to be held next month to review the statute of the International Criminal Court.
The horrors of Afghanistan, Angola, Burma, Cambodia, Kurdistan and many other unseen or forgotten conflicts go on daily, and those who kill and maim civilians enjoy the protection of rogue states or warlords. At Nuremberg the world declared that sovereignty no longer gave leaders and their servants a licence to harm and murder their own citizens and others who came within their power. That principle has been extended by the convention against torture, the establishment of the two ad hoc tribunals, and the development of the International Criminal Court together with the ILC code. It is now time to begin extending the scope of national legislation against war
988
crimes, as many states have already done against torture. Under this new Government with their firm commitment to human rights Britain can lead the way.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Avebury.)
8.10 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on his persistence and indeed his sense of opportunism. The Bill which is now before the House was in fact, as has been said, the same Bill that was before the House in January this year. At that time the then government, while accepting the gravity of the many examples of atrocities from around the world, nevertheless, for reasons on which I shall touch today, were unable to lend support to the Bill. However, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, who spoke for the then Opposition, appealed to me as the Minister responsible to adopt or support the Bill and if, due to the difficulty of timing in the last parliamentary Session, the government were unable to support the Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I was invited by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, to make an open declaration on the part of the United Kingdom Government to future legislation.
Therefore it would appear that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will strike lucky today and will receive the support he seeks from the Government to which he and his colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches in this House are so wedded. As regards resources, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, speaking for the Labour Benches in the course of the previous Second Reading of the Geneva Conventions (Amendment) Bill, said at col. 1318 of the Official Report of 30th January:
"We have sometimes heard the argument that it would provide an extra burden on our courts so that there are resource implications. In this case, I cannot believe that the jurisdiction will he invoked so frequently that that will be a consideration".
This issue cannot be argued both ways. On the one hand the examples cited today by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and in the previous Second Reading debate by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, all illustrated the proliferation of such actions around the world which would have a material impact on our courts, law practitioners, investigators and, as night follows day, resources. Therefore whatever the reaction of Government today—and if the Government are to be consistent with their attitude to the Bill prior to 1st May, support for the Bill will follow—the issue of resources cannot be dismissed as "not a matter for consideration".
Issues raised in this debate are serious. I have no wish to detract from that. The United Kingdom has a fine reputation for taking its responsibilities under all international conventions seriously. We are enthusiastic supporters of the Geneva Conventions which were enacted as long ago as 1957. The particular issue under discussion today is to insert a new section, making it an offence to commit, aid, abet or procure any act in breach of Common Article 3 outside the United Kingdom. That, of course, constitutes a substantial extension of

989
extra-territorial jurisdiction which would allow our courts to deal with offences committed in the course of armed conflict anywhere in the world with which Britain is not involved.
It is of course true that there have been extensions of extra-territorial jurisdiction, for example, covering drug trafficking overseas, crimes committed on board aircraft and, an issue widely supported in this House, the incitement of certain sexual offences involving children. However, the review of extra-territorial jurisdiction, which was carried out last year and which was deposited in the Library of the House, recommended that the basis of the jurisdiction of our courts should remain territorial; and we, the previous government, accepted that recommendation.
The conclusions of the review were not entirely inflexible. It recommended also that there could be exceptions, as indeed there have been, but that they should be the exception rather than the rule; and in order to help, guidelines were set out to assist with the evaluation of new proposals. Those can be found in paragraphs 2.18 to 2.24 of the review report.
Having accepted the recommendation of the review, we on these Benches have not closed our minds therefore to the courts taking account of the actions which have repercussions abroad. But, as the review recommends, such actions should remain an exception to the general rules and be fully justified in each and every case. We do not believe that as regards actions involving the internal affairs of other states, to which Common Article 3 clearly refers, it would be right to take unilateral jurisdiction.
The General Assembly of the United Nations has declared its concern for the kind of atrocious acts which have been the subject of this debate. The General Assembly renewed the mandate for the Preparatory Committee and passed a resolution calling for the establishment of an international court. I understand that a conference to make progress on producing a statute to give effect to such a court is to be held in 1998.
When I left the Home Office, government officials were participating in those negotiations. So, too, were many non-governmental organisations which we welcomed. It would be helpful to know from the Minister if those negotiations are continuing.
I believe that that is the most effective way to proceed, and therefore I argue that the unilateral approach to extra-territorial jurisdiction set out in the Bill should not be supported.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the issue which the noble Lord identifies with his Bill is one that concerns us all. I am grateful for the way in which he spoke on his Bill. I have to say that the Government cannot support this measure, not because we do not want to see people brought to justice who perpetrate this kind of evil but because we do not think that the Bill provides an effective, appropriate means of achieving that aim.
990
The four Geneva Conventions require that state parties make grave breaches criminal offences whenever they occur. Common Article 3, which protects non-participants in internal conflicts from violence towards life and person, contains no provisions for grave breaches and therefore there is no requirement for any state party to the conventions to take jurisdiction over a breach of these common articles. That is not to say, as has rightly been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that we are precluded from taking jurisdiction, and some states have done so.
However, it is the truth that the criminal law of this country is for the most part territorially based. The link between jurisdiction and territory is of long standing. As has been said, it is important that our traditions of evidence and procedure reflect our historical and cultural background. We have a strong emphasis on oral testimony and cross-examination of witnesses, so that a defendant may see his accuser—and see his accuser, whether witness or complainant, cross-examined. Other states, I recognise, take a wider jurisdiction over their nationals and have different rules of evidence which are perhaps suited to different circumstances, allowing hearsay evidence and written depositions to the court. It would be difficult indeed to have such a major change about the approach to evidence. It is difficult, therefore, for the courts of this country to take effective jurisdiction over acts committed outside our territory. We do so in certain circumstances: genocide, state torture and recently for sexual abuse of children. For war crimes we do so where it is a requirement of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions Act 1957.
I am not satisfied that it would be right for us unilaterally to take jurisdiction over breaches of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. First, any state should think carefully before interfering in the internal affairs of another. The Bill provides that its provisions take effect only where there is a state of armed conflict, but it leaves the decision, which may be difficult if not impossible, to the Secretary of State or to the Director of Public Prosecutions about whether a prosecution should be launched. The Secretary of State has to adjudicate as to whether an armed conflict was taking place; and the Director of Public Prosecutions has then to decide whether a prosecution should take place. Does it apply equally to all parties—to those we might wish to support because they are, we would say rightly, rebelling against a tyrannical regime; or only those of whom we disapprove? We have no guidance in the Bill.
There is also a concern that we might leave ourselves open to tit-for-tat action by other regimes which might argue, for instance, that the situation in Northern Ireland is covered by Common Article 3 and seek to prosecute British Army personnel in respect of their action there. I cannot think that your Lordships' House would view that with equanimity.
The real way forward is through international co-operation. I confirm to the noble Baroness that negotiations are constantly continuing among our colleagues abroad. Special arrangements can be and have been made about war crimes in internal conflict, as the noble Lord pointed out, in former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. There are continuing discussions in the United

991
Nations about the formation of an international criminal court. One of the matters being discussed is giving the proposed court the power to deal with breaches of Common Article 3. We believe that the best approach to these issues is to deal with them on the basis of international consensus.
Therefore, as I said at the outset, the Government are not able to support the Bill. There are difficulties of principle. But I do not believe that the Bill can be amended to the satisfaction of the Government. As normal, the Government will not seek to prevent the Bill receiving a Second Reading today.
Perhaps I may deal with three specific matters put to me by the noble Lord. The first is the question of our approach to the international criminal court. I am happy to say that I underline our strong manifesto commitment to the establishment of an international criminal court. We are discussing matters with those who have interests. The question of Common Article 3 is among those aspects of common interest. I approach the matter with an entirely open mind.
We have to remember that Common Article 3 is concerned with internal armed conflicts and the primary duty is on the state within which the conduct has taken place to take effective action as a matter of its national law against individual perpetrators.
The noble Lord asked me specifically about Article 21. We are examining Article 21 in the course of preparations for the next meeting of the preparatory committee on the international criminal court. We have not yet taken a final view.
The noble Lord asked specifically about land-mines and advice that he had been given as to whether or not acts were presently unlawful in this country. He also asked specifically about the land-mines protocol. We intend to ratify the land-mines protocol. It will not require primary legislation because the acts covered are already offences in this country. The existing legislation—for instance, the offence of murder under the common law or the provisions of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861—applies to acts committed under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom and therefore no new legislation is necessary. However, I suggest that it needs to be borne in mind that the protocol requires a state only to criminalise violations of the protocol by persons or on territory under the state's jurisdiction or control. That is a much narrower jurisdiction than is envisaged in the noble Lord's Bill, which would extend to acts in breach of Article 3 committed by any person anywhere outside the United Kingdom, whatever his or her nationality.
I think I have dealt with the specific three questions that the noble Lord put to me. I am sorry if he feels disappointed at our response. It is my hope that he ought not to be, because the Government have no doubt at all that the real way forward is the ICC—which would not only be effective but would demonstrate the feeling of the international community that these grave crimes ought not to go unpunished.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, what he has said tonight is entirely at odds with
992
what his noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell said, speaking for the Labour Party in January on this very same Bill. He had no disagreement in principle; he fully supported the Bill; he exhorted the then Conservative Government to accept it; and if they could not accept it through problems of timing, would they declare openly that they would bring it forward in a new Parliament? What has changed?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, what has changed is this. We have examined further the preparations being made for the foundation of the international criminal court. We believe, having examined the arguments both ways, having studied the various material available to us, that that is the proper way forward, as I believe the noble Baroness still thinks is the proper way forward.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene again. That is entirely right; the noble Lord has used all the arguments consistent with those that I used on that occasion. I was not supported by the Labour Party on that occasion. I merely wondered what had changed. Very little has changed. The noble Lord and his colleagues were as conversant with the information at the time. It seems another incredible U-turn.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not accept that at all. We believe that having examined the advice we have received, to which we were not privy at that time, having considered various ramifications, of which we did not know the full detail at that time, having seen the state of the negotiations with our international colleagues about the approach of the ICC, to which we were not privy at that time, we have reached the conclusion which I expressed tonight and which I believe is a correct one.
8.25 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, as the noble Lord anticipated, I do find his reply very disappointing, not only in the light of what his noble friend said on a previous occasion but of what I believe to be the present Government's greater commitment to human rights than that of their predecessors. I therefore expected a rather more sympathetic attitude from this Government than I received from the Tories on 30th January. I was not surprised to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, repeating the arguments against the extension of extra-territorial jurisdiction, which were the main thrust of the opposition to my Bill by the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, on the previous occasion. I had already pointed out that this report, which claimed to be a thorough exposition of the arguments for the extension of extra-territorial jurisdiction, entirely ignored crimes of universal jurisdiction. I thought that a rather important omission on which the noble Baroness might have commented.
These crimes of universal jurisdiction are crimes that can be dealt with either by the international criminal court or by the domestic courts of member states, and that is the way forward—not simply to rely entirely on

993
the international criminal court, which, as the Minister said, still has some way to go before it can come into operation.
I am surprised that the Minister is not in a position to tell the House a little more about what instructions are to be given to officials attending the conference which will take place next month. They will have to make up their minds whether they want Common Article 3 to be included in the draft code of crimes.
The other question that I put to the Minister, to which he did not reply, was whether the draft code of the International Criminal Commission should be incorporated into the statute of the international criminal court. If the conference decides that it should, then it contains Common Article 3 offences as part of the crimes over which the international criminal court would have jurisdiction.
Everybody who has examined this matter agrees that the international criminal court will not be able to handle all these cases by itself. There will have to be complementary jurisdiction between the international criminal court and the domestic courts of member states. While I quite agree with the noble Baroness, Lady B latch, that that imposes some additional obligations on us in terms of the resources that will be required and the burden on collection of evidence and presentation to the court, I do not honestly think that is a serious objection when we consider that so far under the provisions of Clause 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 there has not yet been a prosecution against a person who commits torture in a foreign country. That is because of the intrinsic difficulty of bringing
994
witnesses here, collecting evidence, and arresting the person responsible. The same will apply if this Bill comes onto the statute book.
I heard nothing from the Minister this evening which causes me to ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw the Bill. I believe it deserves to have a further airing. We may be able to improve it in Committee. We can promote greater discussion of whether or not there should be domestic legislation parallel with that of the international criminal court if we continue with our discussions in Committee and on Report than if I were to withdraw the Bill now. I believe that the Minister will at least concede that is a useful function for the Bill to perform and that the public should have greater knowledge of what is being done in the international community.
No one knows about the conference to be held next month to talk about the international criminal court. No one has even begun to think about the question of complementary jurisdiction. If we do nothing else in continuing with the progress of the Bill, we shall perhaps persuade some of the public, including the noble Lord's colleagues in the legal profession, to give the matter further thought. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

National Health Service (Private Finance) Bill
Returned from the Commons earlier this day agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes after eight o'clock.

  Industrial Performance Measurement
  Industrial Performance Measurement
  Mirror Group Newspapers plc: Inspectors' Report
  Mirror Group Newspapers plc: Inspectors' Report
  Mirror Group Newspapers plc: Inquiry
  Mirror Group Newspapers plc: Inquiry
  Devolution Referendums
  Devolution Referendums
  RDS-TMC System Pilot: Evaluation
  RDS-TMC System Pilot: Evaluation
  Water Pollution: Consultation
  Water Pollution: Consultation
  NATO Enlargement: Cost
  NATO Enlargement: Cost
  NATO: Expansion of Role
  NATO: Expansion of Role
  University Museums: Funding
  University Museums: Funding
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Clinical Medical Research
  Clinical Medical Research
  Welfare to Work
  Welfare to Work
  Privy Council Judicial Committee
  Privy Council Judicial Committee
  Security Service Act: Commissioner's Recommendation
  Security Service Act: Commissioner's Recommendation
  Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses
  Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses
  Lockheed Martin and NATO Expansion
  Lockheed Martin and NATO Expansion
  NHS Estates Executive Agency
  NHS Estates Executive Agency