Sitting of 21 July 1997

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

    Millennium Projects
    Ms Blears: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the long-term value of the millennium projects. [7496]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The Millennium Commission's legacy will include projects all across the country worth about £3 billion. These range from new art galleries and science centres to hundreds of village halls and community greens. The commission's millennium awards for individuals will also provide opportunities for thousands of people to achieve personal aspirations while putting something back into the community.
    Ms Blears: As the Secretary of State is aware, we recently launched the construction of the national landmark millennium project for the arts in Salford—the Lowry centre—a unique combination of the performing and visual arts which brings together creativity and imagination in a way never done before. It will create 6,500 jobs in Salford. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what he considers to be the long-term benefits of the Lowry centre?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the enormous benefits that will come from the Lowry centre. It is one of 12 landmark projects across the country. It will provide jobs, entertainment and education, and it will provide a major new resource for the people of her area. I very much welcome the development of the Lowry centre, as I am sure she does, too.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I was very pleased to have been at the launch of the Lowry centre. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there has always been bipartisan agreement on the Millennium Commission and that there was always an Opposition Member on it? Does that not make all the more disgraceful and deplorable the six months of shenanigans over the major event—the millennium exhibition at Greenwich—which have achieved no change in the five conditions apparently set out but merely jeopardised the project and made sure that Mr. McCormack has to work even harder for his very substantial commission?
    Mr. Smith: I pay much tribute to the role that the right hon. Lady played on the Millennium Commission in
    672
    developing the various landmark projects around the country, but I pay rather less tribute to her question. The millennium exhibition at Greenwich will be going ahead. It was important that we reviewed the position, as we said we that would immediately on coming into office, and the review is now complete. We have identified a number of aspects of the exhibition which will be fulfilled, such as having a permanent legacy and its being completed at the cost prepared for it. I am delighted that the right hon. Lady's colleague, the former Deputy Prime Minister, is now the Opposition nominee on the Millennium Commission.
    Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the leaks in the newspapers last week about threatened cuts to provincial projects for the millennium? Is he aware that in many areas the projects will not only bring about regeneration but will create jobs, have a very important educational, scientific and cultural interest and, in Hull, create an international centre for marine studies? Will my right hon. Friend confirm, first, that no specific decision has yet been taken by the Millennium Commission and, secondly, that no money is being shovelled out of the provinces to the capital, thus favouring the capital at the expense of the provinces?
    Mr. Smith: I can indeed confirm those two points. There was some inaccurate reporting in the newspapers last week, not for the first time, about these matters. The Hull project to which my hon. Friend refers and, indeed, a wide range of other projects are still under active consideration for round 3 of the Millennium Commission's work. The proper detailed appraisals are going forward in the normal way and announcements about them will be made in three or four months' time.

    Works of Art
    Mr. Fearn: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on plans to encourage local authorities to sell minor works of art, purchased by past local authorities, which have not been on public display for over 20 years. [7497]
    The Minister for Arts (Mr. Mark Fisher): That is a matter for local authorities to decide. Disposals from museum and gallery collections need special care, and I hope that any local authority would take into account the guidelines issued by the Museums and Galleries Commission.
    Mr. Fearn: I do not want the family silver to be sold off, but would the Minister consider giving a directive to local authorities? Local authorities have works of art in their vaults and rooms, many of which have not come out for 50 years. I have been to several museums in the north-west, where many works of art have never been uncovered and lie rotting. Local authorities now have air conditioning and various other things to do. There should be a directive saying that a local authority could sell such works or bring them out for viewing by schools. There would then be some direct remuneration to the authority.
    Mr. Fisher rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I have not heard a question yet.
    Mr. Fearn: I asked about a directive.
    Madam Speaker: Do you want a directive or do you not want a directive? I am sure that the Minister can make a small response.
    Mr. Fisher: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that works of art are rotting. I am sure that directors of museums all over the country make sure that everything in their collection is well preserved. The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point. We want to ensure that anything held by a museum is as widely accessible as possible, particularly to young people. There is great potential for work with schools and communities. However, I have no evidence that the basements and stores of local authority museums are stuffed with undiscovered treasures. I will seek the views of the Museums and Galleries Commission and the Local Government Association. The MGC has laid down very good guidelines for local authority museums.
    Mr. Alan Clark: I hope that the Minister will not issue a directive. Which guru will judge what is a minor or major work of art? The purpose may be to raise money, but, as the Minister well knows, it is not long since paintings from the Alma-Tadema and pre-Raphaelite schools were regarded as worthless, but now they are fetching millions. If such a directive were issued, in about 20 years all the Lowry paintings in the museum mentioned by the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) would be swept out and put on the market.
    Mr. Fisher: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the MGC guidelines are adequate for the time being. I shall not issue a directive. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has learnt so well from his distinguished father and understands how fashions and valuations vary. Sir Denis Mahon often picked up now priceless Guercinos for his magnificent collection, recently at the National Gallery, for very small sums in the 1930s. Hon. Members on both sides understand how such matters change.
    Madam Speaker: If I call Sir Patrick Cormack, do you think that I might get a question rather than a comment?
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is no greater deterrent to potential donors than museums carelessly disposing of their assets?
    Mr. Fisher: I entirely agree.
    Madam Speaker: Well done.

    Millennium Projects
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much has been allocated by the Millennium Commission to projects to mark the millennium. [7498]
    Mr. Chris Smith: The Millennium Commission has allocated £993 million to 111 capital projects and a further £19 million to 13 partner bodies making millennium
    674
    awards to individuals. In addition, a grant of £400 million has been agreed for the new millennium experience at Greenwich, giving a total allocation to date of £1.4 billion.
    Mr. Skinner: Why has the proposal for Cresswell Craggs in my constituency not been allocated any money? It is the northernmost part of the hemisphere that relates back to the ice age. Can we really expect to sustain an expenditure of £400 million for the polystyrene dome at Greenwich? It will probably cost double that before it is finished, now that we know that a tube station has found its way into the middle of it. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that he may not be able to find money for hospitals and other things that would mark the millennium in a much more decent fashion for millions of people around the country? He should remember the song about the folly of years gone by, in which the man who had once built a tower to the sun asked:
    "Brother, Can You spare a Dime?"
    Mr. Smith: As I suspect that my hon. Friend knows, the Cresswell Craggs application was made to the heritage lottery fund and not to the millennium fund. There are a number of problems outstanding in connection with that project, not least of which is the fact that the land was privately owned and on a short lease. If my hon. Friend wishes to discuss the prospects for that project further at any stage, I shall be delighted to meet him to do so. I should point out to him, however, that decisions on such matters are the responsibility of the distributory bodies and not of the Government.
    In relation to my hon. Friend's point about the millennium exhibition at Greenwich, I simply point out that about 2,500 new jobs will be created during construction and a further 5,000 during the life of the exhibition. In addition, the British Tourist Authority has estimated that some £500 million of overseas revenue will be drawn into Britain as a result of the exhibition. That estimate is almost certainly very low.
    Mr. Collins: Might not one appropriate way to mark the millennium have been to include the word "tourism" in the Department's new name, as tourism is the largest industry for which the right hon. Gentleman now has direct responsibility?
    Mr. Smith: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to a press release issued by the British Hospitality Association, one of the major representative bodies in the tourism industry, in which the association says that:
    "a name is only a name. What is far more important for the association is that we have such good relations with the Department, which we are determined to build on".
    I whole-heartedly agree.

    Industrial Heritage (Museums)
    Yvette Cooper: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the role of museums in preserving the industrial heritage. [7499]
    Mr. Fisher: The industrial heritage is of immense importance to the understanding of our past. Museums clearly have a central role to play in its preservation.
    Yvette Cooper: Is my hon. Friend aware of the vital contribution made to our national industrial heritage by

    675
    the national coal mining museum in the Wakefield district not far from my constituency? Does he agree that the children of Pontefract and Castleford mining families have a great opportunity in that underground museum to learn about their industrial and social history? What can be done to safeguard the future of the national coal mining museum?
    Mr. Fisher: Yes, I know of the excellent work of that museum, which I have visited on more than one occasion. My hon. Friend is, of course, right to say that such museums are extremely important, especially for children in understanding the past of their region and where they came from.
    My hon. Friend asked about safeguarding the museum's future. I am glad to say that the previous Government provided some money. The Museums and Galleries Commission and local authorities, together with the private sector, have contributed to the museum. The heritage lottery fund has offered 75 per cent. of the development costs of £1.3 million to see whether a way forward can be found for funding the museum.
    My hon. Friend will, however, understand that mining museums have problems over and above other museums. Just to keep the underground site going, before one begins to consider the work of the museum, costs £340,000 a year. That is an additional cost over and above any educational, conservation or interpretive work. That is a major barrier. I am sure, however, that the director of the museum will continue the constructive dialogue that she has had with me and with others over the past few years. We are anxious to try to find ways forward so that the museum can prosper.
    Mr. Maude: How does the Minister reconcile his two apparently conflicting policy objectives—that admission to the great museums, including the industrial heritage museums, should be free to the public, and that museum trustees should be free to set charges if they wish? Will he reassure trustees that his Department will not discriminate against those who decide, in pursuance of their public duties, that charges are the right policy for their museum?
    Mr. Fisher: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that trustees of museums have always decided and will continue to decide whether a particular museum charges for admission. There is no conflict between that duty on trustees and the Government's determination to pursue ways of ensuring the widest possible access for members of the public to the national collections—I emphasise that we are speaking of the core collections of the national museums, which have been collected with public money and maintained with taxpayers' money from all over the country. The two objectives are not in conflict.
    Mr. Derek Foster: I commend my hon. Friend's extraordinarily imaginative and progressive decision to give national recognition to the Bowes museum and the Beamish open air museum, both in the county of Durham. May I invite him to go further and to work in his Department to unlock the fund raising that would assist those two museums to enhance the superb work that they are already doing?
    Mr. Fisher: I am glad that my right hon. Friend finds those decisions imaginative. It is surprising how people
    676
    find imaginative the work that benefits them and their constituencies. I am sure that that is shared throughout the House. My right hon. Friend is right to say that the Bowes museum is one of the great museums in this country. To anyone who cares about museums, it is hardly surprising that it was at the top of the list of the first wave of designation. That makes a premier division for museums. In asking how we can add value to that, my right hon. Friend raises an important point that we are currently considering. That must be the way forward for designating museums. They are benefiting from the added status. We must now consider and discuss with them how to add value to that status.

    British Academy of Sport
    Mrs. May: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the British academy of sport. [7501]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): I have visited all three sites and had discussions with the UK Sports Council and officials. I hope to make an announcement in September.
    Mrs. May: Does the Minister recall that on 9 May, referring to the location of the British academy of sport, he said that there was no firm decision in his mind, but that it would not take him long to work it out. If a week is a long time in politics, what on earth is four and a half months? Why has it taken the Government so long? Why have they been sitting on the fence, given that the Minister of State visited the sites fairly soon after the election? What has got in the way of his coming to the House with a decision earlier than September?
    Mr. Banks: The hon. Lady obviously has problems grasping the theory of time. The Government have been around for only nine weeks and I have been doing this job for only eight weeks. I have not yet made Minister of State, and I doubt whether I will, but I will settle for Parliamentary Under-Secretary. We have survived for a long time without a British academy of sport and it is essential to get it right. I have inspected the three sites, but it is a very difficult decision. I do not want to make a decision in such haste that I shall have to repent at great leisure. The decision will be made, and it will be made in the best interests of sport in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Grocott: In agreeing with my hon. Friend that it is important to get the decision right, may I draw his attention to the excellence of the submission from the central consortium, and the widespread support for that submission from both the east and the west midlands? Does he agree that one of the reasons why it is such a strong application is that it consists of a number of centres of excellence, including Lilleshall on the boundaries of my constituency? I know that my hon. Friend has been travelling around seeing as many centres as possible. When Chelsea are away at Aston Villa, for instance, and he has good reason to be in the west midlands area, may our hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) and I invite him to come and see the work being done at Lilleshall, which I am sure will enable him to reach a speedy and correct conclusion?
    Mr. Banks: And I know which decision my hon. Friend thinks would be the right one. There are three

    677
    excellent sites: that is the purpose of having a shortlist and what makes the task more difficult. Each site has some advantages and some disadvantages, and all three sites have proponents as strong as my hon. Friend. I assure him that no site is yet ruled out, and none will be ruled out until we rule out two when we take the final decision.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does the Minister agree that, whichever site is chosen, it will be important to continue the previous Government's policy of regional academies for sport in addition to the national academy? Does he agree that the two unsuccessful bidders should immediately be invited to become regional academies? May I further ask the hon. Gentleman whether, as a new Minister, he feels comfortable working in a communist-style ministry of culture?
    Mr. Banks: Once the central academy is set up, the need for regional centres will be essential. On the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, when I ran the arts and recreation department on the Greater London Council I was referred to as the snarling tsar of culture. I am happy where I am.

    Film Industry
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the progress made by the film review group. [7502]
    The Minister for Film and Tourism (Mr. Tom Clarke): Following the film review group's first meeting on 3 July, co-chaired by Stewart Till of Polygram and myself, the six specialist sub-groups have been established and are drawing up detailed work plans for their specific areas.
    Mr. Cunningham: What effect will the Budget have on the deliberations of the film review group, especially on the future of the film industry?
    Mr. Clarke: The film tax concessions in the Budget were warmly received by the whole industry. Both the industry and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor accept that the concessions will provide the opportunity to improve the capacity of the UK film industry, increase the number of skilled workers in film and production and ensure that we have strategies to build on those skills and talents. That is how the industry will respond, thus justifying my right hon. Friend's confidence in it and its in him.
    Mr. Nicholls: First, I welcome the fact that the Minister has shown more enthusiasm today for his brief than when he recently spoke to the all-party film group, when he made it clear that his indignation at not being in the Cabinet was not greatly reduced by his films portfolio. Will the Minister take this opportunity to say that he would reject any suggestion by the film review group for the Government to join the Eurimages project, which has so far failed to secure the widespread distribution of European films and has instead used substantial sums of public money to pile up a European film mountain of films that are unwatched and may prove unwatchable?
    Mr. Clarke: I had planned to welcome the hon. Gentleman back to the Dispatch Box, but I trust that he
    678
    will have a higher regard for fact and veracity on future occasions. I am delighted with my job and I regret that he will never be able to say that. Given the excitement in the industry and the splendid work that the film review group is doing, he might have been more constructive. He might have paid tribute, for example, to Colin Leventhal, Channel 4's director of acquisition, who heads the subgroup on finance, or to the sub-group considering skills and new jobs. The hon. Gentleman has come naked of ideas to the Opposition Dispatch Box, and that is why he will never enjoy himself as much as I do at the Government Dispatch Box.
    Mrs. Betty Williams: Surely the financial aspect of film production and distribution should be the main area of concern. Will the members of the film review group be able to address that matter?
    Mr. Clarke: The groups, including the main group, have been working extremely hard and have considered that issue. I wish to make it clear, however, that, despite the excellence and the comprehensive nature of the main group and the sub-groups, those who are not in membership are very welcome to make a contribution in evidence, either in writing or in person. I include in that an invitation to my hon. Friend.

    Cable Television Companies
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he next plans to meet cable television operators to discuss their future expansion plans. [7503]
    Mr. Fisher: My right hon. Friend has already met the Cable Communications Association and had a wide-ranging discussion on broadcasting policy issues.
    Mr. Fabricant: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the cable companies on their multi-hundred million pound investment in cabling up Britain? I include in that ComTel, which is cabling up Lichfield. Does the Minister think that cable companies—which provide not only television but telephony services—would have made that investment if they had thought that British Telecom would be able to compete with them, given that BT already has a network in the UK? When will the Government be in a position to say whether BT will be competing with the cable companies, which currently have great doubts about continuing their investment?
    Mr. Fisher: I agree that the cable companies have done well. They have invested £7 billion so far and are on their way to a projected investment of £12 billion. They have installed more than 2 million telephone lines, which has sharpened competition with BT. The Government are committed to lifting the broadcasting restrictions on BT and to treating BT and the cable companies on a fair and equitable basis. There are many issues to be considered, and I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a firm date on which any such decision will be made.
    Mr. Maxton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the customers are more important than the cable companies and that we should ensure that customers get the maximum benefits of cable television as quickly as

    679
    possible? Does he understand, therefore, that his failure to give BT a much earlier right to broadcast has disappointed some of his hon. Friends?
    Mr. Fisher: My hon. Friend will know that these things are under discussion with BT. As he says, the television and telephony services to the public are crucial. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) should take up with the cable companies why they are not making greater penetration into television and broadcasting, as fewer than a quarter of the houses they pass are taking up the opportunity of television services. We want high-quality television services and more opportunity for telephony services in the interests of the consumer.

    Media Ownership
    Mr. Gale: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the regulations governing media ownership. [7504]
    Mr. Chris Smith: We have no proposals to revise media ownership restrictions at present, but the subject will be considered as we develop revised proposals for regulating the converging broadcasting and communications industries.
    Mr. Gale: It was a genuine question, and I am saddened that the Secretary of State was unable to give a firm assurance. In the light of the Independent Television Commission's award of digital transmission systems to British Digital Broadcasting—and the opportunities that that creates for British Sky Broadcasting to provide and decode programmes—and in the light of the Mirror Group's territorial ambitions in television, particularly in Scotland, does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is time to look seriously in the public interest at cross-media ownership to ensure that the public are guaranteed fair and reasonable access to news and information? Will he conduct a review?
    Mr. Smith: First, I always expect genuine questions from the hon. Gentleman. Secondly, I agree that it is the public and their interests that must come first. That is why the key principles in any such discussion must be plurality of voice, diversity of ownership and quality of content. Any regulatory regime must ensure that those principles are maintained.
    Mr. Maude: When the Secretary of State considers the issues of media ownership, will he give some thought to the arrangements for appointments to the part of the media that the Government own—Channel 4? Will he say something about reports in the newspapers that the ITC has been ordered not to renew the contract of the current chairman of Channel 4, Sir Michael Bishop, on the basis that he is a Conservative supporter, despite the fact that both the previous chairmen, who were appointed by Conservative Governments, were prominent Labour supporters? Will the Secretary of State confirm that his action, apparently saying that Sir Michael would be reappointed over his dead body, is all of a piece with the Minister for Sport's intemperate remarks about Lord MacLaurin becoming chairman of the Sports Council?
    680
    Will the Secretary of State grow up a bit and understand that these are serious people who give a lot of their time for the public service in good faith and do not expect to be abused in this way by new Labour?
    Mr. Smith: I pay warm tribute to the work of Sir Michael Bishop as chairman of Channel 4, particularly his work in fighting off the depredations of the previous Government, who threatened to privatise it. In that respect, I recall that the right hon. Gentleman, in a previous incarnation, was busy doing commercial work proposing precisely the same thing. I should say, however, that the ITC, which is responsible for recommending the appointment to the chairmanship of Channel 4, subject to ratification by the Secretary of State, will proceed to public advertisements for the position in the normal way, as is appropriate under the Nolan procedures.
    Ms Abbott: When the Secretary of State looks at cross-media ownership, will he bear in mind the fact that many of us on the Government Benches are also concerned about the issue? Media lobbyists can always give persuasive reasons why their privileged position should continue, but there is no evidence—certainly looking back over the past 20 years—that cross-media monopoly has increased diversity or increased the service to the public.
    Mr. Smith: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The point that she makes is important. What we need to do, in relation to regulation of the media industries, is ensure that plurality and diversity are protected while, of course, the needs of the media industries and their aspirations to make their way in a global communications world are considered. Striking the right balance is important, but in all this the needs of the viewer and listener must come first.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does the Secretary of State agree that regulation in the media industry could be improved? If so, would he cut the number of regulatory bodies? Is he planning to replace Oftel—the Office of Telecommunications—with an "Ofcom" regulatory body? Would he consider merging the Monopolies and Mergers Commission with the Office of Fair Trading, for media purposes
    Mr. Smith: Matters relating to the OFT and the MMC are for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. However, in a world in which broadcasting and telecommunications increasingly converge, it makes sense to look seriously at the regulatory regime. That is precisely what we are doing with our colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry. We will come forward with considered proposals in due course.

    National Lottery
    Ms Dari Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to reform the national lottery. [7505]
    Mr. Tom Clarke: My right hon. Friend will make a statement later this afternoon on the Government's proposals for reforming the lottery.
    Ms Taylor: I hope that I will hear this afternoon that local applications are given equivalent consideration to

    681
    applications made by quangos, if not more consideration. My question relates to my constituency, in which the Butterwick trust, a charity, wishes to open a hospice for dying children—anyone who goes through that period knows how traumatic it is. However, the trust has been turned down three times, and we know not why. It is important that the trust should know why.
    Secondly, there is a commercial venture, proposed by Teesside development corporation, for a tele-ski development which nobody wants. Indeed, no local wants it. The question is clear: are people who put forward commercial ventures—quangos, non-representative of local communities—to be given precedence over local people?
    Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing to the attention of the House concerns that many hon. Members on both sides of the House share. She will know that those decisions are taken—if the proposals are submitted individually—by a body that is independent of the Government. I assure her that the Government believe in the people's lottery and, therefore, we are concerned about obtaining a genuine public response. My hon. Friend and the House will not be disappointed when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State makes his statement in, I hope, a few moments.
    Mr. Brooke: What is the Minister's current definition of additionality?
    Mr. Clarke: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman is planning to contest the Glasgow, Govan constituency, or is he asking a question relevant to a Department that he once headed? Well though I understand his worries about additionality, I do not recall that he did much about it when he was in government. If the right hon. Gentleman manages to catch your eye when my right hon. Friend makes his statement, Madam Speaker, I am sure that he will not be disappointed.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the Minister not recognise that less than a quarter of the money raised by the lottery for good causes has been distributed to those causes and that, in some cases, additionality has been helped by the Foundation for Sport and the Arts, whose position under the present Government's policies appears to be as parlous as it was under their predecessors? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the 27 per cent. pools betting duty, as opposed to the 12 per cent. duty on the lottery funds, will drive the Foundation for Sport and the Arts into the ground and that it has done more good in its lifetime than any of the national lottery causes have for the arts?
    Mr. Clarke: The last question is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    On the main question about additionality, clearly in the eight weeks or so that we have been in government, we have tried to give thought to various important matters including that one. I invite the hon. Gentleman to be a
    682
    little more patient. In a few minutes, he will find out that that problem is tackled in the White Paper and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be happy to give his response.

    Digital Television
    Mr. Fraser: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received concerning the Independent Television Commission and digital television; and if he will make a statement. [7506]
    Mr. Chris Smith: The recent award of licences to operate digital terrestrial television multiplexes was a decision which was, by statute, entirely for the Independent Television Commission. I have accordingly received no representations concerning that decision, although some opinions have been expressed to me about its possible implications.
    Mr. Fraser: Does the Secretary of State agree that the licence fee for digital television should be higher than that payable for terrestrial television?
    Mr. Smith: No, I do not necessarily agree with that proposition. Those, of course, are matters for further debate and discussion. The BBC's licence fee arrangements are in place for the next four years—agreed by the Government of the day, whom the hon. Gentleman now supports from the Opposition side of the House. I see no reason at this stage to move to a higher licence fee.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: Does my right hon. Friend recognise the frustration felt by people in north-east Lancashire, who are fed up with being treated as country cousins, with no Channel 5 and very little cabling? To cap it all, digital terrestrial and digital audio, which will roll out across the country next year, will touch only 60 per cent. of the population. What does he have to say to people in north-east Lancashire who will be left behind by that? We all pay the licence fee. Surely, digital terrestrial and digital audio should reach 99 per cent. of the population, not just 60 per cent.
    Mr. Smith: I agree entirely that that must be the aim. Indeed, if we progress properly and speedily with the introduction of digital terrestrial television, we will be able to expand it to a much greater extent than that envisaged by my hon. Friend in making his point.
    Mr. Green: The Secretary of State will be aware that Channel 4 has been awarded one of the digital multiplexes. In the light of an answer that I received from the Treasury two weeks ago, merely saying that if Channel 4 were to be privatised the amount raised would depend on the means of sale, will he take this opportunity to state unequivocally, once and for all, that the Government have no intention of privatising Channel 4?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is slightly incorrect in that the multiplex has been awarded jointly to Channel 4 and Channel 3. I can confirm that we have no intention of privatising Channel 4; nor, indeed, does his party, which did not propose that before the general election.

    Football
    Mr. Coaker: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to assist the campaign to host the soccer World Cup in England in 2006. [7507]
    Mr. Banks: The Government are committed to attracting major sporting events to the United Kingdom and are giving full promotional and diplomatic support to the Football Association's bid to host the 2006 World cup. I am chairing a co-ordinating group of FA, Premier League, Sports Council and Government officials to ensure that we focus the campaign as much as possible.
    Mr. Coaker: Is my hon. Friend aware of the tremendous support throughout the country for bringing the World cup to England in 2006 and of the great boost that it would be for soccer? Will he comment on the ways in which football clubs and supporters might work with the Government to assist in his campaign to bring the World cup here?
    Mr. Banks: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that it would be an enormous boost to British football, and indeed to tourism and to the country as a whole.
    My hon. Friend asks what clubs and supporters can do to assist the Government, the FA, the Premier League and others in getting the 2006 World cup here. I would say to him and to all football supporters that they should be on their best behaviour, especially when travelling in Europe next season for the various European competitions. I shall be travelling with my club, and I can assure the House that I shall be on my very best behaviour. If football fans laid off the lager and were a little more Gauguin than Gazza, that might assist us enormously.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Public Defenders
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his policy in respect of public defenders. [7528]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Any criminal defence services funded by legal aid would have to be independent, adequately resourced and of the right quality to play an effective part in a criminal justice system. We have not ruled out the possibility of engaging employed solicitors, or indeed solicitors under specially designed contracts for particular kinds of work, if those would be the most suitable arrangements in all the circumstances.
    Mr. Fabricant: As the hon. Gentleman and his Department have expressed some concern about the quality of the Crown Prosecution Service and the solicitors employed there, what assurance can he give that, if he were to go ahead with a public defender system, he would be able to ensure that solicitors of the highest calibre were employed, and not simply those who were unable to get jobs elsewhere?
    Mr. Hoon: In setting up publicly funded services, we would guarantee lawyers of an appropriate quality and
    684
    standing. We intend to adopt the most appropriate system for delivering legal services, according to the nature of the work in question. We have not ruled out the possibility of having employed lawyers; indeed, there is likely to be a pilot scheme in Scotland in due course which will allow us to test precisely the quality of the service that is made available.

    Woolf Report
    Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his Department's policy towards the recommendations contained in the Woolf report on civil justice. [7531]
    Mr. Hoon: My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has invited Sir Peter Middleton to review current proposals for reform of civil justice and legal aid systems. He is to produce an interim report by September. The Lord Chancellor, however, has made it clear that, in the meantime, he wants the preparatory work to continue, to preserve the planned implementation date of October 1998 as a realistic option.
    Mr. Hawkins: In the light of that reply, and given that the Woolf report was one of the most thorough investigations ever undertaken into any part of the justice system, what on earth do the hon. Gentleman and the Lord Chancellor think that Sir Peter Middleton can tell them that the Woolf report has not already told them?
    Mr. Hoon: In the first place, the Government were elected on a commitment not only to review the Woolf report but to examine, at the same time, proposals for the reform of legal aid. We consider it appropriate and necessary to consider both aspects of planned reforms as part of a thorough review. The Lord Chancellor has made clear his support for the spirit of Lord Woolf's recommendations, which are designed to deliver a quicker, simpler and cheaper civil justice system. The purpose of Sir Peter's review is to ensure that we are on the right track.
    Mr. Garnier: How does the Department intend to reconcile the differences between its policy on the Woolf report and the decision in the Witham case?
    Mr. Hoon: I have said that we will carefully examine the review following Sir Peter's report in September. It will then be appropriate to consider his recommendations in the light of any decided cases.

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Baker: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will extend the provision of legal aid to cover defence from libel actions. [7532]
    Mr. Hoon: There are no plans at present to extend the scope of the legal aid scheme to include defending libel actions. Successive Governments have taken the view that the outcomes of such cases are uniquely difficult to foresee and that, even if the general mechanisms against

    685
    unmeritorious proceedings could be strengthened, they would still not provide an effective safeguard against the potential waste of public money.
    Mr. Baker: I am disappointed by that reply. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will incorporate consideration of extension in the review of legal aid. Does he recognise that libel actions, and the threat of them, have been used by people such as Robert Maxwell to inhibit freedom of speech and abuse the course of law? Would it not be fairer to ensure that those who wished to publish articles could not be subject to unfair actions for libel from people who want only to shut them up?
    Mr. Hoon: After the previous Lord Chancellor's Question Time, the hon. Gentleman kindly sent me a copy of various documents produced by his party, one of which referred to the Liberal Democrat proposal that legal aid should be available for libel proceedings.
    The hon. Gentleman also suggested a defence of offering to make amends. First, such a defence is included in the Defamation Act 1996, which provides for an offer to be made by defendants where certain circumstances are satisfied. Those procedures are not yet in force, but we are carefully considering whether they might appropriately be introduced. Secondly, it is possible for plaintiffs to bring proceedings in the small claims court, so long as the award is not more than £3,000.
    Mr. Skinner: Listening to the Liberals over the past eight or nine weeks, I get the impression that they have spent their 1p on tax about 11 times. How can the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) raise such cases, given the present limits on legal aid, when some people who take out compensation claims against employers cannot get legal aid because the employers argue that they have not got enough money to pay out compensation? Surely that should get priority over what has been put forward by these tinpot Liberal Democrats.
    Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is, as ever, understated in his response. He knows that Sir Peter Middleton is examining all aspects of legal aid and, in particular, ways to extend legal advice and assistance to those who do not presently enjoy their benefit. Only last week, we approved a further extension of existing pilot projects to allow the Legal Aid Board to support, for example, advice and assistance in advice agencies. That may well give legal advice to people who have not previously enjoyed its benefit in the cases to which my hon. Friend referred.
    My hon. Friend also commented on the total cost of legal aid and the financial wisdom of extending it. I have made such points to the House before, but they bear repetition. Legal aid expenditure has trebled since 1989 and is still one of the fastest-growing areas of Government expenditure. Its cost doubled between 1990 and 1996. Those are significant factors that any responsible Government must take account of in considering the cost and extent of legal aid.
    Mr. Hogg: Would the hon. Gentleman be at all reassured to learn that his substantive answer is broadly supported on the Conservative Benches? Most Conservative Members believe that it would be a mistake to introduce legal aid in terms of either promoting a libel case or defending it. That said, will he consider the
    686
    possibility of alternative funding methods, such as a contingency fee fund? I make a distinction between a contingency fee fund and contingency fees.
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's support—or at least I think I am. The purpose of Sir Peter Middleton's review is to consider all aspects of the ways in which we can support those who need high-quality advice and assistance. I have received several suggestions—not least from the Bar—that useful work could be done exploring a practical contingency fee system.
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Before offering an extension of legal aid that would benefit the few, will the Minister consider the higher priority of reducing current court fees, which were imposed by the previous Government, and which are denying the many access to the courts?
    Mr. Hoon: My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor made a statement on that question recently in another place. He said—I hope that my hon. Friend will agree—that it is not so much court fees that deter people from going to court as the cost of lawyers who appear in such cases. If my hon. Friend is concerned about those people of lesser means—I suspect that he is—I refer him to a series of exemptions and qualifications that allow those in receipt of benefit, for example, to have their fees waived. There should be no reason why court fees should prevent anyone from accessing courts and justice.

    European Convention on Human Rights
    Mr. Greenway: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the additional sums his Department will need to implement his proposals to incorporate the European convention on human rights into domestic law. [7534]
    Mr. Hoon: Work is already in progress within the Lord Chancellor's Department to assess the likely practical impact of incorporation of the European convention on the work of the courts, the provision of legal aid and the need for judicial training. However, a financial assessment of the proposals has not yet been completed.
    Mr. Greenway: How do the Government intend to protect judges from political interference and to protect Parliament from the judges when the convention is enshrined in United Kingdom law?
    Mr. Hoon: The judges will be protected from political interference in the way that they have always been protected from such interference under our system: selection decisions will be based on choosing the most ably qualified candidate for the position. That has always been the approach in our system, and it will continue. We shall incorporate the convention, on which work is still under way, in a manner that is entirely consistent with the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty.
    Mr. David Heath: Will the Minister confirm that, although the Gracious Speech says that the main provisions of the European convention will be

    687
    incorporated, the Government intend to incorporate the whole convention? If there are to be exceptions, will the Minister tell us what they are and why they will exist?
    Mr. Hoon: The Government intend to incorporate all the provisions of the convention. The words in the Gracious Speech refer to those protocols that have not yet come into force.

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Malins: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects to announce changes in legal aid for immigration work. [7538]
    Mr. Hoon: Sir Peter Middleton is reviewing all aspects of the provision of legal aid, including the procedures by which legal aid is granted. He will produce a preliminary report in September.
    Mr. Malins: The Minister will be aware that legal aid costs are spiralling upwards all the time. Is he further aware that the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service is extremely cost-effective when providing legal help regarding immigration matters? Given that the service is cheaper and usually more efficient than solicitors, will the Minister ensure that the immigrants advisory service gets a fair shout when he considers legal aid for immigration cases? In that way, money could be saved and the public would probably be served better.
    Mr. Hoon: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point of view. The Government believe that there should be sufficient publicly funded services to
    688
    provide access to advice and assistance for asylum seekers and other immigrants who wish to remain in this country. In due course, the Government will make specific proposals on how that will be achieved.

    Magistrates Courts
    Mr. Edwards: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if an appeal has been lodged against the proposed closure of Monmouth magistrates court. [7539]
    Mr. Hoon: No.
    Mr. Edwards: I thank the Minister for that answer. When he receives such an appeal, I urge him to give it serious consideration. Many people in my constituency are signing a petition to ensure that Monmouth magistrates court is kept open. Should the magistrates court in Monmouth be closed, it would cause considerable inconvenience to defendants, witnesses and victims, who would have to travel long distances to other courts.
    Mr. Hoon: I shall endeavour to give my hon. Friend a fuller response. The policy of the Lord Chancellor's Department is that decisions whether to close magistrates courts remain entirely a local issue, subject to the rights of appeal prescribed in law. Magistrates courthouses are not Crown property: they are owned or leased by the paying authority on behalf of the magistrates courts committee. Under section 56 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997, the Lord Chancellor's responsibility in relation to magistrates courts is limited to hearing appeals in a dispute between the magistrates courts committee and its paying authority over a proposed court closure.

National Lottery
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about reforming the national lottery. I am today publishing a White Paper, "The People's Lottery." It will be available in the Vote Office when I have finished speaking.
The Government's priorities are health and education. We said that we would reflect these in our plans for reforming the national lottery, and that is what we are doing today. The White Paper takes forward the plans outlined in our election manifesto and in the details that we published in "The People's Money" on 23 April. Both received the endorsement of the British people on 1 May.
I believe that the package of proposals that we are publishing today will mark a turning point in the fortunes of our national lottery. It will make it even more popular and even more relevant to people's daily lives.
It is less than three years since the first tickets were sold, yet in that short time the lottery has become a tremendous success. Nine out of 10 adults play at least occasionally. There have been 180 million winning tickets: 360 of them for more than £1 million.
The lottery has already raised more than £3.5 billion for good causes. By the time the current licence ends, we expect that it will have raised £10 billion. Thanks to the initiative and hard work of those who have been involved in developing projects, and the lottery distribution bodies, funds have already been committed to more than 24,000 projects throughout the United Kingdom. The large multi-million pound projects may attract most attention, but I suspect that the smaller proposals will make the most difference to many people's lives—such as the grant of some £2,000, featured in the White Paper, for a summer arts festival for children predominantly from low-income families in Norfolk.
I welcome that success. The proposals in the White Paper are about building on it. We shall introduce the legislation needed to give effect to aspects of these proposals later this year.
The proposals in the White Paper fall under four headings. The lottery is paid for by the people and, as it develops, we intend that it should better reflect the people's priorities. First, we will set up a new good cause—the New Opportunities Fund. It will support specific initiatives, additional to core programmes funded through taxation, to support our priorities of health, education and the environment.
Subject to Parliament, the fund will begin its work next year with three initiatives: two helping to raise standards in schools and one promoting better health. Other initiatives will follow—for the environment, as well as for health and education.
The new fund will come on stream in 1998 and, by 2001, the fund will be supporting programmes of activity outside the school day involving at least half of all secondary schools and a quarter of all primary schools. Activities will range from extra coaching in basic literacy and numeracy to new opportunities for creative and sporting education and structured play—fun as well as learning—helping parents who work, and raising school standards. By 2001, the fund will also have trained some
690
half a million teachers and 10,000 public librarians to help children and adults learn throughout their lives using new technologies.
The new fund's health initiative will be a network of healthy living centres throughout the United Kingdom. They will provide a wide variety of facilities and services, in different ways and to help different groups, but all with the same fundamental aim of preventing illness and promoting good health. In designing the detail of those initiatives and delivering money to projects, the new fund will work closely with bodies expert in the relevant fields, in each part of the United Kingdom.
The financial success of the lottery will enable us to set up the new fund alongside the existing good causes. In 1994, the lottery was forecast to raise £9 billion for good causes in the period up to 2001. We now expect it to raise £1 billion on top of that. It is from that extra £1 billion that we will find initial support for the New Opportunities Fund.
We will continue to allocate the bulk of the proceeds of the lottery to the existing good causes. I pay tribute to the work that the distributing bodies have already done—some fine examples are included in the White Paper—and I want them to build on their success. That is the second main theme of the White Paper.
Excellent as the distributors' record has been, it has been limited by some aspects of the framework within which they have to operate. Those constraints are at the root of the concerns expressed about lottery distribution—the lack of a clear overall strategy, the uneven geographical allocation of grants, the failure of some activities to get enough help from the lottery, and the feeling that decisions are remote and unaccountable.
The Bill will contain measures to help us to work with the distributors to tackle the constraints. I want to encourage a debate, involving the distributors and everyone else with an interest in making a success of the lottery, about the way in which distribution will work within the new framework and the extent to which we can make progress in the same direction before the legislation comes into force. Among the main issues on which I am consulting are how the existing distributors can provide even more support for our priorities of health, education and the environment; the contribution that they can make to regeneration; how, through delegation and working together, they can meet needs better; and how they can bring decision making closer to the grass roots.
I now come to our third main proposal. It is a major part of our vision of a lottery for the people. We will use part of the £1 billion of extra lottery money to establish the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts. NESTA will help to ensure that the fruits of the outstanding talents with which our nation is blessed benefit our own country rather than others. It will encourage the development of an environment that fosters creative talent and innovation, and allows them to flourish for the benefit of the country, its economy and its people. In doing so, it will support my central objective of promoting the creative industries.
NESTA will have three simple objectives: to help talented individuals to develop their full potential in the creative activities and industries and in science and technology; to help to turn creativity and ideas into products or services that are effectively exploited with rights protected; and to contribute to the advancement of

691
public education about—and awareness and appreciation of—the areas with which NESTA is concerned. Those objectives will be set out in the forthcoming Bill, but, once established as a trust independent of Government, NESTA will determine for itself its priorities and activities. Its first task will be to map what support and provision already exists, so that its own activities complement existing publicly and privately funded programmes.
Finally, the White Paper outlines our proposals to make the lottery itself a more efficient and transparent operation. As we have made clear, we will seek an efficient not-for-profit operator. In the White Paper, we invite proposals to meet the twin objectives of maximising the return to good causes and removing unnecessary profit. Within the framework that we set, the licence will go to the bidder who will deliver the greatest return, while running the lottery efficiently, transparently and with propriety. So that the selection of a new operator is seen to be independent and objective, we will appoint a panel to assist the director general in his choice, including people with expertise in business, lottery distribution and the views of consumers.
We want to ensure that the director general has the full range of powers necessary to ensure that the operator complies with its licence. The Bill will, therefore, contain provision for him to fine the operator where serious licence breaches occur.
I look forward to the widest possible consultation on our proposals, with contributions from right hon. and hon. Members, and everyone else with an interest in building on the lottery's success, in the consultation period that is now beginning. To help everyone to participate, a summary of the proposals is available in a leaflet that will be distributed widely throughout the country in the coming weeks.
A new good cause for health, education and the environment; a reform of lottery distribution; NESTA to unlock people's potential; and better operation and regulation—this White Paper sets out to enable the national lottery to become even more successful and to become truly a people's Lottery.
Mr. Francis Maude: First, I congratulate the right hon. Member on a substantial change in his tune from what we have heard from him and from other Labour spokesmen previously. The White Paper contains the most remarkable, and justified, paean of praise to the success of the national lottery. On page 27, it says:
"Our lottery"—
my hon. Friends will note that it has now become "our" lottery—
"has, in a short time, become one of the most successful in the world. Compared to other lotteries around the world, it gives most to good causes and Government and"—be it noted—
"least to the operator; independent research showed that the UK Lottery's annual ticket sales were the largest of all world lotteries and that it returned the highest amount and percentage to the good causes and Government."
That is what we have been saying for some time and it is nice that the right hon. Gentleman has been persuaded of the rightness of what we have been saying. It would also have been nice if, during his remarks, he had had a word
692
of praise for those of his predecessors whose vision it was to set up the lottery and to achieve the remarkable success, which he has justly praised.
I sympathise with the Secretary of State because he has been rolled over by No. 10 and forced effectively to abandon the manifesto pledge that the next lottery contract should be on a not-for-profit basis. Does he now accept that it was a dogmatic and destructive pledge, that what he now proposes in the White Paper goes a long way from it, and that the formulation in his statement sounds to most of us like a restatement of the formulation that currently exists? The pledge was at odds with Labour's vaunted conversion to free enterprise and the profit motive. We welcome the effective abandonment of that commitment.
Does the Secretary of State agree with the Prime Minister, who apparently said in a letter to the right, hon. Gentleman's office that
"the policy must maintain the incentives for the operator to work efficiently"?
Does that not amount to the profit motive that currently operates? Does not the word "maintain" give the game away—that these incentives currently operate and have contributed to the current success? It would be good to hear the Secretary of State accept that overtly.
Does the Secretary of State accept that, on page 28 of the White Paper, the formulation he uses attempts to justify the continued existence of that manifesto pledge, clinging desperately to life by its fingernails:
"A private operator which had no check on the profits it could make might damage public confidence in the Lottery—people might even stop playing"?
Does he not accept that that is precisely what he has been arguing is the case now— that there is no check on the profits and that that will destroy confidence? It has not: public confidence in the lottery has not been damaged. It has increased and, as the Secretary of State said in his statement, the lottery proceeds are now greater than were originally projected. Therefore, he has already defeated his own argument.
What does the Secretary of State mean by the suggestion that yet another quango should be set up to monitor the Office of the National Lottery's handing out of the new contract? Is not that yet another case of new Labour, new quangos? The Minister proposes that the operator should be liable to financial penalties if it does not meet the terms of its licence. If the lottery is to be genuinely operated on a not-for-profit basis, does he accept that those financial penalties will, effectively, come out of the money for good causes?
Finally, does the Secretary of State accept that the creation at this stage of further good causes amounts to a breach of the principle of additionality to which the Labour party attached such importance when the legislation was going through the House? For example, does he recollect the amendment that was moved in Committee by the official Opposition spokesman and which stated
"that the amount raised by the National Lottery after the deduction of taxes and operating expenses shall be distributed solely and only to causes where it can be demonstrated that they would not otherwise be funded out of taxation or other national or local government revenues."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 16 February 1993; c.142.]
The Labour party was even tougher on additionality than the Conservative Government proposed to be. Today's proposals amount to a significant volte face.

693
Does the Secretary of State accept that the contention occasionally made by the Government that the midweek draw is somehow a bonus which entitles them to raid proceeds in this way bears no examination? The right hon. Gentleman knows that the sums for good causes, projected over the period of the lottery, always included an uplift for scratch cards and/or the midweek draw. That has always been part of what was anticipated. Fudge it how he will, the harsh message is that hundreds of charities and groups the length and breadth of the country will be told that the Government have grabbed the money for themselves.
Did not the Prime Minister give the game away in the letter that his office sent to the Secretary of State which stated that
"a key question will be finding ways of re-orientating the lottery to provide more support for projects that reflect the Government's policy objectives, such as health, education and the environment"
How will the Secretary of State explain to the Deputy Prime Minister that the Aqua science museum in Hull is now under threat? How will the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food take the news that the facelift for Whitehaven, to be funded by the Millennium Commission is now under threat? Is not the reality the fact that the only Cabinet Minister who is smiling as a result of this turnaround will be the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Of course, that is an unusual event and perhaps we should celebrate it on its own.
Labour has a black hole in its public finances of its own making, and it has been created by excessive public spending commitments beyond what the public finances can afford. The Government have got themselves into a mess and, as so often, they try to extricate themselves by going on the grab. The Secretary of State has been rolled over by No.10 and the Treasury. The people's lottery is becoming the Government's lottery, and that illustrates what we have always contended—that Labour cannot keep its hands off other people's money.
Mr. Smith: Oh dear, Madam Speaker. I had expected somewhat better than that.
The right hon. Gentleman says that there has been a substantial change of tune. There has not. We are today publishing proposals to put in place precisely what we told the electorate during the election we would do. When the original lottery legislation was passed by the House, it was supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House and was not simply the province of the then Government.
The right hon. Member said that the Government have somehow abandoned our not-for-profit objective. Although I gave him several hours to read the White Paper before I made the statement, clearly he has not read page 28, which precisely states that we maintain that objective. The goal must be to maximise the return to good causes. The current lottery operator, by the end of the term of its franchise, will have made upwards of £500 million profit. Our determination is to achieve a better deal for good causes when the franchise is renewed than is provided by the current lottery operation.
The right hon. Member said, "new Labour, new quango." I am astonished that he does not think that it is sensible that the lottery regulator should have advice from
694
the business world, lottery distributors and consumers in reaching the important decision on who should run the lottery in future.
The right hon. Member drew attention to the matter of the midweek lottery draw. I draw his attention to page 8 of the White Paper, which specifically spells out how the money that is additional to the overall lottery—which is available because of the midweek draw—will enable us to keep our commitments to the current distributors and to add the new good cause that we are proposing today.
The right hon. Gentleman said that, somehow, there is a black hole in the public finances. I should draw his attention to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, managed to find in the Budget that he announced only a few weeks ago £3.6 billion of extra resources for health and education.
The right hon. Gentleman said also that no other Cabinet Members are smiling. Perhaps that is why, in the press packs that we will issue later today, there are supportive press releases from my right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.
The right hon. Gentleman made two points that have some importance. The first was the importance of holding fast to the additionality principle. The amendment tabled by my hon. Friends in Committee provided a very good definition of additionality—for which the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) was asking in today's Question Time. The important aspect is that the lottery is providing support for those projects that are not the province of the Exchequer and the taxpayer—a principle which is enshrined in everything that we propose in the White Paper.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government are taking money off good causes. We are not taking money off good causes. In our proposals for health, education and the environment, we will make additional money—which is available because of the midweek draw—available to equally good, if not better, causes.
Helen Jones: May I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement that more money will go to health and education projects, and tell him that that will be particularly welcome to people in the Orford ward of my constituency—who applied to the national lottery for money to establish a one-stop shop, including health projects, and were turned down despite being in one of the borough's most needy areas? In the light of that example, will he provide more details of how such projects will be able to apply for such grants?
Mr. Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks, and I can tell her that an application from that particular area would be extremely welcome to the New Opportunities Fund, as and when it is established in our proposed legislation.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: In his remarks, the Secretary of State drew attention to what he described as the lack of a clear overall strategy. Does he not accept, however, that his White Paper—far from providing a clear overall strategy—is endorsing the thinking of Tom Lehrer that, "You can get

695
away with it by sprinkling a little bit over each part of the banana split"? It seems remarkable for him to say it is not the province of the Treasury and the taxpayer to deal with medical matters that will be covered by the proposals in his White Paper. Is it not strange that he boasts that preventive medicine is to be one of the new beneficiaries of his proposals, and that the new methods of teaching and encouraging teacher training are regarded as not suitable to be paid for by taxpayers and the Treasury? What limit will he put on the erosion of the national lottery by his Cabinet colleagues, who no doubt all have other good causes for which they cannot find taxpayers' money?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that he still regards himself as the custodian of culture, the media and sport, because the White Paper certainly contains no awareness of the fact that the lottery's problem has been the lack of take-up by existing good causes, with less than a quarter of the money held for them being distributed to them? Surely, the money held should be turned to good account and be used, not just spread ever more thinly.
Mr. Smith: The lack of take-up is exactly one of the problems we seek to address in chapter 2 of the White Paper on reforming the existing distribution of lottery funds. It is precisely the lack of a clear overall strategy and the absence of power for lottery distributors to be proactive—at the moment, they have to sit and wait for applications to come in—that have led to the uneven geographical distribution and, in many cases, to the lack of ability to tackle real problems in deprived areas as we would wish.
The point about the health and education projects is precisely that they are not part of the core health and education services which, rightly, have to be a continuing part of the responsibility that we all bear as taxpayers.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On the question of Camelot making about £2 million a week profit, will my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that the proposal for a non-profit scheme will hold fast? However, may I enter a caveat? I keep hearing Branson's name—Mr. Goody Two Shoes. There is something about that fellow that I just cannot cling to. He seems to have his finger in every pie, and I would not trust him with the lottery, either—he would be making some money for himself if he got hold of it.
Mr. Smith: I refer my hon. Friend to page 28 of the White Paper where we set out precisely what we propose and invite public comment on such issues. Richard Branson, Camelot or anyone else would be very welcome to apply post-2001 to run the lottery, provided they do so in accordance with the framework that we will put in place in the legislation later this year.
Mr. Robert Key: Of course the Secretary of State is right to review the way the lottery works—that was part of the original Act—but is he aware that not one of the Labour warriors who fought the Bill in Standing Committee is present today? Those who fought on the principle of additionality day after day in Standing Committee are not here—they are no doubt ashamed to see that the Government have been rolled over by the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman speaks fondly of people's aspirations for the lottery, but is he aware—if he
696
is, he has not mentioned it—that their aspiration is to win? That is what the national lottery, and its success, is about, but his proposals will mean that people are less likely to win and that the lottery will no longer be the most successful national lottery in the world.
Finally, does the Secretary of State agree that, apart from the Treasury, the only winners will be Vernons, Zetters and Littlewoods? Good luck to them, but it is back to those days.
Mr. Smith: The winners will be the British people. They said to us during the election campaign and afterwards that they want part of the money that they spend on their lottery tickets to go to good causes in health, education and the environment. That is what the White Paper proposes.
Dr. Tony Wright: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent document. The essential element of the lottery is randomness. Would it not be sensible to introduce a random element into the way in which the money is paid out, as well as the way in which it is paid in? I speak for an area that has had a lousy distribution of lottery proceeds. When the qualifying criteria are met, the bids are in and the priorities are determined, we could have a lottery to decide on the winners and losers. Instead of getting infusions of largesse from anonymous distribution committees, local communities would see the intervention of Lady Luck and would get as much excitement from the moment of distribution as from the moment of paying in.
Mr. Smith: Normally, I agree with my hon. Friend, but I do not follow him entirely in his argument today. One of the problems with lottery money distribution at the moment is that it tends to be random, in response to the applications that happen to have been submitted. We believe that a more strategic view can and should be taken by the distributing bodies. That is why we have proposed changes.
Mr. Richard Page: The Secretary of State will be aware that the lower the operator's percentage, the more money there is for good causes. Camelot, which is based in my constituency, has proved that by securing hundreds of millions of pounds more for good causes than there would have been if another licensee had been selected, particularly one that was not for profit. The right hon. Gentleman says that he wants a not-for-profit operator. What will he do if, when the licence is up for renewal, a for-profit operator offers the lowest operating percentage? What would win—Labour dogma or good causes?
Mr. Smith: The key principle has to be to maximise the fund for the good causes. That is why we set out in the White Paper how we believe that the present arrangements can be improved on.
Ms Gisela Stuart: I am delighted that NESTA funds will be available for talented young people. Will young creative artists in my constituency, particularly dancers, who have been unable to get further education funds so far, benefit from the proposals?
Mr. Smith: A scheme was put in place by the previous Government to give some assistance to dance and drama

697
students, using lottery funds. We supported that scheme when it was launched. It is now bedding in and we want to see how it progresses before we make any changes. The development of NESTA will enable talented youngsters in many fields to develop their talents and turn their skills into careers.
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The right hon. Gentleman is right to pay tribute to all those in the distributing bodies and elsewhere who have made such a success of the lottery. Is he aware, however, that almost every lottery in other countries is the responsibility of the Finance Department? Earlier today, the right hon. Gentleman talked about the importance of resisting good advice from the Treasury on, for example, the privatisation of Channel 4. Today, he has not resisted the Treasury's advice. The additionality principle is breached, the jackpot winners are the Treasury and the successful lottery that we have known will be seriously damaged by the White Paper.
Mr. Smith: The additionality principle has not been breached.
Mr. Harry Barnes: I hope that the moves on health, education and the environment mean that there will be a fairer distribution of lottery funds, because those elements are important throughout society and need to be responded to. Under the current arrangements, not a single one of the 41 grants from lottery funds for sport that have been provided so far in Derbyshire has been given to north-east Derbyshire or Chesterfield. That is an unfair arrangement. I am pleased that measures are proposed in the White Paper that will begin to tackle that problem.
Will my right hon. Friend look at the scam that is being perpetrated on punters in the lottery by many organisations? Systems are being sold that are supposed to increase people's chances of winning the lottery. That is not on. People are having the wool pulled over their eyes and something should be done to stop it.
Mr. Smith: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend about those who try to convince people that they have a system for giving a better chance of winning the lottery. Self-evidently, that cannot be the case and it is unacceptable for people to make that claim.
There are three changes in lottery distribution that will achieve the objectives that my hon. Friend seeks: first, the emphasis on health, education and the environment; secondly, the ability, through the changes to distribution, to ensure that regional imbalances in lottery distribution are addressed; thirdly, the ability of different lottery distributors to come together in order to target assistance in the arts, sport, heritage, charities, health and education at areas of particular deprivation. That will be of considerable benefit to many parts of the country.
Mr. Peter Brooke: If, as was demonstrated earlier this afternoon, one of the Secretary of State's junior Ministers patently does not know what his current definition of additionality is, why should the rest of us have any confidence in it?
Mr. Smith: The principle of additionality is very clear. It is that the lottery should not be used for expenditure on
698
matters that are properly the province of the Treasury and the Exchequer. That principle is enshrined in every paragraph and page of the White Paper.
Mr. Vernon Coaker: How will the leaflets that explain the White Paper be made available to the public? I believe that once the public become aware of what the Government propose, far from decrying it, as Conservative Members would have us believe, they will welcome it when they see the money that will be made available for a variety of projects. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the leaflets are available in places where people can easily get them, such as supermarkets, doctors' surgeries and health centres, because it is the Government's wish to consult widely with people? If we are to do that, we must make the leaflets easily available.
Mr. Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We are printing 2 million leaflets which will be available widely across the country at every lottery distribution point and in public libraries. I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to say that the public will warmly welcome our proposals. When we proposed precisely these measures during the election campaign, they produced an enthusiastic response from the public. I am afraid that Conservative Members seem to have forgotten that an election took place on 1 May and that the people gave their verdict.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Another day in the life of this Government and another media illusion. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the presentation of a mean, tricky and nasty little statement. First, yet again, he trashed those responsible for the enormous success in financial terms of the lottery. Secondly, he has announced a plan to steal part of the proceeds to pay for part of the Government's proper expenditure plans. Is not it true—my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) put his finger on the issue—that, after today, it will be significantly less the people's lottery and much more the Government's lottery?
Mr. Smith: No.
Fiona Mactaggart: I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to extending lottery funds to innovation in health and education, but may I ask him whether he has he spoken to the Ministers in charge of those Departments about what happens when a project is no longer innovatory—when it has proved its worth and value? That is one of the difficulties that private charities have to face, and it will be a challenge to the Government, to which I have not yet seen an answer.
Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend, unlike many Conservative Members, puts her finger on a serious and pertinent point. Yes, the aim of the New Opportunities Fund is to support innovation in health and education. That is the whole answer to the point about additionality raised by Conservative Members. Of course, once innovation has bedded in, it becomes accepted and part of normal life. Our aim in everything that we are doing is that the initial funding should be just that, and that the healthy living

699
centres and after-school clubs should become self-funding in due course, after the initial tranche of money has gone in.
Mr. Tony Baldry: The Secretary of State will be surprised that Conservative Members are amazed that he should think that public health and teacher training are not legitimate matters for the public expense and for the Treasury. Is not the concern about all of this that there will be a blurring of the legitimate boundaries of what should come out of public funding and departmental expenditure?
There will be little rejoicing in Oxfordshire that there is to be more money for teacher training at a time when, as a consequence of the capping of Oxfordshire, the number of classes of more than 30 will go up considerably, and little rejoicing that there is to be more money for public health, when centres such as the Rivermead rehabilitation centre and Ritchie Russell house are threatened with closure because of the lack of funding to Oxfordshire health authority.
Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman has clearly completely missed the work that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is doing in reducing class sizes throughout the country. On the other point that he makes, a one-off exercise in teacher training for information technology, and the development of out-of-school clubs, is not, in any reasonable person's book, core Exchequer expenditure on education services.
Mrs. Linda Gilroy: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. My constituents in Plymouth, Sutton—which, on the index of local conditions, includes the poorest ward in England—will greatly welcome his commitment to health projects, education projects and regeneration. Will he say a little more about how he intends to ensure that the distribution agencies deliver and reach all parts of the country, but especially areas such as my constituency where there is such a need for regeneration?
Mr. Smith: One of the ways in which we seek to improve the distribution mechanisms not just of the New Opportunities Fund that will be established, but of the existing lottery distribution bodies, is to ensure that they take into account the regenerative possibilities that come from investment in the arts, sport, heritage and charitable and voluntary endeavour in an area, as well as the health and education projects that we propose.
Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Given that one of the main criticisms—to which the Secretary of State did not refer—of the national lottery at present is the allocation of extremely large sums to what are seen as white elephants or to projects that apparently benefit only a few individuals, where in his statement is there any indication that he will look again at the basis on which awards are made?
Mr. Smith: I draw the hon. Lady's attention to chapter 2 of the White Paper, where we set out precisely how we intend to go about doing that. We stress the importance of decision making nearer to the grass roots, the importance of
700
small-scale rather than large-scale projects, and the importance of lottery money being able to support people and activities, rather than just buildings.
Mr. Barry Jones: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement—yet another election promise kept. Does he guarantee that there will be more local, small-scale and after-school projects in Wales? Does he know of my astonishment that the recent application by the Sea Cadets of Connah's Quay on the River Dee in my constituency was thrown out? All they were asking for was the renewal of the tumbledown, damp and disgraceful building, in which they carry out their excellent operations. How will that rejection help my constituents, the Sea Cadets?
Mr. Smith: I regret that I cannot give my hon. Friend a specific answer on the question of the Sea Cadets' project. I can tell him that, throughout the country, including Wales, more local, out-of-school clubs and projects will become available to the people through the changes that we propose in the White Paper. I find it somewhat astonishing that the Conservative party should find it remarkable that a party should seek to keep the promises that it gave to the electorate during an election.
Mr. John Greenway: Will the Secretary of State be a little more forthcoming than he was in his reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) about finding more money to support dance, drama, horticulture and agriculture students? In a week in which it is widely predicted that the Government will announce the end of maintenance grants and the charging of fees for students in universities, would not it make much more sense to use lottery money for education and opportunity to support students rather than teachers being trained?
Mr. Smith: I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman does not think that the training of teachers is important. Any question of grants and fees for students is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, who will make a statement later this week on the subject. The present scheme for dance, drama and other students was introduced by the previous Government and has been in operation for about three months. I want to see how it works before making hasty proposals to change it.
Mr. David Lock: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his fresh thinking on the lottery? I particularly congratulate him, as a London Member of Parliament and one who appreciates the high arts, on his acceptance that there may have been a south-east tilt in lottery applications and distribution in recent years. I hope that the review and any mechanisms for future distribution of lottery money will ensure that the people's priorities are reflected in the people's lottery and, especially, that people in the regions outside the south-east get a fair crack of the whip in future schemes.
Mr. Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for his compliments. I observe in passing that some parts of London have not done as well as some of the high-profile

701
projects in the heart of the capital city, but I can confirm that the people in the regions can expect to benefit from the proposals that we have put forward today.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Is it not a fact that we have been treated to a thoroughly miserable statement this afternoon? The Secretary of State has come to the Dispatch Box and said that teacher training and public health are no longer core functions of the Government, but can instead be supported by gambling. We have seen the Secretary of State squirming with unease, because he loathes the profit motive totally and yet is driven to the conclusion that the profit motive has provided the most successful lottery in the world.
We were promised a cheerful fairy tale this afternoon, but it has turned out to be a tale of two muggings. First, the Secretary of State has been mugged by the Chancellor and thoroughly rolled over and caned for his pains. More
702
important than the indignity that the Secretary of State has suffered is the mugging of the people's lottery. The people's money has been raided by an incompetent Government, who, when faced with hard, genuine choices about public finances, have reneged on the promises and undertakings that they have previously given—on the arrogant assumption that the public will never spot the difference. The public will spot the difference, and the Opposition will make sure that they do.
Mr. Smith: That summation—if that is what it was meant to be—bore precious little resemblance to our exchanges this afternoon. The statement and the White Paper will enable the people of this country to get what they have long demanded: support from the national lottery, alongside the existing good causes, for innovative projects in health, education and the environment which add to the public's health, education and aspirations. That support will not replace the core responsibilities of the Exchequer and will put in place the people's priorities in the people's lottery.

Points of Order
4.19 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have given notice of this point of order to you and to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. May we have some clarification of the procedures of the House? Following requests from hon. Members from all parties, you have commented in recent weeks about the way in which the Government impart information in respect of their decision making which would lead to primary legislation being taken on the Floor of the House.
May I draw your attention to the fact that the Dearing report—which is due to be published this week—was the subject of much media comment at the weekend, particularly in respect of students' tuition fees? In particular, the Radio 4 news bulletins at 8 am and 9 am yesterday stated clearly that the Government have confirmed that they intend to end the principle of free higher education for all and that Ministers have accepted the Dearing review. The bulletins gave the Government's response to a report which has not yet been brought to the House.
If parliamentary procedures are to be changed and such information is to be made available to hon. Members at 8 o'clock on a Sunday morning on Radio 4, I can assure the House that members of Her Majesty's Opposition are ready to man their radios. However, this seems to be a contradiction of the way in which such matters have been brought before the House in the past, and I should be grateful for your clarification.
Madam Speaker: I am ready to respond to the hon. Lady, whom I thank for giving me notice of her point of order. I, too, have carefully examined the media reports to which she referred. It seems clear to me that these were based on very heavy briefing on the contents of a report which, as she points out, has not as yet been published and on the likely ministerial response to it.
The practice of briefing in advance of a ministerial statement by Whitehall sources or ministerial aides has been current for quite a long time. My impression is that, over the past 20 years, it has progressively developed to the point where the rights of the House are in danger of being overlooked. The House is rightly jealous of its role in holding Ministers to account. If it is to fulfil its function properly, it must be the first to learn of important developments in Government policy. I deprecate most strongly any action taken that tends to undermine this important principle, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising her point of order today.
Ann Clwyd: Further to the point of order that I raised with you on Friday, Madam Speaker. Have you had any indication from the Government that they are to make a statement on the reported sale of Hawk jets to Indonesia? It is important that such a statement should be made before the recess so that we are aware of the precise situation, which appears to show a contradiction in Government policy.
Madam Speaker: I have not been told today that any Minister is seeking to make a statement on that matter. I clearly recall the hon. Lady raising a point of order with
704
me on Friday, and I am aware of her keen and continuing interest in this matter. Perhaps I might advise her that if she has an opportunity to do so, she might apply for an Adjournment debate before the House rises. There may still be time for that.
Mr. Francis Maude: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In answering my points earlier, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said that I had had the White Paper some hours before he rose to deliver his statement. For the purposes of clarification—and to raise a wider point—I should say that I had half an hour to study the White Paper before he stood up and that I received the statement itself two minutes before he stood up. This makes it difficult to respond in a satisfactory way, and I hope that that will be dealt with satisfactorily by a Government who are prepared to listen to these concerns.
Madam Speaker: I see that there is a Minister from that Department on the Government Front Bench. Perhaps he did not hear the beginning of the right hon. Gentleman's comments, but I am sure that note will be taken of them. The point that was being made was that Opposition Front-Bench Members are receiving White Papers and statements rather late in the day, which gives little opportunity for them to prepare their response.
Mr. Norman Baker: On a separate but connected point of order, Madam Speaker, arising from questions to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. There are questions on the Order Paper today, not least No. 3, from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), which relate to the millennium, yet the Minister without Portfolio has not been present in the Chamber. I have received a written answer from him to say that he would answer oral questions on matters within his responsibility, in which he specifically includes matters to do with the millennium.
The Minister without Portfolio has not, as far as I know, been in the House to answer questions since 1 May. He has a large budget, he clearly has a lot of power behind the scenes, and he has specific responsibilities for matters that were answered this afternoon—most ably, no doubt—by the Secretary of State. I seek your guidance, Madam Speaker. There is a danger that the Minister without Portfolio is bypassing the Chamber and Parliament and acting in a way that is discourteous to you and to the House.
Madam Speaker: It is not a matter for me which Minister answers questions at the Dispatch Box. There is something known as collective responsibility, and any Minister from that Department may answer questions.
I see the Secretary of State. Is he trying to raise a point of order?
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The questions on the Order Paper today were about the millennium in general; I have responsibility in the Government for the overall celebration of the millennium. If a question is specifically about the exhibition at Greenwich, it will be answered by the

705
Minister without Portfolio. Indeed, had we reached a question much further down the Order Paper, he would have been here to answer it.
Madam Speaker: I have the Official Report for 7 July, in which, at column 324, the Minister without Portfolio says that he will answer questions on the millennium dome.
Mr. Baker: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Question No. 18, which I tabled, was specifically about the millennium dome, and we had a reasonable expectation that we might reach it.
Madam Speaker: Order. As the Secretary of State said, we did not reach it. It would be nice sometimes if we could get to Question No. 18. I constantly press ministerial Departments to reach questions that are further down the Order Paper. If we had reached No. 18, the Minister without Portfolio would have answered it.
Dr. Liam Fox: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may or may not be aware of many credible sources that now claim that The Scotsman newspaper will publish on Wednesday morning details of the Government's White Paper on devolution for Scotland, a full day ahead of its publication and availability to Members of Parliament. Given what you said in answer to a previous point of order, would not such a deliberate leak in advance by the Government be quite contemptuous of the House and, given this advance warning, does it not fall on the Government to use all their facilities to ensure that such a publication does not happen before the House receives properly the Government's White Paper?
Madam Speaker: I take seriously the point of order that the hon. Gentleman is making, although it is hypothetical. I have no information that any newspaper will publish such information. If it intends to do so, there is nothing that I, as Speaker, can do to stop it. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. It is for the Government, who may well wish to take out an injunction. If the hon.
706
Gentleman has evidence—and one needs evidence—may I suggest that he presents it to the President of the Council?
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. First, I declare a financial interest, as I have three daughters currently at university who would, of course, be affected by the leaked proposals to raise additional moneys by loans for tuition fees.
We are about to discuss the Education (Student Loans) Bill, yet we have had leaks over the weekend about proposals on student loans of which the House does not have official knowledge. How can we have a proper debate in the House on that important issue when the Government have leaked information to the press and told everyone else but the House? Surely it would be out of order to speculate what will be in the Dearing report on Wednesday as it has not been published. This debate ought to be postponed until we have seen that report.
Madam Speaker: I have done my best to deal with that matter, which was raised earlier. We must get on with the debate.
Mr. Stephen Dorrell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), you made it clear that you deprecated what had happened over the weekend in connection with the Dearing report. In the past few moments, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has come into the Chamber. Given what you said in your ruling, I wonder if he will take the opportunity to launch an inquiry in his Department as to whether it is true—as reported by the BBC's education correspondent—that Ministers had accepted Dearing's argument and decided on a certain course of action and whether it is true that Ministers gave the BBC that briefing over the weekend. In the light of your ruling, if it is true, the Secretary of State should come to the House to apologise for that fact.
Madam Speaker: I am not prepared to allow debate on that matter. The House has heard how strongly I deprecate those very heavy briefings, given either by Ministers, civil servants or Ministers' aides. I think that that stands in Hansard and I am sure that it will be read by people in the Department concerned and other Departments, who know how much I totally disapprove of what has taken place in the past few days.

Orders of the Day

  Education (Student Loans) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.31 pm
  The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  It may be helpful if I make hon. Members aware that this measure has nothing whatsoever to do with the Dearing report or the Government's response to it. The measures contained in this Bill relate to loans that have been made to students or might be made in the coming academic year under the existing procedures, which will be totally unaffected by any policy changes that might come as a result of the Government's response to the Dearing report.
  Mr. Don Foster: Can the Minister confirm that nothing will be proposed arising out of this Bill that will in any way change the repayment mechanism for students who already have loans of one sort or another?
  Mr. Byers: Yes, I can confirm that.
  Later this year, we will need to produce proposals for regulations concerning repayment as well as many other matters because we will need to put those on a fixed footing, which will mean that we will no longer be able to debate them annually in the House. We will need to freeze, for example, the regulations that affect repayment procedures. Once that is done, there will be no further changes. Recommendations that come out of Dearing, therefore, will not have any consequences as far as those repayments are concerned.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for trying to put the House straight about the leaks at the weekend. From my reading of the Bill, it would seem that the Government will subsidise any company that decides to buy in the debt portfolio. Is he saying that this legislation will not be affected by any doubling—I suspect that it will be a doubling—of the amount of money being loaned to students, which I assume would be sold on to a financial institution, should the Government decide to double the amount of money going into loans?
  Mr. Byers: Those are two separate and distinct issues. The measure before the House relates to the student loan book and the debt that we intend to sell on to the private sector. The recommendations that result from the inquiry and the Government's response to it will be quite separate, and will be dealt with differently from the measure that we are considering.
  The Bill is before the House for substantial reasons. The previous Government put into this year's and next year's spending programme receipts from the sale of the student loan book amounting to £1.6 billion in this financial year and £1.5 billion in the year 1998–99.
  We made it clear that we intended to stick within the budgets laid down by the previous Administration, so it follows that the receipts that we expect from the student
  708
  loan debt are necessary to meet the previously published spending plans. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear in his Budget statement on 2 July that, to meet our spending plans for this financial year, we would expect £1.6 billion from the sale of part of the student loans debt.
  The Government have two overriding objectives. First, we are committed to the development of a wide range of public-private partnerships, because they bring private resources and expertise into the public sector and involve a transfer of risk to the private sector. Selling student loans will transfer to private sector financial institutions the credit risk currently borne by the Government. Those institutions have the experience of managing loans and are better placed to deal with such risks.
  Secondly, the sale will also enable the financial markets to establish a clearer understanding of publicly funded student loans, which could in future encourage financial institutions to play a more direct role in the provision of student support. We are all aware that the previous Government sought to interest the private sector in student loans, which led to the Education (Student Loans) Act 1996. One reason why the twin-track approach proposed by the then Government in that Act failed to capture the banks' and financial institutions' imagination was that most of them did not understand the nature of student loans.
  I understand that that Government's discussions with those bodies that had expressed an interest revealed clearly that they had no understanding of the concept of publicly financed student loans. We hope that the Bill will foster a greater understanding of the nature of the student loans system and that there may be beneficial developments in public-private partnerships as a result.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: The Minister is explaining how the legislation will help the Government in their finances; how will it help the students in theirs, given the massive amount of student debt and the surprising and disgraceful number of student dropouts that occur as a result of such measures?
  Mr. Byers: A little later, I shall talk about the safeguards that we intend to put in place, to ensure that no student who presently receives a student loan will be adversely affected as a result of the legislation.
  The whole of our education service will benefit from the Bill. We intend to receive £1.6 billion in sales this year and £1.5 billion in the next financial year. If that money were not received, there would be a deficit in the Department's budget; that would clearly have an adverse effect on the service that can be offered, whether in universities, in schools, or in higher or further education generally.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: As we are unlikely to have an opportunity before the summer recess to debate any additional burdens that are likely to be placed on students as a result of the Dearing report, I believe, as someone who represents a constituency with a lot of students, that we must consider the total burden on students and that it would be better to focus on tighter quality controls, as several of us suggested in written submissions to Sir Ron Dearing, rather than imposing tuition fees or other still greater burdens on students.
  Mr. Byers: I can understand why hon. Members want to focus the debate on what might come out of the

  709
  Dearing report, but I must reiterate that the measures before us today have nothing to do with the recommendations that will come from the Dearing inquiry or the approach that the Government will adopt towards them. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. It may help him to know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment intends to make a statement on the Dearing inquiry to the House on Wednesday. That will provide an opportunity for hon. Members to raise such concerns.
  Mr. Phil Willis: Are the £1.6 billion in this financial year and the £1.5 billion in the next financial year net of subsidy? If they are not, how much subsidy does Minister expect to be netted off?
  Mr. Byers: I am afraid that I cannot comment on the level of subsidy at this stage because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a competition, which was started by the previous Administration, for the sale of student loan debt. I will deal later with the power in the Bill to give a subsidy to the purchaser of student loan debt. We cannot say at this stage how much that subsidy will be, but I can say that there is a very strong competition between 20 leading financial institutions, and we intend to ensure that the lowest possible subsidy is achieved through that. It would be inappropriate to comment on the level of subsidy, because we do not want to show our hand to the competing companies.
  The Government were elected on the basis of a manifesto pledge to work within the spending plans already announced for the next two years. That pledge and our pledges on inflation and taxes are designed to create conditions for economic stability and a platform for sustained economic growth. Proceeding with the sale of loans will play a critical role in enabling us to keep that pledge. The public spending plans that we inherited include substantial sales of student loans in this financial year and the next. Given the tightness of those plans, and the need to give priority to our education programmes, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer did in his Budget statement on 2 July, we have decided that we will proceed with the sales.
  To achieve the level of receipts planned by the previous Government, we will need to pay some subsidies to the loan purchasers, but the sales will be made through competitive tendering. As I said earlier, 20 substantial financial institutions have already responded to the first stage of the competition. We intend to accept the most competitive bid. While the scale of subsidies cannot be predicted in advance, we will ensure that we get the lowest possible subsidy required to be attractive to the private sector.
  Before coming to the details of the Bill, it may be helpful to the House if I put them into context. Two measures on the statute book deal with student loans: the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990, and the Education (Student Loans) Act 1996, which introduced the twin-track procedure. Hon. Members might have found it difficult to understand how this measure impacts on those Acts, so I provided in the Library last Thursday a note that clearly showed its effects. I also sent copies to the shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment and to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). I hope that that will be useful in considering the Bill.
  710
  The Bill is, in many respects, a technical matter. Hon. Members may ask why we need to proceed now and why we should not delay at least until the Dearing report comes out. As I said, the Bill is quite different and distinct from the Dearing report, and it would be a mistake to confuse the two issues. Today, we are considering student loans which were made under the existing regime or will be lent in the forthcoming academic year. Those will be unaffected by any proposals that might come from the Dearing report.
  Many people believe that there are sufficient powers under the 1990 and 1996 Acts to allow my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to pursue the measures in the Bill. However, experience and, in particular, advice from our private sector advisers and from counsel, as well as feedback from the first stage of competition, have shown that there are substantial gaps in the legislation that need to be filled if we are to achieve a sale that meets the needs of the loan purchasers, the borrowers and the Government.
  The Bill has three main provisions. In brief, their purpose is to make the loans into something that the private sector can recognise, work with and value. Clause 1 is about the power to sell public sector student loans. It amplifies and replaces an earlier power contained in the 1990 Act. In particular, it allows the lender, in this case the Student Loans Company, the power to assign its rights over the loans in question. It also allows my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to pay subsidies to loan purchasers in such circumstances as he judges necessary in the light of the competition. It also allows us to buy back some of the loans sold and to assign them as necessary to a third party.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: Will the Bill enable future student loans to be dealt with in the way that the Bill provides?
  Mr. Byers: Student loans made available during the academic year 1997–98 will be covered by the provisions outlined in the Bill. In later years, it will depend on the circumstances that arise from any recommendations that come from the Dearing report. We will have to bide our time and wait to see what recommendations the Government will make on Wednesday in the light of the report of the Dearing inquiry.
  Clause 1 also allows the Government to buy back some of the loans that have been sold and assign them to a third party. Our intention in taking this power is to enable the Government to buy back loans that we want to cancel for social policy reasons. For example, it is the policy of the Government to cancel loans where the borrower dies. In such circumstances, we might want to be able to buy back loans assigned to a private sector party. Clause 1 allows us to do precisely that. We do not believe that it would be reasonable to pass such a burden to the private sector. It is a matter of public policy and it is therefore right that that power should reside with the Secretary of State.
  Finally, clause 1 provides for an independent complaints procedure. Currently, borrowers can take complaints about how their loans are administered to an independent assessor, whose rulings are binding. Clause 1 will ensure that borrowers whose loans are sold retain that important right.
  As I said, to achieve the planned level of receipts, it will be necessary to pay subsidies to the purchaser. That is inevitable because student loans are unusual.

  711
  The loan scheme is relatively recent, and there is little track record to allow the private sector to assess the risks involved. The purchaser therefore takes a gamble on the unknown. There is no real interest rate; loans are pegged at the rate of inflation so that borrowers repay only what they borrowed. Additionally, borrowers earning less than 85 per cent. of average income can defer repayments year on year. Those are not commercial loan terms, so the debt cannot be sold on such terms.
  In those circumstances, without a subsidy, loans could be sold only at a fraction of their face value. By paying a subsidy that compensates the purchaser for some of the risk outside the purchaser's control, we will be able to achieve the best return. We shall do everything possible to ensure that the competition between bidders is strong. At the end, we shall accept only the best bid.
  In clause 2, our objective is to freeze the terms of the loans when sold—which refers to the point made just now by the hon. Member for Bath. Loan terms can vary. The most significant core terms are the time and manner in which repayments are made, and the deferment and cancellation rights. If those terms are varied—for example, if more loans are cancelled for policy reasons, or the repayment periods are shortened—it could have a significant and adverse financial effect on the purchasers. Clearly, they are not risks that the private sector can control: companies would price the risk of change into their bids, or expect compensation in full. Either way, there would be a substantial cost to the Government.
  Clause 2 therefore provides that loan agreements must set out in detail the core terms on time and manner of repayments, deferment and cancellation. Those matters are currently discussed annually when we debate the relevant regulations in the House. Once the Bill becomes law and before the sale, we shall make new regulations fixing the core terms for all loans. The terms will therefore be frozen, and loan purchasers will be protected from the financial cost of changes. The act of freezing will also protect borrowers. We shall make sure that the terms are frozen without change to those existing when the loans were taken out. That is one of the safeguards that we shall put in place to protect existing borrowers.
  As to Clause 3, we want to put public loans on an entirely contractual basis, like any other commercial loan. It removes from the lender—the Student Loans Company—and subsequently from the loan buyer, the operation of public law functions. The key point is that, under existing legislation, the loans purchaser must exercise the public law functions by reference to the Student Loans Company. The functions cannot be transferred, and it cannot take any decisions itself. That makes administration complex, cumbersome and expensive—and, frankly, it is doubtful whether the loans could be sold on that basis.
  Clause 3 ensures that buyers are dealing with the sort of loans they understand—loans subject to contract law and to consumer credit legislation—and not public law procedures, such as judicial review. Therefore, the clause removes all public law functions so that the lender and purchaser administer the loans purely as commercial contracts.
  Hon. Members would naturally be concerned if the clause were to mark any reduction in the rights of borrowers, but it will not do so. The borrower will be safeguarded through our sale agreement with the
  712
  purchaser, which will set down minimum requirements as to administration. The borrower will also have the protection of the terms of the loan agreement, which will have specific provisions on the core issues of repayment. Borrowers will continue to have the general protection of consumer rights legislation.
  Clause 4 is a straightforward extension of the provisions to the whole United Kingdom, and the remaining clauses are consequential. However, I draw the attention of the House to two specific issues. The first relates to the rights and the position of existing borrowers—which I know will concern hon. Members—and the second to the future role and function of the Student Loans Company. As far as the existing rights of borrowers are concerned, selling the loans and transferring the risk of default to the private sector inevitably means that the purchaser must take over responsibility for loans administration.
  However, that does not mean that borrowers will be abandoned. We shall introduce a number of important and significant safeguards. We shall specify in the sale agreement with purchasers minimum collection standards that must be adhered to. They will be based on the present procedures adopted by the Student Loans Company. A purchaser's failure to abide by the minimum collection standards could lead to legal action. The borrower will be safeguarded by the terms of the loan agreement and, more generally, by consumer and data protection legislation.
  Student loans are made on generous terms. With the right of deferment and the discretion that lenders have to deal with borrowers who run into financial difficulties, there is no reason why borrowers should default. Those who do must expect to have legal action taken against them, whether their loans are owned publicly or privately. However, such a regime should be sympathetic. We believe that the one presently operated by the Student Loans Company forms the correct basis for introducing our minimum collection standards.
  Nor need there be concern that an unscrupulous private sector party will use information held on student borrowers for his own ends. The Bill states explicitly that no person shall provide or make available to anyone else any information held in connection with the loans if that information is to be used for soliciting custom and services.
  Disabled borrowers are a special case, and they are dealt with as such in the existing legislation. There is considerable discretion to treat them more favourably according to the measures that the House has introduced already. We intend to ensure that they continue to receive such sympathetic consideration.
  We therefore intend that such loans, when identified, should be bought back from the private sector. We shall retain an independent complaints procedure. At present, borrowers can take complaints about the way in which their loans are being administered to an independent assessor, whose rulings are binding. That important right must remain—and, under our proposals, it will.
  The legislation will allow loans to be sold on by the original purchaser. Without this normal market freedom, it is unlikely that we would attract a buyer—certainly, the competition would be limited and the subsidy costs higher. However, our contract with the buyer will provide protection for borrowers by ensuring that the Secretary of State must approve all subsequent sales.

  713
  Hon. Members may be concerned about the future role of the Student Loans Company. That is a non-departmental public body, and its shares are wholly owned by the Secretary for Education and Employment and the Secretary of State for Scotland. Private sector institutions will have the freedom to choose whom they wish to administer the loans. The purchaser of the debt will have the option to administer the debt himself, to contract it out to a third party, or to use the Student Loans Company.
  If the Student Loans Company is used, it would have to be on the basis of an arm's-length contract. We would ensure, first, that the fee the company charges is without subsidy, thus preventing unfair competition against other prospective administrators; and, secondly, that the fee charged is not connected to collection rates, thereby preventing the Government from re-assuming any of the default risk transferred to the debt purchaser through the loans administration contract. The long-term future of the Student Loans Company will have to considered as part of any changes to student support that emerge from the Dearing inquiry and the Government's response to its recommendations.
  This sale will involve the private sector in an area where we wish to see public-private partnerships develop in the future. Its measures propose to ensure that the interests of existing borrowers are safeguarded. The Bill will guarantee receipts of more than £3 billion in the next two years to support our education plans, based on raising standards, extending access and high-quality provision. I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.58 pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning: I begin by congratulating the Minister for School Standards—particularly on his delivery of information which falls not far short of having to read the telephone directory from the Dispatch Box. We welcome the Bill. Its measures carry on from where we left off, moving to a system whereby private sector lenders take responsibility for the provision of student loans.
  It is our view, and has been for some time, that the Government should not be in the business of lending to individuals. The private sector has a proven record of being much better placed to manage the risks involved, and much more experienced in recovering loans.
  In government, we took action to move in that direction. I promise the Minister that I shall not repeat what he has said page by page, but he made reference to the Education (Student Loans) Act 1996, which sought to enable the payment of Government subsidies to financial institutions in the private sector to facilitate the provision of loans to students in higher education. Under the Act, students would still be able to apply for loans from the Student Loans Company. However, the clear aim was to ensure that most subsidised loans would eventually come from the private sector, with the choice resting with the student.
  Following extensive negotiations with financial institutions, that twin-track, public-private model did not proceed. As a result, the Conservative Government came up with an alternative proposal to sell some of the existing
  714
  student loan debt to the private sector, and to contract out the work of the Student Loans Company. That proposal is contained in the Bill.
  There is estimated to be about £2 billion in outstanding loans. Selling some of that debt will bring benefits to the Government and to the taxpayer by transferring some of the risk to the private sector.
  We welcome the fact that the Government have decided to press on with the sale of student loan stock. It is a step in the right direction, and we hope that the Government will continue to look for ways of involving the private sector still further in the provision of student loans.
  In response to questions from Conservative Members, the Minister said that there will be a statement on Wednesday on the Dearing report. It would be helpful if he could confirm whether any additional loans or changes to the loans system will be accompanied by a decision on Wednesday on how loans are to be serviced and whether they are to be part of a package that will be passed on for the private sector to deal with.
  Mr. Byers: I have not briefed anyone on the Dearing report, and do not intend to do so now. Hon. Members must wait until the statement on Wednesday afternoon to find our how the Government intend to respond to the recommendations of the Dearing inquiry, and in particular our views on student support in future years.
  5.2 pm
  Mr. Phil Willis: On Friday last, the same cast of hon. Members sat in the Chamber and, despite our differences, we congratulated the Government on producing a White Paper that was a good basis for discussion. I spoke to a number of head teachers in my constituency this morning, and there was also a great deal of support on the ground. The Minister and his team rightly went away on Friday with some satisfaction about a job at least well started.
  Today, the same Minister is at the Dispatch Box attempting to put a brave face on legislation that was cobbled together by the previous Administration to meet cash-limited spending plans. The present Chancellor admits that this legislation
  "is a critical element in meeting the Government's manifesto pledge to work within spending plans already announced for the next two years."
  Our schools will be starved of cash this winter and, at a time when our universities are crying out for resources, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment sees yet another valuable asset snatched from under his nose in the name of financial expediency, because that is exactly what the Bill is about.
  We now know why the Government did not include the Bill in the Gracious Speech. It was not an oversight, as was said in a leak to the newspapers this weekend. It was not included because the Government were embarrassed at having to introduce such unacceptable legislation.
  The Minister and the Labour party when in opposition, together with the Liberal Democrats, condemned the proposals contained in the 1996 Education (Student Loans) Bill as much for their vagueness and lack of detail as for their intention. However, today the script is so similar to that used by his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), that the

  715
  House could be forgiven for believing that the general election never happened. Like a long-running play, the director merely changed the cast to give the script new life.
  To be fair, I know how committed the Minister is to his portfolio, and I am sure that he is embarrassed at having to introduce the Bill. I do not, therefore, want to cause him any more anxiety than he deserves.
  The Liberal Democrats do not have any philosophical difficulty with the principle of student loans or with the involvement of the private sector. We understand the need to keep the public sector borrowing requirement under control, and we recognise the part that the private sector must play. We have always asked for negotiations to be open and capable of scrutiny, and for there to be a tight regulatory system that protects the students and the taxpayer. Above all, we seek a system that treats all students, both part time and full time, with equality.
  We fully accept that the Government have real difficulties in funding higher education. I have no doubt that, despite the leaks, Wednesday and the following days will be traumatic for the Government as Back Benchers try to wrestle with their consciences. However, we have never supported the current student loans scheme. The Bill fails to meet the criteria for our support, so if there were a Division, we would not support the Government.
  Had parts of the proceeds of this "fire sale" been allocated to our universities to make up for the 28 per cent. cut in funding for students in the past six years, or for the 30 per cent. cut in capital budgets last year, there may have been some justification. As the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) rightly pointed out, the Bill does nothing for our universities, which are experiencing a funding crisis. Not a single penny of the £1.6 billion that the Government are hoping to raise this year will go into higher education.
  I may be doing the Government a disservice and our interpretation may be wrong. Will the Minister explain what proportion from the sale of this debt will be reinvested in higher education this year, and what proportion will be used to alleviate student hardship? After all, it is the students who have created the debt.
  Although the Treasury may benefit from receiving £1.6 billion this year and £1.5 billion next year, the taxpayers may not benefit in the long term. Under the Bill, the Secretary of State can make any arrangements "as he thinks fit" to subsidise private sector buyers and to guarantee any losses through default. The Bill contains no details of the extent or the limit of those subsidies, or the cost to the taxpayer of making the portfolio saleable. In short, the Bill enables the Secretary of State to write the private sector a blank cheque.
  One can imagine the howls of dissent from Labour Members if this measure had been introduced by the previous Administration. During the Budget debate, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and his hon. Friends, when they espied the former Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), in the Gallery, shouted to him, "Come on down, the price is right." This proposal is akin to a game show called "The price is always right, whatever it is."
  To give them credit, the previous Government always hoped that the private sector would take some, if not all, responsibility for student loans, including administration.
  716
  We know that the private sector was not interested in 1990, and, as predicted, the burden for administration and cost fell on the taxpayer and the universities.
  A further attempt in 1996 by the former Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), also failed. Her comments in a press release on 19 December 1996 were most revealing and, if I may say so, characteristically frank. She said:
  "In the event we have not been able to agree a deal which could meet their"—
  the private sector's—
  "requirements at the right price for the taxpayer".
  Now it seems that the right price is any price. The market knows that the Chancellor must meet his cash requirements this year because he has said so. It knows that the cash is required by an arbitrary date because he has said so. The market therefore knows that it can demand whatever subsidies it requires to cover its costs and guarantee its profit margins. It can even build in subsidies to cover default if students fail to pay.
  When the Chancellor said that
  "the size of the continuing subsidies cannot be predicted in advance",
  what he was saying, loud and clear, was that this was yet another opportunity for the City fat cats to profit at the taxpayer's expense. It is rather as though someone wishing to sell a car put an advertisement in the paper stating, "Must be sold by Friday—owner emigrating and needs cash for air fare". That is the extent to which we are in hock to the private sector. Such an approach to the selling of public assets is not only bizarre; it is exactly the sort of approach of which the Labour party would have been extremely critical when in opposition.
  The Liberal Democrats do not believe that the Bill will be in the best interests of taxpayers. Indeed, we believe that the Chancellor has seriously compromised the position. If the Bill is passed, we shall want the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee to examine the arrangements for the sale of the student debt portfolios, and to report to the House before any sale is confirmed. We seek the Minister's assurance that no sale will proceed without that level of scrutiny, and the guarantees for which we ask.
  The third issue that I wish to raise concerns the terms on which loans will continue to be offered. We have long argued—and, indeed, the Labour party argued when in opposition—that the repayment of student loans should be income-contingent. We would favour a system whereby more generous loans were repaid through a national insurance contribution scheme or, in the future, a joint tax and national insurance contribution scheme.
  As the Minister will recall, during the Committee stage of the Education (Student Loans) Bill in 1996, an amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) proposed that
  "the Secretary of State shall be under a duty to ensure that the level of repayments to be made by borrowers is, so far as practicable, income contingent".
  The Minister will also recall a similar amendment tabled by the then hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton, Mr. Bryan Davies. Although not pressed to a vote, the amendment received considerable support, and, I understand, formed part of the Labour party's proposals to the Dearing inquiry.

  717
  On Second Reading of the Bill in 1995, the then hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton outlined a number of principles for the future of student loans. He said:
  "any system of student funding should be fair to both students and the taxpayer. That means that it must be efficient and progressive".
  Is that still the Government's position? If so, why have they not taken the opportunity to include changes in the regulations in the Bill? Such changes would have framed future loan repayments, thereby delivering what we believe is essential if we are to attract the next generation of students from poorer homes into higher education—even if it would not have been possible to do the same for existing borrowers.
  That leads me to the fourth and final reason why we believe that the Government should stop and think before proceeding with this "sad and miserable little Bill"—a phrase used by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath, which he insisted that I put in. I refer to the publication of the Dearing report on Wednesday this week. I remind the Minister of what his former colleague the then hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton said in the House on 27 November 1995 when discussing the last Education (Student Loans) Bill. He said:
  "He should also recognise that the Government are involved in an extensive consultation exercise on higher education. Why are they rushing to implement one particular measure when a whole range of higher education issues are part of a national debate?"— [Official Report, 27 November 1995; Vol. 267, c.953–57.]
  What has changed? Surely the logic of the position taken on 27 November 1995 is even more apparent now, just two days before the publication of the Dearing report.
  Both the last Government and the present Government acted bilaterally to commission Sir Ron Dearing to examine, among other things, the future funding of higher education. The report will inevitably be controversial, particularly if it suggests that students pay for tuition as well as maintenance. If students are to be expected to make larger contributions to their higher education costs, they will
  "need to be underpinned by an efficient system of student loans that is both cheap for the student and the taxpayer",
  as Tim King said in The Independent on 15 July.
  It is, we think, inevitable that the private sector will be asked to play a significantly greater part in developing such a scheme. We repeat that we have no principled objection to that; but, if the student loan portfolio is to be significantly larger in the future, it may be more valuable to students, taxpayers and the market for the current debt portfolio to be included in a more comprehensive scheme. Surely it is in everyone's interest at least to await what the Dearing report has to say about funding, and to evaluate its proposals, before embarking on legislation.
  The Bill is a short-term expedient which does nothing to resolve the long-term funding crisis in our universities. It does nothing to create a long-term level playing field for our students, and, as such, it does not deserve our support.
  5.14 pm
  Mr. Robert Jackson: I support the Bill, which, I believe, contains hidden depths. On the surface, it looks like a piece of purely technical legislation—so
  718
  technical, indeed, that it has been capable of being carried over from one Parliament to another, and from a Conservative to a Labour Government. Notwithstanding the disclaimers in the Minister's opening speech, however, beneath the surface, it opens the way potentially—I stress the word "potentially"—to a revolutionary improvement in the conditions in which higher education is provided in Britain. That is why I strongly disagree with the analysis that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis).
  On 27 November 1995, on Second Reading of the earlier, related Bill, I set out something of the background to the legislation as I saw it. The significance of this Bill—the Minister glossed over this point—is that, by privatising the debts of students and former students to the Student Loans Company, it enables that debt to be increased without reference to the public sector borrowing requirement and the limits on public borrowing. That opens the way to a welcome extension of support, through loans, for the many students who are currently excluded, such as part-time and postgraduate students. It opens the way to an extension of student loans to support the payment of tuition fees for higher education. That, in turn, opens the way to an increase in the resources available for higher education—for which the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough called—after many years of falling per capita costs. Perhaps even more important, it will potentially enable universities to recover a stronger sense of their autonomy and independence, after a long period in which those values have been regrettably eclipsed.
  On Wednesday, the Government will make a statement about the report of Sir Ron Dearing's committee of inquiry into the funding of higher education. The Bill can, I think, be seen as paving the way for that statement—I do not believe that the timing of today's debate is accidental. As the two are thus intimately linked, and as this is almost certainly the only opportunity that I shall have to make a speech on this issue before the autumn, I want to say one or two things about the new regime of tuition fees which at last seems to be coming into view.
  The reports in the press about the Government's intentions are confusing and contradictory. We have already engaged in some discussion of them during points of order. It seems that the Government have decided three main points—first, that there will be a tuition fee; secondly, that this will constitute an additional income for universities; and, thirdly, that the parental contribution to student maintenance will continue.
  If those are indeed the Government's intentions, I congratulate them. It is 10 years almost to the month since, as the Minister responsible for higher education, I attempted to launch a public debate about what were then called top-up fees. I remember a conversation with some journalists—leading to blaring headlines—in which the figure of £500 a year was mentioned. Ten years later, after a period of some inflation, it looks as though the figure will be £1,000. My comment is "Better late than never". If the Government are indeed taking that line, let me say to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench that, after 10 years, it is high time that the nettle was grasped. If that is what the Government are going to do, they deserve and should have our support.

  719
  We should support the Government if they have indeed decided to accept the recommendation of Sir Ron's committee, which envisages a tuition fee of £1,000 a year. I refer my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) to my speech in the public expenditure debate on 6 March, when I argued against replacing the parental contribution to student maintenance by an extension of the loan scheme. As I explained in that speech, replacing parental contributions by loans would be regressive in terms of social and financial equity. Above all, it would remove the prospect of the universities acquiring access to a new stream of income under their own control and, therefore, of strengthening their autonomy and independence.
  It is that concern with the universities' independence and autonomy that leads me, however, to say to the Government that I hope that the figure of £1,000 that has been bandied about will not be regarded as a flat-rate sum, and that the legislation to enable tuition fees to be paid by loans from the Student Loans Company Ltd. or its successors will be as flexible as possible. The right approach is that which I set out in my speech in March, according to which the Government should indicate a maximum sum that they are prepared to allow the student loan fund to provide for tuition fees, but, beyond that, the Government should not intervene to require a fee at that rate, and only at that rate, to be levied. Indeed, one might argue that, with the passage of the Bill, even such a limitation on the part of the Government would be unnecessary as, with student loans in the private sector representing no additional cost to public expenditure, the Government no longer have any financial interest in restricting the amount of student borrowing and, therefore, of university charging.
  I hope that the Government will disregard the out-of-date view that they have a duty to intervene by fixing a flat-rate fee to ensure that institutions of higher education do not compete with one another. They are already in fierce competition to attract the best students. I hope also that the Government will disregard the view that it is somehow illegitimate to distinguish between courses on the ground of price. There are already huge incentives for students to choose one course rather than another, arising from the different expectations of income after graduation that are held out by different courses—not that any of this seems to be in any way a material factor in influencing student choices. Arguments such as those reflect an outdated and excessively paternalistic concept of the Government's role in relation to students and universities.
  It needs to be recognised that, inevitably, the costs of higher education courses vary considerably. There are some courses—for instance, those provided by the conservatoires of music—that cannot be taught without high-cost one-on-one or small-group tuition. There are also remedial and access courses for the all-too-many students with high intellectual potential that has not been sufficiently developed in our schools. Those also often require one-on-one or small-group tuition, leading to costs higher than the average. Similarly, dare I say it, there are students whose intellectual potential and attainments are such that they, too, will benefit significantly from higher-cost methods of tuition.
  It would be unnecessary and a reflection of an outdated, bureaucratised concept of the relationship between Government and higher education for the Government to
  720
  insist on any policy that presupposes or tends towards the equalisation of costs in higher education. In this context, I want to make special mention—I hope that the Minister will note this point—of the position of Oxford and Cambridge and their college fees. This is an important question because of its relation to the international stature of those universities and the advantages that that brings to this country.
  The justification of these college fees is, as I have pointed out, that, for certain types of student, in certain specific situations, it may be desirable that higher tuition costs should be incurred. Admittedly, it was always anomalous in the old bureaucratic system, which we are now, I hope, replacing, that this claim was not fairly and squarely measured against other claims through the higher education funding system operated by the University Grants Committee and its successors. There was always, I concede, something suspect about the fact that the Oxbridge college fees were paid, so to speak, out of the Secretary of State's back pocket. But I hope that, in this new era, the Oxford and Cambridge colleges will not now have to pay a penalty for the special dispensation that they have received in the past. It would not be right for the Government simply to abolish their contribution to Oxbridge college fees. And it would be still worse, and probably unconstitutional under the forthcoming Bill of Rights, for the Government to seek to prevent the colleges from charging such fees.
  The proper course is to remit the question of Oxbridge college fees to the higher education funding councils and, at the same time, to leave it to the colleges to charge fees at their own discretion, using the private sector loan scheme that the Bill will open up.
  I know that one of the concerns here relates to equality of access to Oxford and Cambridge and, indeed, to all our institutions of higher education. But, again, it would be an example of outdated thinking to conclude from the admirable principle that access should be open equally to all on merit, that the only way of doing that would be by equalising the financial terms for all courses. As I suggested in my speech in March, the right way for the Government to address this issue is for them to say to higher education institutions that, as they benefit and will continue to benefit from substantial taxpayer funding, the Government expect them to continue to operate, under a new regime of tuition fees, what the American private universities call a "means-blind" system of admission. Admission to universities, including our world-class universities, must be strictly on academic merit—and I hope that I need not add that that does not mean that their admission policies should be determined by any sort of quota system.
  Behind and above all these technical details, there stands a high principle that I believe the Government wish to honour. That principle is that there is, indeed, such a thing as "society" and that there is and needs to be a wide range of flourishing, independent and diverse "intermediate institutions" between the state and the individual—intermediate institutions of which the university is not the least important.
  Our universities are, in legal form, free and independent private corporations. For some few recent decades, they have chosen not to charge fees to their United Kingdom students. That period is now coming to an end and the Bill opens the prospect of a return to higher education funded in part by student tuition fees.

  721
  The period during which universities relied only on the Government and taxpayers' money as a source of funding was a period in which, despite many great achievements, the independence and, consequently, the morale of our universities steadily declined. If that trend were to continue, the consequences would be dire for a society such as ours that increasingly depends on knowledge and its expansion. That is why the Bill and the policy that I hope will be announced on Wednesday could represent what I called earlier a revolutionary improvement in the outlook for our universities. I look forward with keen anticipation and with high hopes to the Government's statement later this week.
  5.27 pm
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: I agree with the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) that intellectual need and educational attainment should be the guiding factors, but the heavy price now imposed on individual families militates against that. Listening to the Minister for School Standards, a Labour Member, it was almost as though I was listening to a Conservative Minister and the general election had never happened: it is the same voice, the same philosophy and exactly the same policy. I wonder whether the Minister for School Standards inherited his speech from his Tory predecessor and whether he has read the opinion poll in Scotland on Sunday, which showed that 75 per cent. of Scots want educational provision to be provided free, through taxpayers' money, and that they want it to be available to all, as of need and as of right. His policy is overwhelmingly opposed in Scotland because it jars against our national educational tradition.
  The Bill is all about the technical means of achieving a policy to which my party is totally opposed. We prefer to remain faithful to the Scottish education tradition and to make the right to educational provision available to all, irrespective of background, ability to pay or other such reasons. The guiding factors should be intellect and the will of our society, rather than the short-termism of any one Government.
  I intend to speak briefly in the debate because my party's position on the principle of the Bill is clear. We are opposed to the privatisation of student debt. It is clear that the devil in these proposals will be in the detail, as it affects each student and each family coping with the debts that are imposed by the loans.
  A few simple principles underline my attitude to the legislation. First, if I had entered government on the cry, "Education, education, education", my first act would not have been to "Privatise, privatise, privatise". The student loans system is anathema to the SNP and we would seek to abolish it rather than hand it over to the private sector. It fails to meet the needs of the student population and it has created an overhang of debt for thousands of young people as they make the already precarious transition from study to the workplace.
  The greatest irony is that the very people who now champion this privatised loan system benefited from universal student grants and were able to launch their careers with a clean financial slate, rather than a combination of debts, amounting for many to half their first income. I was one of my generation who benefited from access to university and I am ashamed to find that
  722
  that generation may be cutting off swathes of the current generation from the ability to enjoy such educational achievement. By so doing we are treating that generation shamefully.
  The system hits at the tradition of Scottish education. Since 1995 alone, average student debt has leapt by a dramatic and unacceptable 40 per cent. to about £2,500, and the current average debt of those who are leaving university is almost £4,000. The Bill may help to reduce Government debt, but it will do nothing to tackle the mounting crisis of student poverty and debt. It is the people and the parents who will pay for this policy.
  As we debate this measure, we are told that the Government are looking favourably on proposals to charge every student a £1,000-plus annual tuition fee. We shall not know about that until later this week, but leaks lead us to believe that that is in prospect. That is unacceptable. What twisted priorities and short-term proposals are these? I thought that Labour had been elected to stop that sort of Toryism, but instead the Government are implementing it. Apparently, a Scottish Assembly will soon be in charge of education. Perhaps it should be responsible for such decisions and should not be presented with a fait accompli. Has the Minister consulted his Scottish Office colleague with responsibility for education? If he has, what was the response?
  The Bill and similar measures hit at the heart of the traditional Scottish four-year honours degree; by pursuing such students, the Government are throwing away a valuable asset. Perhaps in considering England and Wales, the Government have not thought about what they are doing in Scotland. I ask them to think again. The reality that the Government must recognise is that education is an investment in all our futures. They must realise that penalising students through loans and a fees system that are barriers to entering higher education is unacceptable in a country that needs to mobilise its most talented young people and not burden them unnecessarily.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: The hon. Gentleman says that the loans system is a barrier to entering higher education. That argument was put when, a few years ago, I was taking through the House the Bill that became the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990. Has he noticed that there has been a huge expansion in higher education since the student loans system was introduced? Since that time, higher education has expanded faster than in any other period.
  Mr. Welsh: That shows the demand. There has been vast expansion at a time of contracting resources, and that is at the heart of the problem that the measure will not address. Instead of properly resourcing higher education, the Government are turning their guns on the students. The measure will be a deterrent: it will dissuade youngsters from undertaking higher education. As I have said, my generation benefited from the grants system. I was not lumbered with massive loans of the sort that we are inflicting on present and future generations of students. It is an unnecessary burden, and I repeat that it hits the traditional Scottish outlook on education, which is that it should be available to all irrespective of background. The intellect and not the purse should decide,

  723
  but the Government have decided that it will be the purse. The Government's mechanism will affect students and their families.
  Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman was probably at university at about the same time I was. About 5 per cent. of 18-year-olds went to university at that time and had the huge privilege of the grants system. There is now 30 per cent. participation, which is one of the highest percentages in the world, and that is against the background of student loans.
  Mr. Welsh: I was an adult entrant to university and I could not have gone there without a Government grant. If there had been a loans scheme, I could have been deterred; but if I had gone ahead, a large burden would have been placed on me. I refer the hon. Gentleman and the Government to the effects within universities. Yes, there are more students, but there are restricted resources and, as a result, there is a massive increase in drop-outs and in student debt. Students and their families are paying the price for the policy.
  Measures that pull the rug from under the feet of students who have signed agreements with the Student Loans Company are unacceptable. Their agreements must not be meddled with against their interests, and my party hopes that the Government will table amendments to guarantee such protection. We must not allow future generations of students to be offered an even more disadvantageous loan arrangement than the current one. The present measure is only the start—the door being kicked open. The system will advance and loans will gradually rise.
  By introducing the profit motive into the provision of loans, there is a real risk that student need will be exploited and adequate protections will not be in place. My party opposes the measure, and I call on the Government to reconsider the whole sorry package of higher education measures which they seem set on forcing through against the interests and needs of our students. I urge the Government to raise their sights and to enter the new millennium guaranteeing free and equal access to higher education, rather than glorifying in an empty status symbol, a mere funfair dome on the Thames. The next generation of Scots will judge the Government by their priorities.
  Many of the people who voted Labour in Scotland hoped that there would be a change, but the same speeches and policies are being carried through. There will be much disappointment. I again refer the Government to the traditional Scottish view. We must allow all our youngsters, irrespective of background and the wealth of their parents, the right to take themselves forward in education as far as their talents and abilities will carry them. That is the strength of our society. The Scottish education system is fundamentally strong, and we must build on its traditional views and values. The Bill and the proposals, which I hope will not appear on Wednesday but which leaks tell us are on the way, are an attack on the heart of Scottish education, which should be leading us into the 21st century. The Government will pay a heavy price for such an attack.
  5.37 pm
  Mrs. Browning: The speeches, and especially that by my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), have shown that the issues of higher education, students
  724
  and student loans concern and interest the House. The Bill is essentially technical. Before the week is out, we shall be able to consider the Dearing report and, as the Minister promised, later in the year there will be an opportunity to discuss and legislate in more detail on the terms of student loans and on issues such as the access fund. We support the Bill.
  5.38 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Dr. Kim Howells): We have had a short but very interesting debate in which we have heard some interesting speeches. I should like to highlight especially the speech made by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh), who raised some points about which I, too, am very concerned. When I was pursuing my career in higher education, back in 1965—like the hon. Member for Angus, who is two years older than I am—[Interruption.] Yes, he has a good head of hair.
  The grim fact is that the proportion of young people from working-class backgrounds in higher education is as low now as it was when we were in higher education. We must realise that we will have to get schools right if we are to widen access to university and other higher education institutions. It is not good enough to say that people have been denied access to higher education because of a particular maintenance funding system. Such systems are enormously important, but, fundamentally, we must ask where the majority of university students come from. The truth is that they come predominantly from the leafy suburbs.
  Mr. Welsh: When the Minister mentions unavailability of access to higher education for working-class people, is he really including Scotland? For the people who surrounded me growing up—many of whom went on to do degrees in Scotland—the higher education system was open to all. Such availability is what I want to preserve and enhance. Is the Minister sure that his comments are true of Scotland? They are perhaps true of England and of Wales, and that is sad. I should like England and Wales to adopt, not destroy, the Scottish attitude.
  Dr. Howells: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I should like to see the statistical breakdown of postal addresses of those in higher education. The Higher Education Funding Council conducted such an exercise in Wales and in England and the results were very interesting, showing pretty dismal patterns of access to higher education for people from lower social and economic groups.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: I, too, share the concerns expressed by the Minister and by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh). Does the Minister accept that the proportion of working-class children entering higher education has risen only in the past five or six years, under the regime of student loans? Why has that increase occurred? It has occurred because universities expanded enormously. The main determinant of access to university for working-class people is the size of the university system. In the old system—with its low participation levels and very expensive grant scheme—unit costs were so high that the system was kept small, militating against

  725
  access. Now, however, by spreading the burden through loans, we are able to have a larger system, thereby promoting access.
  Dr. Howells: That is a fair analysis of what has happened over the past 10 years, and it is important that the hon. Gentleman has reiterated it in the House.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: Will my hon. Friend allow me to intervene before the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) gets away with his comments completely?
  Dr. Howells: Yes.
  Mr. Sheerman: I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Wantage said, such as the importance of widening availability to higher education. The cultural element, however, is also important. I am not aware of any system that successfully enough breaks into working-class culture to open the minds of young working-class people, so that they regard education as a part of their lives and culture. Action dealing with the cultural element must accompany widening the scope of availability. I agree with half of what the hon. Member for Wantage said, but we must go further. Forty years ago, Brian Jackson wrote "Education and the Working Class", based on a study in Huddersfield. He understood the problem; we have still not found a solution.
  Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend is correct: we do not have a solution. Because we did not have a solution, the previous Government—with the support of all Opposition parties—commissioned an inquiry into the future of higher education, and it will be as important as the Robbins report was 30 years ago. I hope that the report will be vigorously and robustly debated and examined.
  Anyone who argues that the current situation is perfect is a fool, because it is not perfect. If we are to create a learning society—no hon. Member or member of the public who thinks about the matter would argue that that is not necessary—we must determine how to make higher education attractive and how to make communities understand the great part that education can play in generating wealth in those communities.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: Notwithstanding the comments of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), we can address those goals against a very optimistic background. There are some striking figures. There has been a huge increase in the staying-on rate in schools after the end of compulsory education at 16, and, in the past 10 years, there has been a huge increase in the uptake of higher education. The penny is dropping, and we are reaching a situation in which people accept a learning society. The key to the future is to provide a large, open, flexible and diverse higher education system.
  Dr. Howells: I agree.
  Mr. Welsh: I make a plea to the Minister to examine the situation in Scotland, because the Government's proposals will restrict access to higher education and deter students. The Minister has described a system that has
  726
  perhaps already deterred folk in England and Wales. He said also that diverse student backgrounds are necessary. Perhaps he has heard of Rab C. Nesbitt. I come from Govan and attended Govan high school. Many of the people with whom I attended high school went on, like me, to attend Glasgow university, reflecting the traditional Scottish outlook on education.
  It should not matter from which part of the country someone comes. There should be a national system that is available to all, and education from the elementary to the university level should be available to all according to ability. That is our system in Scotland, and the Government's policy is working against it. I should be happy for the Government's proposals to apply to England, but let us, please, not ruin what we have in Scotland.
  Dr. Howells: The hon. Gentleman clearly has his opinion on the great virtues of the Scottish education system, and, as someone from Wales, I certainly will not decry it. The virtues that he is extolling surprise me, however, because many of my Scottish friends would not agree with his analysis. They have told me that the situation in Scotland—the percentage of young people from working-class backgrounds in the university population—is as dismal as it is in England and in Wales.
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Will the Minister give way?
  Dr. Howells: No, the hon. Lady was not in the Chamber for the debate, and I will not give way now. I want to press on.
  I suggest to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) that, in future, he should not let the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) write his speeches for him. Having been a member of the Public Accounts Committee for more than two years, I know the value of the contribution that the Comptroller and Auditor General's office can make in getting legislation right. We hope that the House has learned from the National Audit Office's examination of past privatisations, and I assure the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough that the NAO will examine this one, too. I give him that undertaking. The NAO examines all privatisations, and it will examine the privatisation of student loans carefully.
  The hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) says that it has been 10 years to the month since he tried to initiate a debate on top-up fees. He provided a fascinating history, and I understand his desire to put straight the record on his part in the matter. I should remind him and all other hon. Members, however, that today's debate is not about top-up fees or about any type of fees; we are debating a technical matter which, as the Bill states, is about selling the debt of the student loan book.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: Does the Minister accept that the proposal will take student loans out of the public sector borrowing requirement, thereby providing a crucial link to the debate about fees?
  Dr. Howells: The measure certainly has elements of that in it, but there is no hidden agenda.

  727
  The Bill is straightforward and technical. Its sole purpose is to enable us, this year and next, to complete sales of student loans. We are completing those sales because they are critical to meeting, this year and next, our manifesto commitment to living within existing spending plans. Some Opposition Members questioned our objective. I repeat: we shall meet our manifesto commitment. In doing so, we shall be able to give priority to our education programmes, which have been enthusiastically received.
  Some hon. Members have raised concerns about the position of borrowers whose loans are sold. Let me stress that we are selling the loans by way of competition. The bidders are all large and reputable organisations, and there is no question of the loans being sold to some ruthless or fly-by-night organisation. That is complete fantasy, which does no service to students and borrowers. We shall retain control over whom the loans are sold to now and in the future.
  There are other safeguards for students. The sale agreement with the purchasers, a model of which will be placed in the Library in due course, will stipulate minimum collection standards to be followed. The loan agreements will protect students. In particular, key terms such as time and manner of repayment and deferment will be retained and frozen. Borrowers will have the protection of consumer credit legislation. In addition, there will be an independent assessor to investigate complaints. Overall, borrowers' legal rights will be entirely unaffected by the sale.
  The Minister for School Standards and I have explained why we are going ahead with the loan sales this year and next. We have also accepted that meeting the overriding objectives we have identified will result in the payment of subsidies to the purchasers. Existing loans are subsidised. There is no real interest rate; there is deferment. The loan book that we are selling has to be subsidised. That is the price of having loans that are generous to the borrowers. We cannot predict the level of subsidies in advance, because we are running a strong competition. Twenty substantial bidders are already competing against each other. We shall, in due course, choose the most competitive bid from the vigorous competition.
  As I have said, we are now committed to the same plans and same sales for two years, but this is not our only objective. We are also committed to the establishment of public-private partnerships which, like this sale, will transfer risk to the private sector. The sale may also enable financial institutions to get a clearer understanding of student loans and encourage them to play a more direct role in the provision of student support in the future.
  The Bill is not about the Dearing report. Its reference to Dearing is limited, as my hon. Friend made clear. The Bill is about meeting a key manifesto commitment that we would work within the spending plans already announced for two years. Those plans, which we inherited from the previous Government, include substantial sales of student loans this year and next. The plans are tight, and we must proceed with the debt sales if we are to meet them and give to education the priority that we want.
  Our timetable is pressing. The sale competition is inevitably complex and time consuming. It will take at least another six months. Hon. Members should understand that we cannot resume the competition before
  728
  Second Reading. Second Reading is needed before the recess, which is why we are here today and why I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 3.

  Division No. 63]

  [5.52 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Davidson, Ian

  Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Ashton, Joe

  Denham, John

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Dobbin, Jim

  Austin, John

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Banks, Tony

  Doran, Frank

  Barnes, Harry

  Dowd, Jim

  Barron, Kevin

  Drew, David

  Battle, John

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Beard, Nigel

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Edwards, Huw

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Efford, Clive

  Benton, Joe

  Ellman, Ms Louise

  Berry, Roger

  Ennis, Jeff

  Blackman, Liz

  Etherington, Bill

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Fatchett, Derek

  Blizzard, Bob

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Borrow, David

  Fizsimons, Lorna

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Flint, Carolin

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Follett, Barbara

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Gapes, Mike

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Burden, Richard

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Burgon, Colin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Byers, Stephen

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Goggins, Paul

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Cann, Jamie

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Casale, Roger

  Grant, Bernie

  Cawsey, Ian

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Grogan, John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Gunnell, John

  Church, Ms Judith

  Hain, Peter

  Clapham, Micheal

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hanson, David

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Healey, John

  Clelland, David

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Coaker, Vernon

  Heppell, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cohen, Harry

  Hill, Keith

  Colman, Tony (Putney)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hoey, Kate

  Cooper, Yvette

  Home Robertson, John

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cousins, Jim

  Hope, Phil

  Cox, Tom

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cranston, Ross

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cummings, John

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hutton, John

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)

  Iddon, Dr Brain

  Illsley, Eric

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Darvill, Keith

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  729

  Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Purchase, Ken

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Quinn, Lawrie (Scarborough)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rammell, Bill

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Rapson, Syd

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

  Robertson, Rt Hon George(Hamilton S)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Kidney, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Rogers, Allan

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Roy, Frank

  Laxton, Bob

  Ruane, Chris

  Lepper, David

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Levitt, Tom

  Salter, Martin

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Linton, Martin

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lock, David

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Love, Andrew

  Sheerman, Barry

  McAllion, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Singh, Marsha

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Skinner, Dennis

  Macdonald, Calum

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McLeish, Henry

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  MacShane, Denis

  Soley, Clive

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  McWilliam, John

  Spellar, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Mallaber, Judy

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Marek, Dr John

  Stevenson, George

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Stott, Roger

  Martlew, Eric

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Maxton, John

  Stringer, Graham

  Meale, Alan

  Stuart, Ms Gisela (Edgbaston)

  Merron, Gillian

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Milburn, Alan

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Miller, Andrew

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Timms, Stephen

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Tipping, Paddy

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Todd, Mark

  Morley, Elliot

  Touhig, Don

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Trickett, Jon

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Truswell, Paul

  Mountford, Kali

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Mudie, George

  Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

  Mullin, Chris

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Vaz, Keith

  Norris, Dan

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Olner, Bill

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Watts, David

  Pearson, Ian

  White, Brian

  Pickthall, Colin

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Pike, Peter L

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Pond, Chris

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Pope, Greg

  Pound, Stephen

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  730

  Winnick, David

  Wyatt, Derek

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Wood, Mike

  Wray, James

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Mr. John McFall and

  Wright, Tony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Mr. Clive Betts.

  NOES

  Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Dafis, Cynog

  Mr. Andrew Welsh and

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

  EDUCATION (STUDENT LOANS) BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
  That for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Education (Student Loans) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act—

  (a) in the sums required by the Secretary of State for making payments under the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990;

  (b) in the expenses of the Secretary of State under that Act.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

  Question agreed to.

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

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  HOUSING
  That the draft Allocation of Housing (Reasonable and Additional Preference) Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  That the draft Commissioner for Complaints (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
  Question agreed to.

HEALTH
Ordered,
That Mr. Peter Brooke be discharged from the Health Committee and that Mr. Robert Walter be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Betts, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Higher Education Institutions
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
6.4 pm
Dr. Alan Whitehead: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about an issue that is pertinent to the debate that we have just had and to the imminent publication of the Dearing report. We do not yet know the contents of that report, although they have been widely speculated on. All the discussion in newspapers is currently about the Government's likely stance on charging for tuition fees.
The spotlight is rightly on finances, because the sector has delivered on a huge expansion in student numbers in the past decade with very little new funding. The unsung stars of that expansion are the university lecturers, who have performed feats of increased productivity that would have been hailed as a miracle if they had occurred on a manufacturing production line.
It is right to spend a little while reflecting on the management of the change, the supervision of the finances that have supported it and the extent to which we have emerged from the decade of explosive growth in student numbers with the principles of free inquiry in an academic community, which underpin the idea of a university, intact. Have we delivered on the governance of institutions of higher education as well as university lecturers have apparently delivered on the increase in student numbers over the past decade?
I am not sure exactly what Dearing will come up with. I am glad that we shall have an extensive debate on the report. My understanding is that there will not be substantial mention of governance in it. That is a shame, because, after the events in some institutions over the past few years, many people in higher education have expressed justified concern about how well some of our institutions are governed. My contention is that, in some areas, we have fallen woefully short of what we should reasonably expect. Unfortunately, there appears to be no solution in sight.
The danger of doing nothing is that, as we enter the next decade of tight financial settlements and continued pressure to achieve more results with less cash, the pressure on vice-chancellors and directors of higher education institutions to cut corners and take liberties with the proper procedures for good governance will become enormous. As we have seen from the small, but important, number of cases in higher education, several of which have been investigated by the Public Accounts Committee, the potential for that already exists and has been demonstrated as a significant problem.
We need to be clear about the consequences of doing nothing. British higher education has an international reputation and attracts thousands of overseas students because of the quality of its courses and the facilities for study that are available. Visiting students provide a massive foreign exchange earning for the United Kingdom. The international research reputation of UK universities and the value placed on UK degrees is high throughout the world. For that reason, many institutions have begun to offer degree courses validated by United Kingdom institutions but taught overseas. If UK higher education is seen to suffer as a result of a crisis of
732
governance, that confidence will be damaged irrevocably, with profound consequences for the whole of the sector and for the British economy.
Lord Nolan, in the second report last year by his Committee on Standards in Public Life, reported on, among other things, the standard of ethics in the governance of higher education. By and large, he gave the sector a clean bill of health. The 13 recommendations he advanced were universally regarded as being relatively minor, yet the problems persist and they can be identified quite specifically in origin and in structural cause.
The major disputes that have hit the headlines in recent years in higher education in Huddersfield, Portsmouth, Bournemouth, Swansea and my own city of Southampton have all occurred in the new university sector which was established after the Education Reform Act 1988 and have all involved former polytechnics and colleges of higher education previously under the control of local authorities.
We can say with some certainty that Nolan aggregated his evidence and failed to distinguish between the old university sector, with its system of charters individually approved by Parliament, and the new sector which came into existence as incorporated higher education institutions with a significantly different system of internal governance and regulation. It is true to say that the existence of the charters, with their entrenched right to representation of a variety of constituencies within the university and with their interlocking groups of decision makers in the senate, the council and the court—although they often reach decisions by a rather cumbersome process—means that, in general, the universities are well governed and largely free from the sort of complaint that has plagued the new sector.
If we look at the incidence of problems in the new university sector in isolation, we can see that, since 1989, more than 10 per cent. of institutions have been the subject of major problems—a very high casualty rate in fewer than 10 years of operation. Why is this so? We should first look at the nature of the disputes.
Overwhelmingly, the disputes relate to a breakdown of confidence between students, staff, governors and management of the institutions. Overwhelmingly, they are disputes where the actions of either the governors or the director or vice-chancellor—or both—seem to ride roughshod over legitimate grievances and protests, and where the protests are ignored or suppressed, sometimes by authoritarian means. All those disputes seem to take an interminable time to resolve, although the issues seem relatively plain to the outside world.
In the case of Huddersfield, trouble erupted when the governors attempted to remove all staff and student representation from the governing body. Portsmouth, Bournemouth and the Southampton institute all reflect in different ways the ability of a strong director or vice-chancellor to rule effectively by fear with the complicity of at least some of the board of governors, and with the inevitable reaction of staff and students against such tactics.
The resolution of the conflicts in those three places did not really reflect the essence of the conflict. In Bournemouth and Portsmouth, directors left as a result of investigations into issues not really related to the central problems. At the Southampton institute, the director has recently taken early retirement. The dispute in Swansea related to the apparent lack of control over an

733
entrepreneurial director who effectively launched a variety of poorly regulated businesses across the world selling the institute's degrees.
Both the issues at contention and the problems relating to their resolution seem to boil down to a central feature of the universities—the assumption of governance behind their incorporation. That can be seen clearly in their governing bodies. Lord Nolan described those governing bodies as follows:
"In England and Wales their governing structure is determined by statute (Schedule 7A of the Education Reform Act, 1988, as inserted by Schedule 6 of the Further and Higher Education Act, 1992) and so is much less variable than that in the old universities. New universities are governed by a board of between 12 and 24 members (and the principal unless the principal declines to be a member). Up to 13 members (described as 'independent') are drawn from those who have experience in industry, employment, commerce, or a profession. They must constitute a majority. Up to two governors may be teachers and up to two students; between one and nine may be co-opted members, and at least one of these must have experience in the provision of education. There are also colleges of higher education which are not universities but which are funded by the higher education funding councils. Their structures of governance are similar to those of new universities. It may be noted that elected members of a local authority are not eligible for service on the governing bodies of new universities unless co-opted as individuals."
We can say, then, that the impression one can receive of these boards is that they are business-oriented governing bodies which are designed to oversee what is seen as the business of the higher education corporations. Indeed, asked why a version of the model of governance applying to the old universities had not been applied to the post-1988 new universities, Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer, the former chief executive of the now defunct Universities Funding Council, is reported to have replied:
"Kenneth Baker is among those ministers who distrusted experts and who believed that anything run by business … would be wisely and efficiently run".
This model of business-based governance goes along with the presumed goal of the new sector, and of higher education generally in the age of restricted finance and almost unrestricted expansion, which is that the good business gets the funds for research and gets the student numbers simply by being a better business than the others.
Business methods prevail, with many boards running secretively, with the target goal for the institution being set as getting in more students and more funding. Provided that those two figures look good at the bottom of the annual report, little else seems to be of concern, at least to some governors of the new institutions.
Business men on such boards tend to appoint and support those who seem to be like themselves. The lack of checks and balances in the post-1988 system by and large allows governors to appoint each other. In some instances, it allows a powerful director or vice-chancellor effectively to hand pick many of the governors so that a seamless power nexus is soon established at the top of the institution.
In the case of the Southampton institute, with which I am very familiar, that extended to an armlock on information going to the governors and from the governors to the staff, to the discouragement of either governors or staff from seeking or supplying independent information, to the intimidation of dissent and to the
734
establishment effectively of an inner power group of the director and a few governors which bypassed the constitutional processes of the institute.
Indeed, so far did the procedures become bypassed that a management-based, so-called programme planning committee effectively eclipsed the academic board on all matters of course development, on the ground that the development of courses was about student numbers and, therefore, essentially financial and that it involved management decisions with only ancillary academic content.
As the cases I have highlighted show, when things go wrong it is extremely difficult to penetrate the nexus that may have developed and put things right. The distinguishing feature of all the cases lies among other things in just how long the institution remained evidently dysfunctional before the matter came to a head, either internally or, at least partially, with the help of outside agencies of regulation such as the Higher Education Funding Council or the Higher Education Quality Council. It is significant that those bodies are seen in the sector as more regulators than anything else.
Although the charters in the new university sector do not exist in the same way as they do in the old universities, the bodies set up to ensure that they work properly are simply there to ensure that no one has his hand in the till and that academic courses are functioning correctly. They have little power to intervene on matters of governance and, by and large, they do not. Where they do intervene, they do so discreetly, round the back door, and slowly, so that those who are well entrenched in management positions in institutions that are not going well have a long time to fight their corner before justice is done.
The fact that the academic standards of such institutions during a crisis generally remain high and have done so to a remarkable degree at Southampton institute is a tribute to the resilience of academic staff in the face of such problems. That far more cases have not arisen, over and above those that I have outlined, is a tribute to the good sense and fairness of academic managers in most establishments.
We are stuck with a flawed system of governance in the new universities—a sort of quangoversity regime, where disaster is often averted by good fortune and common sense, rather than by anything in the system itself.
I conclude, therefore, that the system overall is a monument to the "markets good, participation bad" assumption of that period of public policy madness between 1987 and 1989. It is, in essence, all of a piece with the monsters that we have created in parts of the NHS, in local government quangos, where power has been taken away from directly elected local representatives and put in the hands of appointees, and in our feeble regulation of the privatised utilities.
A new Government who do not share those values should act to ensure that good governance—a balance of representation, and a sharing of views and decision making reflecting a balance of interests within the academic community—is restored.
We are not short of suggestions about what might be done. I have recently been in correspondence with the Association of University Teachers, which advocates, among other things, the restoration of the university visitor system, which is largely falling into disuse in the

735
higher education sector. Although that may not be a perfect solution, it means that there is an independent voice—someone who has the right to go in and investigate, take up grievances and speak independently on behalf of those who otherwise might have no voice.
David Triesman, the general secretary of the Association of University Teachers, wrote to me that he had suggested to Lord Nolan
"that all HE institutions should have a charter as do the pre-1992 universities. The text of charters can be modernised but they provide a clear expression of the mode of decision-taking including who is entitled to be involved; they provide guaranteed checks and balances; they reserve academic decisions for the academic community—members of that community include students (of course) and other staff; they express accountabilities; they set out responsibilities as well as rights."
The Council for Academic Freedom and Academic Standards wrote to me recently, stating that it has an extensive reform programme
"which includes independent scrutiny of institutions; broadening of governor membership; advertising of vacancies; maybe elections; model disciplinary and grievance procedures; all minutes on webpages; stronger Senates."
My personal view encompasses the idea that new universities should have a much larger base of governor election and appointment—a base too large for a few people to control, and made up of all sections of the local community, including the students, the staff, the business community, the education community, local authorities and voluntary organisations. Such a range of people will have a stake in the success of that higher education institution.
That body, comprising perhaps 60 or 70 people, should be charged with the oversight of electing a smaller group of people who presently sit as governors of new universities, so that people cannot hand pick those with whom they will work, and those who sit in judgment on the dealings of the professional managers and their relationship to the academics of the institution have to contend with people who have an independent view, an independent constituency and have been elected or appointed by independent means.
I shall read the definition of "university" in the "Shorter Oxford Dictionary". It states:
"The whole body of teachers and students pursuing at a particular place the higher branches of learning; such persons associated together as a society or a corporate body, having the power of conferring degrees and other privileges, and forming an institution for the promotion of education in the higher branches of learning."
That definition is good enough for me. It emphasises the involvement of
"the whole body of teachers and students".
It is not the property or prerogative of a few people, through which to pursue their ambitions. It must be well managed, but it must be "a corporate body", with all the reciprocal rights and responsibilities that that entails. We are far from that common-sense view, following the marketisation of higher education in the 1980s and 1990s. We must urgently address the issue in the remaining years of this millennium, if we are to carry forward recognisable traditions of academic excellence and inquiry into the next century.
6.25 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Dr. Kim Howells): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton,
736
Test (Dr. Whitehead) for selecting this important matter as the subject for his first Adjournment debate. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the governance of higher education institutions.
My hon. Friend described well some of the problems that can affect higher education institutions. He gave examples of mismanagement, institutions divided by poor staff-management relations, ill-considered financial ventures and issues of accountability.
Of course, I was aware of my hon. Friend's close personal interest in the subject, having read his article in The Times Higher Education Supplement at the beginning of July. In that article, he made a number of pertinent comments about accountability based on his own experience and knowledge.
Before I respond to some of the specific points made by my hon. Friend, it may be helpful if I set out the current position and the new Government's view of those arrangements, and suggest how some of those issues may be developed over the coming months.
The House is well aware of the Government's commitment to ensuring openness and accountability in public life. With considerable sums of taxpayers' money invested in higher education, we need to ensure the highest standards of conduct in those who run higher education institutions, be they universities or colleges.
The effectiveness of any organisation depends on the effectiveness of its management and governance arrangements. My hon. Friend made that clear, and it is imperative that those arrangements are sound and are seen to be working.
The second report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life—the Nolan committee—which was published in May 1995 looked closely at various types of public spending institutions. It devoted considerable attention to higher and further education. The committee found that
"the firm view of our witnesses and those who wrote to us was that the standards of conduct in higher and further education were generally very good".
I know from my hon. Friend's article and speech that he has some doubts about the committee's findings, which he described as an aggregate of the evidence that was presented, but I am sure that he will not want to dissent from the view of the committee—which I share—that standards of conduct are very good.
However, my hon. Friend highlighted a few recent instances in higher education institutions where serious problems have arisen. Those have been investigated by the National Audit Office whose reports have made a number of useful recommendations which my Department and the Higher Education Funding Councils have noted.
It may help the House if I set out the background to what Ministers can and cannot do with respect to higher education institutions and the type of problems that my hon. Friend has outlined.
Higher education institutions are autonomous, self-governing, private corporate bodies. They are not controlled by the Government and they are not subject to ministerial direction. That position is clearly established in law by the Education Reform Act 1988 and the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. So Ministers cannot intervene in their internal affairs. That proscription extends to issues of governance as well as to course content, research programmes and the criteria for the

737
selection and appointment of academic staff and for admissions policy. That position arose from a real concern in the House that academic freedom and autonomy should be preserved and safeguarded.
The non-centralised system means that there is no common system of governance in higher education institutions, which reflects the diversity of the sector and the origins of individual universities. I should perhaps explain that governance terminology differs in different parts of the UK, so for convenience I shall use English terminology, despite being a Welshman.
The council or board of governors of the institution is the executive governing body and has ultimate responsibility for all the affairs and activities of the institution. Its task is to set the strategic direction of the institution and to ensure that it achieves its primary objectives in teaching, scholarship and research.
There are broadly two types of institution in the higher education sector—old universities, which are those established before 1992 and whose constitution and powers are set out in charters or statutes, and post-1992 universities, colleges and institutes, whose governing bodies' powers and constitutions are set out in various Education Acts together with institutions' own instruments and articles of government. It is the latter type of institution that my hon. Friend is most concerned with and where he sees a general failure of their governance arrangements. I can understand his concern to promote the cause of good governance in all higher education institutions, but I cannot accept his contention that all governing bodies are necessarily flawed or bad.
Governing bodies are entrusted with public funds and, therefore, have a particular duty to observe the highest standards of corporate governance. In carrying out that duty, governors need to ensure that, at all times, they have due regard for the proper conduct of public business. The guiding principles are integrity and objectivity; openness and transparency; and accountability for the activities of the institution and for the stewardship of public funds. I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that those principles are widely followed in the sector.
The accountability framework ensures that there are a number of checks in the system to ensure that the taxpayers' money voted by the House for use by the sector is properly accounted for. Universities and colleges are accountable in a number of ways. The funding bodies, such as the Higher Education Funding Councils for England and Wales, require, as a condition of grant, that all institutions put in place sound financial management and control systems.
The funding councils' audit service has a right of inspection in all universities and higher education colleges to check on their stewardship of public funds. It also
738
reviews governance arrangements to ensure that the financial control systems in place are properly used and work. If necessary, the funding councils have the power to suspend payment of grant, in whole or in part, to safeguard public funds. The National Audit Office is also able to go into institutions to carry out inspections. As the House well knows, that can result in the Public Accounts Committee holding hearings if necessary.
Another important strand is the work of the newly established Quality Assurance Agency. The agency will take over work previously carried out by the Higher Education Funding Councils' quality assessment divisions and by the Higher Education Quality Council. The QAA will look at institutions' internal mechanisms and structures for assuring their academic quality and standards. It will, as now, continue to produce public information on their quality audits and subject assessments at institutions.
My hon. Friend made it clear that governance is not just about financial management and accountability for public funds, but I hope that he will realise that, under current arrangements, Ministers are unable to intervene directly. We are, however, conscious of the need to ensure that current arrangements are reviewed to see whether they are the best that can be achieved. We have much to learn on that subject and my hon. Friend's contribution is much appreciated.
It is clear that, despite ongoing problems, governance in higher education is generally good, although a few unfortunate instances have pointed up weaknesses in internal arrangements at particular institutions. Those who run institutions must learn from those lessons and avoid anything similar happening in future.
I can reassure my hon. Friend that the Government see the need for revised guidance to be issued to the sector, building on lessons learned and good practice. My officials have been helping the Committee of University Chairmen in developing a revised version of its guide for members, and the Higher Education Funding Council is in the process of drawing up a revised code of audit practice. We will monitor compliance with those guides.
I also await with interest the Dearing inquiry recommendations on governance issues. The Government will, of course, want to consider what the committee recommends very carefully. Where the case for action is made, we will take it. I assure the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and I intend to take these issues forward vigorously. Suggestions from my hon. Friend will be welcome. I am grateful to him for raising the issue and I wish only that the House had been fuller to hear his important contribution.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Seven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his Department's plans to introduce a fast-track approach to bringing young offenders to court. [7526]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government are committed to halving the time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders and tackling delays throughout the youth justice system. We are taking immediate action to speed up proceedings against young offenders. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has already written to the chairman of every youth panel in magistrates courts throughout England and Wales encouraging them to deal swiftly and effectively with persistent young offenders and to minimise the granting of adjournments. We intend to follow this up with good practice guidance to all relevant agencies. The Crime and Disorder Bill will also include reforms to the youth justice system designed to ensure that young offenders are dealt with more speedily.

  European Convention on Human Rights
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what mechanisms he plans to establish for consultation on the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into(a) English and Welsh law, (b) Scots law and (c) Northern Irish law. [7527]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We published a consultation document on incorporation—"Bringing Rights Home"—in December 1996. We are now developing proposals for legislation in the light of the responses to that document and further discussions we have had since then. We will announce our conclusions in a White Paper later this year and are happy to consider any representations made in response to it.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what date he intends to have the European convention on human rights introduced into United Kingdom law. [7529]

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals to incorporate the European convention on human rights into domestic law. [7537]

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

  Coroners' Decisions
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the mechanisms for appeals against coroners' decisions; and if he will make a statement. [7535]
  386
  Mr. George Howarth
  Concerns have been expressed at the need to resort to the High Court for any review of a coroner's decision. This is one of a number of matters that we keep under review, but we have no present plans to change the legislation.

  Debt Payment
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the policy of his Department on the timely payment of debts; and what is his Department's record on the payment of debts in the current financial year. [9529]

  Mr. Straw
  All Departments are required to pay their bills within agreed contract terms, or 30 days from receipt of goods or service or a valid invoice where no such terms exist, whichever is the later. Information on payment performance for the current financial year is not immediately available, but I shall write to the hon. Member with the information as soon as possible. The Government will publish a league table of departmental payment performance for 1996–97 in the autumn.

  Alcohol
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to restrict the advertising and promotion of alcohol; [9216]

  (2) what plans he has to prevent alcohol abuse among young people. [9217]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) on 16 July,Official Report, column 173, and to the letter I sent to all hon. Members on 17 July.

  Firearms
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons section 7 of form A for use when surrendering items covered by the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 requires the person surrendering an item to agree to accept any payment rather than the sum specified in the compensation terms. [9670]

  Mr. Michael
  Payments will be made only in accordance with the terms of the compensation scheme as approved by Parliament. Valid claims under options A or B will result in the payments agreed in the scheme. The claim form asks claimants to declare that they will"accept any payment made in relation to any items claimed for under Options A or B as a settlement of"

  their
  "claim in relation to those items".

  With a claim under these options, the claimant knows exactly the payment on offer. Signature of the declaration enables the firearms compensation section to pay claims immediately—at the time of acknowledgement—rather than having to send a further letter before payment can be agreed.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what will be done with items surrendered under the terms of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 prior to the completion of the action being taken by owners in the European Court of Justice. [9668]
  387
  Mr. Michael
  With the exception of the items that are retained for police training purposes or acquired for public display in museums, all surrendered items will be destroyed. We are satisfied that the compensation scheme is in line with our obligations under European law and the disposal of surrendered items will proceed as described.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if late payment of compensation under the terms of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 will attract interest. [9669]

  Mr. Michael
  Payments will be made under the published terms of the scheme. There is no provision to include interest as part of these payments, but payments will be made as swiftly as possible.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what paperwork a handgun owner is required to complete when handing in to the police any item required to be surrendered under the terms of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. [9671]

  Mr. Michael
  When making a claim for a handgun or accessories, applicants must complete and submit a claim form provided by their police force. Those submitting a claim under option C must attach documentary evidence as to the value of their items. Claimants must also produce their firearm certificate, temporary permit or certificate of registration as a firearms dealer and dealer's record of transactions, as appropriate. It will also be necessary to produce evidence of lawful ownership of the items as at 16 October 1996, as specified in the compensation scheme itself.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who will be the legal owner of handguns handed in to the police under the terms of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. [9667]

  Mr. Michael
  Items surrendered under the terms of the compensation and ex gratia schemes will become the property of the Secretary of State.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will be tabling the draft compensation order for .22 calibre pistols and equipment. [9100]

  Mr. Michael
  Under the terms of clause 2 of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill there is no requirement for details of the compensation arrangements for small-calibre pistols and ancillary equipment to be tabled. Small-calibre pistol owners have already received details of the ex gratia scheme. As I informed the House during the debates on 9 June, copies of the scheme had been placed in the Library a few days beforehand. The scheme sets out the terms of payment for pistols and equipment that are surrendered voluntarily. It is intended that this ex gratia scheme will become the formal compensation scheme following the passing of the Bill. This, too, was explained fully to the House on 9 June.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what percentage of employees, in each pay band, in the quangos for which his Department is responsible, are of(a) Asian origin and (b) Afro-Caribbean origin. [8950]
  388
  Mr. Straw
  From the available information, the breakdown of employees of Asian and Afro-Caribbean origin employed in the Home Office non-departmental public bodies is as follows:

  Senior grades: 20 per cent.—Asian1;—15 per cent.—Afro-Caribbean2

  Executive grades: 29–11 per cent.—Asian; 46–18 per cent.— Afro-Caribbean

  Administration and Support grades: 34–12 per cent.—Asian; 58–21 per cent.—Afro-Caribbean

  1 Figure five or fewer.
  2 These figures refer only to the Commission for Racial Equality as this is the only NDPB that currently employs ethnic minorities in senior grades.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many civil servants there are on each pay band in his Department. [8951]

  Mr. Straw
  The Home Office has not yet adopted a pay band system. The number of serving civil servants1 managed by the Home Office by grade equivalents is set out in the table. Although there is not as yet an agreed equivalency structure for all Prison Service grades, the following table is based on the current understanding.

  Grade equivalency

  Home Office excluding Prison Service)

  Prison Service

  Total

  None

  228

  388

  116

  Administrative Assistants

  1,949

  6,085

  8,034

  Administrative Officers

  2,573

  24,511

  27,084

  Executive Officers

  3,783

  3,658

  7,441

  Higher Executive Officers

  1,522

  1,121

  2,643

  Senior Executive Officers

  608

  896

  1,504

  Grade 7s

  442

  381

  823

  Grade 6s

  85

  254

  339

  Non-Senior Civil Service Grades 2 to 5

  417

  556

  73

  Senior Civil Service

  86

  43

  129

  Total

  11,109

  37,093

  48,202

  1 For the Home Office (non-Prison-Service), "serving civil servants" refers to permanent non-industrial staff currently paid by the Home Office. It does not include staff on loan or secondment to other Government Departments or external bodies where those bodies pay. For the Prison Service, the figures include casuals. The Home Office (non-Prison Service) figures are those for 6 July 1997. The Prison Service figures are those for 30 June 1997.

  2 Students on attachment to the Home Office and some other grades have no agreed grade equivalency.

  3 Currently no grade has been provided.

  4 Grades which were held to be equivalent to the old grades 2 to 4 but which have not been included in the senior civil service. These grades include HM inspectors.

  5 Mainly comprising senior health care staff.

  Asylum Seekers
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 30 June,Official Report, column 11, how many in-country asylum applicants were detained under Immigration Act powers for one night or longer in (a) 1995 and (b) 1996. [8926]
  389
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I regret that reliable information on the number of in-country asylum applicants placed in detention for one night or longer could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Crime (Sentences) Act 1997
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to implement section 20 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. [9310]

  Mr. Michael
  We will make an announcement shortly about the implementation of provisions of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 as well as a wider package of measures reflecting our approach to sentencing.

  Fox Deaths
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of foxes killed per year(a) in total, (b) by shooting, (c) by hunting with hounds, (d) by road accidents and (e) other causes. [8577]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We have made no such estimate and the information requested could not be determined except at disproportionate cost. Various estimates have been provided by organisations that support or oppose fox hunting.

  It will be for Parliament to decide how any further detailed work—such as an estimate of this kind—should be taken forward.

  Stationery
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department spent on stationery provision in respect of paper items in each of the last five years. [8867]

  Mr. Straw
  This information is not separately recorded in the Home Office accounting system, but details provided by our two main suppliers of general stationery indicate that approximately £600,000, excluding value added tax, was spent on paper items in the calendar year 1996.

  Additional, but smaller, orders would have been placed with various other suppliers, but details of these and information about previous years are not available except at disproportionate cost.

  Rape
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review(a) the law of consent regarding rape and (b) the use of the victim's sexual history in rape trials. [8801]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 16 July 1997]: We are very concerned to ensure that the law on rape is effective in punishing and deterring crime and fair to victims. We have in the past laid down amendments aimed at reforming the law in this area and this remains our commitment. We have a number of competing priorities in this parliamentary Session and will need to look carefully as to when we could deal with this issue.
  390
  The law on consent in respect of rape, or the use of the sexual history of victims, is provided for in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976. Under that Act, no question may be asked about, or evidence adduced of, the complainant's previous sexual history with anybody except the defendant without the leave of the trial judge. A judge should grant leave only if he is satisfied that it would be unfair to the defendant to refuse to do so.

  We will continue to examine how the law is applied. A Home Office research study into the process of rape cases is seeking to identify what factors influence whether a recorded rape leads to a conviction. Among the factors under examination are the use of the victim's sexual history in court and the importance of corroborative evidence where consent is disputed.

  Hunting with Hounds
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 10 July,Official Report, column 523, for what reasons his Department is unable to calculate the employment generated by hunting with hounds. [8702]

  Mr. George Howarth
  [holding answer 15 July 1997]: Such information is not currently held centrally and could not be obtained except at disproportionate cost. Various estimates have been provided by organisations supporting or arguing against hunting with hounds. However, it will be for Parliament to determine how to take forward any further detailed work on the likely effects of a decision to ban hunting with hounds.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Devolution Referendums
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what will be the role of civil servants in the referendum campaigns on devolution. [10247]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Government have today issued guidance to civil servants on their role and conduct during the devolution referendum campaigns. The guidance provides a generic set of principles which individual Departments can incorporate into guidance tailored to their particular needs and situations. It stresses that civil servants should conduct themselves in accordance with the civil service code, and is based on the need to maintain the political impartiality of the civil service and to ensure that public resources are not used for party political purposes. Copies of the guidance have been placed in the Libraries of the House, and are also available from the Vote Office.

  Civil Service Report
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to publish the second annual "Civil Service Fast Stream Recruitment" report. [10246]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The annual "Civil Service Fast Stream Recruitment" report was placed in the Libraries of the House earlier today. It covers the year to 31 March 1997, reporting the results of fast stream competitions completed during that period and action undertaken for future competitions.
  391
  The report shows that the civil service continues to attract a strong field of applicants for both generalist and specialist schemes. The diversity of sources from which recruits are drawn continues to grow, with successful candidates from more than 60 different higher educational institutions. Good progress has also been made towards the goal of increasing the proportion of recruits to the generalist scheme who have scientific degree backgrounds.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many and what percentage of employees in the Government Car and Despatch Agency are (i) of Asian origin and (ii) of Afro-Caribbean origin. [8930]

  Dr. David Clark
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated under the terms of the framework document to the Government Car and Despatch Agency. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. Nick Matheson, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Nick Matheson to Mr. Keith Vaz, dated July 1997:
  I have been asked by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to reply to your Parliamentary Question on the number and percentage of employees in the Government Car and Despatch Agency who are of Asian or Afro-Caribbean origin.
  Our records show that the Agency currently employs 2 people of Asian origin (0.78 per cent. of the work force) and 3 people of Afro-Caribbean origin (1.18 per cent. of the work force).

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many and what percentage of civil servants in each of grades one to five in his Department are of(a) Asian origin and (b) Afro-Caribbean origin. [9569]

  Dr. Clark
  No employee in these grades in my Department has registered his or her origin as being Asian or Afro-Caribbean.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many civil servants there are on each pay band in his Department. [8942]

  Dr. David Clark
  This answer covers the Cabinet Office—Office of Public Service—and its executive agencies. Staff below the senior civil service are employed by grade and are shown as such. The figures at 1 July are as follows:

  Number

  Office of Public Service (OPS)

  SCS

  39

  Grades 6 and 7

  79

  Senior Executive Officer (SEO) and equivalent

  23

  Higher Executive Officer (HEO) and equivalent

  77

  Executive Officer (EO) and equivalent

  94

  Administrative Officer (AO) and equivalent

  88

  Administrative Assistant (AA) and equivalent

  34

  Executive Agencies (Total)

  SCS

  11

  Grades 6 and 7

  168

  SEO and equivalent

  135

  HEO and equivalent

  136

  392

  Number

  EO and equivalent

  212

  AO and equivalent

  251

  AA and equivalent

  82

  Industrial staff

  601

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what guidelines exist to ensure that civil servants cannot work on a party political basis. [9071]

  Dr. Clark
  Civil servants are under a duty, laid down in the civil service code, to conduct themselves with integrity, impartiality and honesty, and in such a way as to deserve and retain the confidence of Ministers and to be able to establish the same relationship with those whom they may be required to serve in some future Administration. Ministers are also under a duty not to use public resources for party political purposes, to uphold the political impartiality of the civil service, and not to ask civil servants to act in a way that would conflict with the civil service code. In their private lives, civil servants must comply with restrictions on their political activities as set out in the civil service code and the civil service management code.

CABINET OFFICE

  Millennium Exhibition
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what research has been carried out into the number of visitors likely to attend the millennium experience. [6466]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Consultants to the Millennium Commission and the New Millennium Experience Company Ltd. have produced a broad range of estimates of visitor attendance. The limit on capacity is 17.7 million visits, a National Opinion Polls survey in December 1996 predicted 14 million visits by United Kingdom residents and the target in the current business plan is 12 million.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio how much money from private sector sponsorship has been raised for the millennium exhibition at Greenwich. [8028]

  Mr. Mandelson
  This information is currently commercially confidential. The New Millennium Experience Company Ltd. will publish a full account in due course.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what contingency plans exist for the millennium experience budget in the event that ticket sales fail to reach £135 million. [6906]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 7 July 1997]: As already announced, we are extending the life of the Millennium Commission to enable it to meet its existing commitments to the millennium experience. Should these commitments unavoidably increase in the future, we will take further steps to ensure—through the lottery—that the commission is able to meet them. But it is our firm resolve that such action should not prove necessary; the Millennium Commission shares this resolve.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Class Sizes
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of(a) the average class size in schools in Warrington, North and (b) the number of primary school children in Warrington, North being taught in classes of more than 30 pupils. [9211]

  Mr. Byers
  For maintained primary schools in the Warrington, North parliamentary constituency in January 1997, the provisional estimates of the average class size and the number of pupils in classes of 31 or more pupils taught by one teacher were 27.9 and 3,822 respectively.

  Jobcentres
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the Government's response to the second report of the Education and Employment Committee "Security of Staff in Jobcentres", HC 149, Session 1996–97. [10248]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  A Command Paper outlining the Government's response has been published today and copies have been placed in the Library.

  Welfare to Work
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects to announce the pilot areas for welfare to work. [9877]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Secretary of State will announce the pathfinder areas for the new deal for 18 to 24-year-olds shortly.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if public sector bodies will be eligible for the wages subsidy element of his Department's welfare-to-work proposals. [9817]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The success of the new deal will depend on effective partnerships in which all sections of local communities, including the private, public and voluntary sectors, play a full and relevant part. The precise role of the public sector in the employment option of the new deal is one of a number of issues we are currently considering. We will announce the outcome shortly.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will examine the potential role of horticultural training within the welfare-to-work programme; and if he will make a statement. [8486]

  Mr. Howarth
  In our new deal for young and long-term unemployed people, we intend to offer the widest possible range of opportunities for people to gain skills and improve their employability. Education and training will be guaranteed for all those participating in any of our four options of help. We want organisations from all sectors to join in our crusade to get people off benefits and into jobs, and I hope that the horticultural sector, like all others, will respond to this challenge. It is also possible under current arrangements to train to national vocational qualification level 2 and above in horticulture, under training for work.
  394
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people in the boroughs of Newham and Tower Hamlets will benefit from the welfare-to-work initiative. [9006]

  Mr. Smith
  It is not possible to give an accurate estimate of the number who will benefit from the new deal over the period of its implementation. All young people who are eligible, or who become so, will be offered opportunities to participate in a job, training or useful work experience.

  School Exclusions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children with statements of special educational needs were permanently excluded from schools in England in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95; and what each figure was as a proportion of the total number of children permanently excluded from schools. [8725]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Returns to the Department recorded a total of 1,287 pupils with statements of special educational needs as having been permanently excluded from mainstream schools during the 1994–95 school year; a further 477 pupils with statements were excluded from special schools. These figures represent 12.6 per cent. of the exclusions from mainstream schools and 96.8 per cent. of the exclusions from special schools.

  Information on how many pupils with a statement of special educational needs were permanently excluded in 1993-94 is not available.

  University for Industry
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the time scale for the establishment of the university for industry; what is the process for evaluation of bids; if it will be a single or multi-site operation; and which officials in his Department are charged with bringing it into effect. [9912]

  Dr. Howells
  I hope to make an announcement shortly about our plans for developing the university for industry. The process for taking forward the development work, including any possible bidding procedures, has yet to be determined. The university for industry is a virtual institution and will not have a headquarters in the conventional sense. It is likely to have a core administrative centre, but it is too early to say where this might be located. Responsibility for work on the university for industry rests with my individual learning division.

  Education Standard Spending Assessment
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each of the last five years the standard spending assessment per pupil for education for each local education authority. [7366]

  Mr. Byers
  The information requested is contained in a number of tables, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  University Entrants
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils were accepted into each university from(a) private schools and (b) state schools for each year since 1970. [8772]

  Dr. Howells
  The information requested is not compiled centrally. Available information at the sector level is published in the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service annual report, the latest of which shows the following:

  Previous educational establishment of home applicants accepted for 1996 entry in the UK

  HND/dipHE courses

  Degree courses

  Maintained (incl sixth form colleges)

  6,791

  112,440

  Independent

  742

  29,264

  Other1

  9,286

  69,658

  Not known

  4,967

  35,141

  Total

  21,786

  246,503

  1 Includes further education institutions, higher education institutions and other establishments.

  Table 1: Numbers of claimants, postal claimants and the percentage of total claimants using the postal facility

  1995

  2nd quarter

  3rd quarter

  4th quarter

  Regions

  Total claimants

  Postal claimants

  Percentage of total signing by post

  Total claimants

  Postal claimants

  Percentage of total signing by post

  Total claimants

  Postal claimants

  Percentage of total signing by post

  London and South-east

  722,000

  32,230

  4.5

  732,000

  32,811

  4.5

  688,000

  29,663

  4.3

  South-west

  164,000

  17,669

  10.8

  164,000

  15,964

  9.7

  158,000

  15,478

  9.8

  West Midlands

  209,000

  4,462

  2.1

  215,000

  4,472

  2.1

  196,000

  4,116

  2.1

  East Midlands and Eastern

  214,000

  21,094

  9.9

  215,000

  17,353

  8.1

  200,000

  12,285

  6.1

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  206,000

  12,244

  5.9

  211,000

  12,154

  5.8

  198,000

  11,935

  6.0

  North-west

  253,000

  5,085

  2.0

  257,000

  4,804

  1.9

  238,000

  4,215

  1.8

  Northern

  147,000

  4,703

  3.2

  149,000

  4,539

  3.0

  143,000

  4,272

  3.0

  Office for Wales

  105,000

  9,869

  9.4

  110,000

  9,957

  9.1

  104,000

  9,825

  9.4

  Office for Scotland

  201,000

  27,570

  13.7

  211,000

  26,966

  12.8

  193,000

  26,926

  14.0

  1996

  1st quarter

  2nd quarter

  Regions

  Total claimants

  Postal claimants

  Percentage of total signing by post

  Total claimants

  Postal claimants

  Percentage of total signing by post

  London and South-east

  704,000

  28,298

  4.0

  660,000

  24,382

  3.7

  South-west

  167,000

  15,450

  9.3

  150,000

  11,506

  7.7

  West Midlands

  205,000

  4,067

  2.0

  193,000

  3,320

  1.7

  East Midlands and Eastern

  217,000

  9,882

  4.6

  200,000

  8,230

  4.1

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  211,000

  12,239

  5.8

  194,000

  10,726

  5.5

  North-west

  253,000

  4,427

  1.7

  238,000

  3,787

  1.6

  Northern

  148,000

  4,408

  3.0

  138,000

  4,034

  2.9

  Office for Wales

  111,000

  9,855

  8.9

  103,000

  9,026

  8.8

  Office for Scotland

  208,000

  29,855

  14.4

  197,000

  26,196

  13.3

  Source:

  Postal Claimants—Resources Monitoring System Database.

  Total claimants; Department of Social Security—rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Benefits (Postal Claimants)
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many claimants were postal claimants and what percentage this was of the whole in each standard region in each quarter since April 1995. [7764]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 10 July 1997]: Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Terry Rooney, dated 21 July 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about postal claimants. This is something that falls within the responsibility delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The figures that you have requested are only available up to the second quarter of 1996. This information is provided in table 1. Subsequently, a one off account was made on 24 February 1997 and these results are shown below in table 2.
  I hope this is helpful.
  397

  Table 2

  Postal claimants in each Region 24 February 1997

  Percentage of total claimants signing by post

  London and South-east

  6,393

  1.2

  South-west

  2,320

  1.9

  West Midlands

  1,045

  0.7

  East Midlands and Eastern

  958

  0.6

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  3,654

  2.2

  North-west

  255

  0.1

  Northern

  1,556

  1.3

  Office for Wales

  2,883

  3.2

  Office for Scotland

  11,853

  6.8

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics and Jobseeker's allowance operational support.

  Mandatory Maintenance Grants
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has to end mandatory maintenance grants for students. [8648]

  Dr. Howells
  The national committee of inquiry into higher education has been considering possible future arrangements for student support and is due to report shortly. The Government will set out their detailed proposals in the light of the committee's recommendations.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Turkey
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of Turkey on their policy on human rights. [9189]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the new Turkish Foreign Minister at the NATO Madrid summit, on 8 July. They discussed a broad range of issues, including a long exchange on human rights. He was encouraged by Mr. Cem's recognition of the need for progress on this issue.

  Law of the Sea Convention
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the United Kingdom will accede to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the law of the sea; and if he will make a statement. [10101]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  We have decided to accede to the convention later this month. The convention has many advantages for the United Kingdom as a maritime nation with worldwide trading and other interests. The convention includes important environmental provisions. Accession will enable the United Kingdom to play a leading role in the institutions established under the convention.

  The United Kingdom's fishery limits will need to be redefined based on St. Kilda, since Rockall is not a valid base point for such limits under article 121(3) of the convention. An Order in Council will be made at the first opportunity. Thereafter we shall seek to agree a fisheries boundary with the Republic of Ireland.
  398
  Further legislation may be needed in due course if British industry wishes to mine the deep sea bed under the terms of the convention and the agreement on the implementation of part XI of the convention. We shall also ratify the latter agreement, which fully meets the objections to the original terms of part XI.

PRIME MINISTER

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 16 July,Official Report, columns 387–88, for what reasons the letter from the Governments of the United Kingdom, France and the United States of America in reply to that from the Secretary-General of the Arab League, the Organisation of African Unity and the UN Security Council was not in the Library at 4 pm on 16 July; when he requested the letter be forwarded to the House; and when the letter was dispatched. [9797]

  The Prime Minister
  A copy of the letter is available in the Library. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), has written to my hon. Friend.

  Horse Racing
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will transfer overall governmental responsibility for issues connected with horse racing to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport; and if he will make a statement. [9842]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

  Political Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Prime Minister when he plans to reply to the question of 10 June from the hon. Member for Chichester on the appointment of political advisers not paid from public funds. [9601]

  The Prime Minister
  I will be in a position to reply to the hon. Member's previous question shortly.

DEFENCE

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civil servants there are on each pay band in his Department. [8966]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Pay and Personnel Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from M. A. Rowe to Mr. Keith Vaz, dated 21 July 1997:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence regarding an analysis of the number of MOD civil servants by paybands. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Pay & Personnel Agency.
  The information requested is contained in the table attached to this letter which I hope you find helpful.
  399

  Pay band analysis of MOD industrial and non-industrial civil servants as at 1 April 19971

  Number of civil servants

  Annual basic pay and allowances2

  Full Time

  Part Time

  Total

  Pay bands

  £0 to £10,000

  27,541

  3,908

  31,449

  £10,001 to £20,000

  47,263

  527

  47,790

  £20,001 to £30,000

  16,449

  39

  16,488

  £30,001 to £40,000

  2,719

  4

  2,723

  £40,001 to £50,000

  650

  0

  650

  £50,001 to £60,000

  180

  0

  180

  £60,001 to £70,000

  33

  0

  33

  £70,001 to £80,000

  13

  0

  13

  £80,001 to £90,000

  9

  0

  9

  £90,001 to £100,000

  1

  0

  1

  £100,000 upwards

  1

  0

  1

  Totals

  94,859

  4,478

  99,337

  1 The figures exclude staff employed by the MOD trading fund organisations i.e. the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, the Meteorological Office and the Hydrographer.

  2 Pay has been banded on basic annual salaries and allowances (or their weekly equivalents) but excluding non-pensionable emoluments such as overtime earnings.

  Navy Surface Vessels
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those surface vessels of the Royal Navy which will need replacing in the next five years; and what the estimated replacement costs are. [8182]

  Mr. Spellar
  Over the next five years, we plan to bring into service three type 23 frigates to replace two type 22 frigates, HMS Boxer and HMS Beaver, and one type 42 destroyer, HMS Birmingham. The value of the contract for these vessels is estimated at around £450 million. We will also bring into service two auxiliary oilers at the turn of the century. These vessels, for which the contract is worth around £200 million, will replace the aging 0 class fuel replenishment ships, RFA Olna and RFA Olwen. The two amphibious ships, HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid, will be replaced early next century by HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark; the value of the contract for these vessels is estimated at £450 million.

  We are considering how to replace the capabilities currently provided by the survey vessels HMS Herald, HMS Roebuck, HMS Bulldog and HMS Beagle and by two of our landing ships logistic, RFA Sir Geraint and RFA Sir Percivale.

  HMY Britannia will be decommissioned at the end of this year. The Government are currently considering the requirement for a replacement royal yacht and will announce their decision in due course.

  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Defence Export Services Organisation will be included in the strategic defence review. [6840]

  Mr. Spellar
  Consideration of the support to defence exports will form part of the strategic defence review.

  Rapid Reaction Corps
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the British contribution to NATO's Allied 400
  Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps is in cash terms in the current financial year; and what it is as a proportion of the defence budget. [8185]

  Dr. Reid
  The estimated cost of UK forces assigned to the ARRC, and the headquarters costs, is some £2 billion in the current financial year, or some one tenth of the defence budget. These forces include 1 and 3 Divisions, 24 Airmobile Brigade and support troops, which could contribute to a number of missions, under both NATO and non-NATO command, in support of the Government's security and defence policies.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the ethnic minorities have been appointed to the ranks of one, two, three or four-star officers in the(a) Royal Navy, (b) Royal Marines, (c) Army and (d) Royal Air Force since 1967. [7829]

  Mr. Spellar
  There is currently one one-star officer from the ethnic minorities in the RAF and none in the Royal Navy, Royal Marines or Army, although a one-star officer recently retired from the Army. This reflects the under-representation of the ethnic minorities in the armed forces, a position we are seeking to redress. A new management-led, self-classification survey of the ethnic origin of serving personnel was introduced in July 1996. Prior to this date records cannot be relied on.

  Vacant Dwellings
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many dwellings owned by the Ministry of Defence in the Rosyth and Pitreavie area are currently vacant; of these how many have been vacant for(a) less than six months, (b) six to 12 months, (c) up to two years and (d) over two years; and what are his Department's plans for the disposal of these properties, and over what period. [8990]

  Mr. Spellar
  All but one of the 81 houses of the service families accommodation site at Pitreavie are empty, due to the closure in July 1996 of RAF Pitreavie Castle and RAF Turnhouse. Forty-three houses have been empty for 12 months and 37 for 18 months.

  The Ministry of Defence originally planned to market the houses with the RAF station as a package. More recently, and because no prospective purchaser has been found, it has been decided to market the houses individually and sales will proceed as quickly as possible.

  The Rosyth estate comprises 269 houses of which 147 are empty. One hundred and four have been empty for between one and two years and 43 have been empty for over two years. A total of 108 of the 147 are currently being advertised for sale in blocks or on an individual basis. These sales will take place as market demand permits.

  Reserve Forces
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many payments he has made to employers following call-out or recall of reserves in the last year for which figures are available. [9417]
  401
  Mr. Spellar
  Provisions for making payments to the employers of reservists were introduced under regulations which came into force on 1 April this year. Since then, 10 payments have been made to employers, and a further 12 are being processed. Up to 16 July, claims had been agreed for some £7,000. Further claims amounting to some £14,000 are being considered.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current strength of the reserve forces by type. [9418]

  Mr. Spellar
  The most recent complete figures are for 1 April 1997. These are as follows:

  Strength of reserve forces at 1 April 1997

  Number

  Royal Fleet Reserve

  8,900

  Royal Naval Reserve

  2,700

  Royal Marines Reserve

  900

  Army Reserve

  190,100

  Territorial Army

  57,600

  Air Force Reserve

  45,300

  Royal Auxiliary Air Force

  1,400

  Employment Advertisements
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how often since 1992 his Department has been responsible for employment advertisements which contained age restrictions on those who could apply. [9507]

  Mr. Spellar
  It is my Department's policy that age limits must not appear in external recruitment advertisements for civilian personnel. Exceptions to this rule are references to retirement ages or where a minimum recruitment age can be fully justified in terms of allowing the Department time to benefit from the expected training investment. The Department does not hold a central database of employment advertisements for civilians and it is therefore not possible, except at disproportionate cost and effort, to check whether any of these may have contained an age restriction other than the permitted exceptions.

  As a general principle, the armed forces require recruits aged between 16 and 26 years, although in some trades older applicants are acceptable. Approximately 90 per cent. of advertising for recruiting individuals into the services make references to these age restrictions.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the location of each of the 12 British anti-personnel land mines known still to be in Iraq following the Gulf conflict; what is their type and specification; what steps he is taking to ensure they are cleared; and what estimate he has made of the total number unaccounted for in Iraq. [9665]

  Dr. Reid
  According to currently available information, 12 C3A1 anti-personnel land mines, commonly known as Elsies, were used in Iraq and not subsequently recovered. Consistent with the provisions of international law current at the time, details of their precise locations were not recorded in view of the nature of the operations. Given the current circumstances in Iraq, it would not be practical 402
  to attempt now to clear them. My Department is trying urgently to establish whether any further anti-personnel land mines used by British forces in the Gulf conflict remain unaccounted for.

  Bosnia (Road Traffic Accidents)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service men and women have been(a) killed and (b) seriously injured in road traffic accidents while serving in Bosnia since the end of hostilities following the Dayton accord. [9315]

  Dr. Reid
  Since the deployment of the implementation force on 20 December 1995, three British soldiers have died and six have been listed as seriously ill or very seriously ill as a result of road traffic accidents in Bosnia. With treacherous weather and poor roads, conditions are very challenging, demanding a high degree of skill from drivers. Those military personnel required to drive vehicles in Bosnia undertake pre-deployment driving training to prepare them for the conditions there. The dangers are taken very seriously and an active information campaign ensures that all personnel are reminded of the need to drive with great care.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Court Delays
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what measures he proposes to reduce delays in the criminal justice system; and if he will make a statement. [7530]

  Mr. Hoon
  The introduction of plea and directions hearings in the Crown court continues to reduce delays. In the magistrates courts, the Magistrates' Courts (Procedure) Bill introduced recently by the Lord Chancellor will speed up the progress of half a million minor motoring cases per year. Generally, the Government are considering the scope for reductions in delays in the criminal courts suggested by the review of delay in the criminal justice system, and there will be a further announcement in due course.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has for the reorganisation of magistrates courts in West Sussex. [7536]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have no such plans.

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on his Department's criteria relating to the merger of magistrates courts. [7540]

  Mr. Hoon
  Magistrates courts are locally managed by magistrates courts committees under the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. Decisions concerning the future and number of magistrates courts in their area for the relevant MCCs to determine. A local authority that contributes financially may appeal to the Lord Chancellor against a proposed closure. The procedure for such appeals is set out in section 56 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. Accordingly, as with any appellate authority, each case is dealt with on its merits.
  403
  In the absence of an appeal, however, the Lord Chancellor plays no part in the process.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the number of magistrates courts in the county of Essex. [7533]

  Mr. Hoon
  There are 13 court houses and 13 petty sessional divisions in Essex. Decisions concerning the future and number of magistrates courts in the area are for the relevant magistrates courts committees to determine. Essex MCC has issued a consultation document to magistrates and to the paying authority to review the arrangement of petty sessional divisions in the county.

  Private Finance Initiative (Magistrates Courts)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the Essex magistrates courts committee will be permitted to specify when embarking on a PFI initiative the broad geographical location and number of court houses it requires from those providing the PFI initiative. [9876]

  Mr. Hoon
  It is an important principle of the PFI process that potential providers are given as much freedom as is possible to develop their ideas on how best to meet the operational requirements of the magistrates courts committee. The MCC will be able to indicate the broad geographical areas in which court houses should be located, but as far as is possible should refrain from specifying the number of court houses to be provided.

  Consumer Protection
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 10 July,Official Report, column 535, on consumer protection rights, if he will list the members of the working group on rights and duties in respect of representative actions. [9703]

  Mr. Hoon
  Invitations to join the working group have been sent out. Copies of the list of members of the working group will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses as soon as acceptances to invitations have been received and the membership of the group finalised.

  Civil Procedure Rules Committee
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what are the names, qualifications and relevant experience of the members of the Civil Procedure Rules Committee. [8579]

  Mr. Hoon
  The members of the Civil Procedure Rules Committee are:

  Lord Woolf, Master of the Rolls, chairman.

  Sir Richard Scott, Vice-Chancellor

  Mr. Justice Anthony May

  Judge Richard Holman

  District Judge Godfrey Gypps

  Master Harman John Leslie

  Henrietta Manners

  David Foskett QC

  Nicholas Chambers QC

  Peter Howarth

  404

  Peter Watson

  David Greene

  Harriet Kimbell

  Olivia Morrison-Lyons

  Their relevant experience and professional qualifications are as follows:

  Mr. Justice May
  Appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court, Queen's Bench Division in 1991. Presently judge in charge of the Queen's Bench list.

  Judge Holman
  Circuit judge. Appointed as an Assistant Recorder in 1998 and to the Circuit bench in 1994.

  District Judge Gypps
  Appointed as a District Judge in 1991.

  Master Leslie
  Master of the Supreme Court, Queen's Bench Division since 1996.

  Nicholas Chambers QC
  Barrister, called 1966. Mr. Chambers took silk in 1985. He sits as a Recorder and as a deputy High Court judge. He has a general common law practice with a commercial emphasis.

  David Foskett QC
  Barrister, called in 1972. Mr. Foskett took silk in 1991. His professional experience lies in the common law and commercial field, primarily in the Supreme Court. He sits as a Recorder.

  Henrietta Manners
  Barrister with particular experience of practice in county courts. Called in 1981. She has been a member of the County Court Rule Committee since 1991.

  David Greene
  Solicitor, admitted in 1980. Mr. Greene is the senior litigation partner at Messrs Edwin Coe, Solicitors, Lincoln's Inn.

  Peter Watson
  Solicitor, admitted in 1981. Mr. Watson is a partner with Messrs. Allen and Overy, specialising in High Court commercial and administrative law litigation.

  Peter Haworth
  Solicitor with particular experience of practice in county courts. Admitted 1975. Mr. Haworth is a litigation partner with Messrs Southern Cooper, Solicitors, of Burnley Lancashire. He was a part-time chairman of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal from 1986 to 1992. He sits as a deputy district judge.

  Olivia Morrison-Lyons
  Ms Morrison-Lyons was a manager of Camden CAB from 1982–93. She was a member of the Citizens Advice Bureaux Management Committee for 10 years.

  Harriet Kimbell MBE
  Mrs. Kimbell is a non-practising solicitor. She has been a member of the Council of the Consumers Association since 1988 and is now Deputy Chairman. She was a non-executive director of Which? Ltd. from 1990 to 1993 and in 1994–95. She is a principal lecturer at the College of Law where she teaches consumer law.

  Family Law Act 1996
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list those organisations which are funded by his Department to(a) promote marriage, (b) carry out marriage counselling, (c) provide mediation services and (d) carry out research into the

  405
  causes of marital breakdown, giving the total funding in each case and indicating which projects are pilot projects under the Family Law Act 1996. [8786]

  Mr. Hoon
  The tables show my Department's provision of core funding, pilot funding and research funding by way of grant in aid in the current financial year to marriage support and research organisations.

  All projects for the provision of publicly funded mediation services under the Act are the responsibility of the Legal Aid Board. The overall funding commitment is not yet settled as schedules of payment are currently being negotiated with 37 mediation services and solicitors' practices.

  Funding for marriage support and research organisations—1997–98 financial year

  £

  1. RELATE

  1,898,620.00

  2. One Plus One

  167,000.00

  3. Tavistock Marital Studies Institute (TMSI)

  375,435.00

  4. Jewish Marriage Council

  16,912.60

  5. Marriage Care

  263,770.00

  6. Family Welfare Association

  23,458.25

  Funding for marriage support pilot and research projects 1997–98 financial year

  Name

  Project

  Grant £

  RELATE

  Helpline

  58,250.00

  One Plus One

  Marital support to couples with children

  55,570.00

  TMSI

  Psychotherapy at GPs' surgeries

  10,550.00

  Marriage Care

  Helpline, drop-in counselling, marriage preparation

  67,214.00

  Family Welfare Association

  Marriage support for Asian communities, helpline

  72,550.00

  Marriage Resource

  National Marriage Week 1998, media campaign

  126,900.00

  Marriage Resource (Glossop & District)

  Marriage preparation

  11,228.00

  African Caribbean Family Mediation Service (Brixton) and London Marriage Guidance

  Helpline, and drop-in counselling service

  89,190.00

  The Light House (Christian Care Ministry)

  Marriage support

  29,580.00

  One Plus One

  Research project—Review papers to provide resource base for policy development

  79,150.00

  All Souls College Oxford

  Research project—Models of marriage

  42,751.00

  Total

  642,933

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the proposed commencement dates of each section of the Family Law Act 1996; and if he will make a statement. [8787]

  Mr. Hoon
  Sections 65 and 67 came into force on the passing of the Act.
  406
  On 21 March 1997, the following provisions came into force:

  (a) part I (principles of Part II and III);

  (b) section 22 (marriage support services);

  (c) part III (legal aid for mediation in family matters);

  (d) section 66(1) (minor and consequential amendments) so far as it relates to part II of schedule 8; and

  (e) section 66(3) (repeals) so far as it relates to the entry in schedule 10 in respect of the Legal Aid Act 1988(b).

  With the exception of section 60, part IV will commence on 1 October 1997.

  There is not yet a proposed commencement date for the remainder of parts II, IV and V.

  Medical Negligence
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many medical negligence cases have been(a) commenced and (b) finalised under the Birmingham county court medical negligence cases pilot scheme; and if he will make a statement. [8586]

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

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Andrew Dismore, dated 21 July 1997:
  The Parliamentary Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about the medical negligence cases pilot scheme at Birmingham County Court.
  Since the scheme began on 1 October 1996 one case has commenced and none has been finalised.

  Divorce Settlements, Scotland
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Ancillary Relief has made of the applicability to England and Wales of the system of divorce settlements, which currently operates in Scotland. [8790]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor's Advisory Group on Ancillary Relief discussed the extension of the Scottish system of financial provision on divorce to England and Wales at a meeting at the end of May 1996. At that meeting, the group concluded that it was not in a position to undertake a more comprehensive review. The Lord Chancellor's Department is assessing how further consideration can now most effectively be given to this matter.

HEALTH

  Primary Care Legislation
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement setting out the timetable he will now be following to introduce the pilot schemes under primary care legislation. [6748]

  Mr. Milburn
  We propose to establish a range of pilots concerned with improving the direct provision of personal medical services from 1 April 1998. In order to give everyone equal opportunity to consider how local
  407
  initiatives can be best taken forward, we have extended the closing date by which formal applications have to be with health authorities by one month. We also propose to establish a number of personal dental services pilots in October 1998 to test new ways of delivering primary care dentistry and addressing local oral health priorities.

  The revised timetable for the implementation of the personal medical services pilots is given in the table.

  Closing date

  Formal applications for salaried service employment and practice based contracts, which have been consulted on, to be with health authorities by

  1 November 1997

  Notification of approval from the Secretary of State

  December 1997

  Negotiations of local contracts

  December—March 1998

  Pilots for salaried service employment and practice based contracts to begin

  1 April 1998

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department collates on the sums of money held at the year end by each fundholding practice. [7725]

  Mr. Milburn
  Fundholding practices' saving balances are published in their fund accounts. The Department draws on this information as necessary, but does not routinely collate it at practice level.

  Benzodiazepines
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will carry out an inquiry into the number of people in England and Wales involuntarily addicted to benzodiazepines; and if he will make a statement. [8498]

  Mr. Milburn
  There are currently no plans to carry out such an inquiry. The principal focus of the Department's action in this area has been to try to prevent addiction occurring by warning general practitioners and other prescribers of the dangers of involuntary addiction to benzodiazepines. The Department funds a number of publications that are available to general practitioners, pharmacists and other health professionals—for instance, the British National Formulary and a Medicines Resource Centre monthly bulletin, which give information on the treatment of various conditions and the drugs involved in such treatment.

  In 1994, the Department agreed to fund a helpline run by the Council for Involuntary Tranquilliser Addiction, a voluntary organisation which aims to support those who wish to withdraw from tranquillisers and sleeping tablets. CITA was provided with funding of £10,000 in 1994–95, £10,000 in 1995–96 and £10,000 in 1996–97. In addition, the Department continues to fund the mental health charity MIND, which operates local self-help groups for people dependent on tranquillisers.

  Family Planning
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list each health authority's expenditure 408
  plans in respect of family planning for the current financial year, indicating the percentage difference from expenditure in the previous financial year. [8848]

  Ms Jowell
  Information on the detail of health authority expenditure plans is not collected centrally. Information on expenditure by trusts and directly managed units is available and figures for 1994–95 and 1995–96, the latest years for which data are available, have been placed in the Library.

  Public Health Initiatives
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the public health initiatives planned by his Department(a) in Stoke-on-Trent, North and (b) nationally. [8877]

  Ms Jowell
  In Stoke-on-Trent, North, the health authority has established a locality approach to developing healthy communities through involving a wide range of statutory and local community organisations. The report of the director of public health this year will focus on "determinants of health". A wide range of public health initiatives is already under way in North Staffordshire, and many more have been identified as priorities by the health authority for 1997–98.

  Key priorities include:
  Implementation of the coronary heart disease strategy—a priority for 1997–98 as identified in the Health Authority's health strategy and investment plan;
  Continuation of the Aspirin project, to reduce stroke and heart attacks, in primary care—which has already achieved 60 per cent. coverage of eligible practice populations in 1996–97;
  Strategy for healthy eating—December 1997;
  Review of existing initiatives aimed at helping people to stop/not take up smoking, and identifying action to meet any "gaps";
  Development and implementation of a stroke action plan to be based on GRIP kits—getting research into practice—to provide cost-effective care and to maximise clinical effectiveness, planned for autumn 1997;
  Strategy for promotion of physical exercise;
  Action plan to develop drug and alcohol services—review and agree action to co-ordinate use of HIV and substance misuse funds;
  Multi-agency action plan to promote sexual health, especially for young people;
  Multi-agency accident prevention steering group which is developing a strategy—autumn 1997.

  Additional points include:
  The appointment of a healthy cities co-ordinator—a joint appointment between the health and local authority through their "healthy alliances" links—who will look at public health initiatives across the board;
  Single regeneration bid-funded initiatives—for instance, in 1997–98: community development worker for Biddulph, citizens advice bureau youth advice worker for Bentilee and Berryhill, urban villages community partnership based at Newcastle under Lyme.

  Nationally, the Government will be taking forward the public health agenda across a broad front. I outlined the scope of our new health strategy "Our Healthier Nation" on 7 July; copies of my speech are available in the Library. In the autumn, we shall publish a Green Paper setting out the strategy in detail. Many Government policies will contribute to improving public health, such as welfare to work, education policies and the integrated

  409
  transport strategy. The Department of Health is working closely with the other Departments involved, as it is in partnership with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on developing the food standards agency. In the autumn, we shall publish a White Paper on measures to reduce smoking and draft Bill to ban tobacco advertising. Healthy living centres and health action zones will also address public health issues.

  Microbiological Research
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a copy of the submissions made to him under the quinquennial review from the Microbiological Research Authority Board and the management of the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research; and if he will make a statement. [9096]

  Ms Jowell
  The management of the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research will send a copy of the final submission to the hon. Member when it is ready. This may take another week or so.

  My announcement of the review of the centre mentioned that the views of the key organisations and individuals would be sought. Letters of consultation have now been sent out. A scientific team including expert external members will visit the centre at the end of this month to assess the research work commissioned by the

  Table 1: Maternities in England by multiplicity 1990–96

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Twins

  7,533

  7,739

  7,888

  7,896

  8,014

  8,320

  8,166

  Triplets

  190

  201

  193

  225

  249

  266

  246

  Quadruplets

  9

  10

  8

  11

  8

  6

  8

  Quintuplets

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sextuplets

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Septuplets

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics.

  Table 2: Pregnancies conceived from 1990 to 1994 through IVF or Donor Insemination

  Singleton

  Twin

  Triplet greater

  Quad or more

  IVF clinical pregnancies (includes frozen embryo transfer and ISCI)

  19901

  1,404

  411

  69

  1

  19912

  1,491

  503

  75

  1

  1992

  2,109

  709

  118

  0

  1993

  2,807

  847

  148

  1

  1994

  3,064

  1,009

  197

  3

  1995

  To be published in 1997 annual report

  Notes:

  1 Data collected by OPCS for the Interim Licensing Authority.

  2 Data for 1 January 1991 to 31 July 1991 collected by OPCS 1 August 1991 to 31 December 1991 collected by the HFEA.

  Figures provided for UK as a whole.

  Donor insemination clinical pregnancies (includes GIFT with donor sperm).

  Source:

  HFEA.
  410
  Department at the centre. The main research funding bodies have also been invited to comment. A number of management consultancy organisations have submitted tenders for the work of assessing options for the future of the centre. Those tenders are currently being evaluated and consultants will be commissioned to begin work by the end of this month.

  I will make a further statement when there are substantial findings to report, and will place copies of the summary of the review report in the Library in due course.

  Multiple Births
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many sets of(a) twins, (b) triplets, (c) quadruplets, (d) quintuplets and (e) sextuplets were born in England in each year since 1990; and how many multiple births in each category were conceived as a result of (i) in vitro fertilisation, (ii) gamete intra-fallopian transfer and (iii) other forms of assisted conception. [8175]

  Ms Jowell
  The information is not available in the form requested. The number of multiple maternities in England for the period 1990 to 1996 is shown in table 1.

  Details of pregnancies achieved and births in the UK for the same period as the result of in vitro fertilisation or donor insemination, including gamete intra-fallopian transfer, are shown in tables 2 to 5.

  Table 3: Pregnancies conceived from 1990 to 1994 through IVF or Donor Insemination

  Singleton

  Twin

  Triplet greater

  Quad or more

  IVF Live births events (includes frozen embryo transfer and ICSI)

  1990

  No figures available

  1991

  No figures available

  1992

  1,592

  627

  99

  0

  1993

  2,164

  790

  134

  1

  1994

  2,376

  929

  170

  2

  1995

  To be published in 1997 annual report (October 1997)

  Source:

  HFEA.

  Note:

  Figures provided for UK as a whole.

  Donor insemination live birth events (includes GIFT with donor sperm).

  Table 4

  Singleton

  Twin

  Triple greater

  Quad or more

  1990

  No data available

  19911

  545

  31

  3

  0

  1992

  1,527

  93

  10

  1

  411

  Table 4

  Singleton

  Twin

  Triplet greater

  Quad or more

  1993

  1,678

  123

  218

  1994

  1,838

  110

  17

  1

  1995

  To be published in 1997 annual report (October 1997)

  Notes:

  1 Data available from 1 August 1991 to 31 December 1991 only. Prior to 1 August 1991 data were collected by the OPCS and did not include Donor Insemination data.

  2 Includes three clinical pregnancies/live birth events which were reported as "triplet or greater".

  Figures provided for UK as a whole.

  Source:

  HFEA.

  Table 5

  Singleton

  Twin

  Triplet greater

  Quad or more

  1990

  No figures available

  1991

  No figures available

  1992

  1,212

  83

  10

  1

  1993

  1,387

  112

  118

  1994

  1,549

  105

  16

  1

  1995

  To be published in 1997 annual report (October 1997)

  Note:

  1 Includes three clinical pregnancies/live birth events which were reported as "triplet or greater".

  Source

  HFEA

  Figures provided for UK as a whole.

  Chief Medical Officer (Stockport)
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people work for the chief medical officer in Stockport health authority; and what is the average figure for similar-sized health authorities. [8694]

  Mr. Milburn
  The director of public health in Stockport is supported by a team of three consultants in public health medicine, two trainees on rotation and three and a half—whole-time equivalent—secretarial-support staff. This team has developed an extensive network of links with, for example, NHS trusts, the local authority, other government agencies and voluntary organisations, which contributes to health promotion and activities and public health issues. There are no comparable figures available for other authorities.

  Eyesight Tests
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many free domiciliary sight test visits there were in(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94, (c) 1994–95 and (d) 1995–96, broken down by health authority. [8828]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information is given in the table. It reveals marked variations between years for some authorities for which no explanation was provided. This suggests that some returns may not have been audited and some data for individual authorities may be subject to error.
  412

  Number of domiciliary sight tests paid for by FHSAs in England

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Cleveland

  2,050

  2,150

  2,380

  2,510

  Cumbria

  690

  870

  1,080

  1,080

  Durham

  2,950

  3,100

  3,330

  3,710

  Northumberland

  1,400

  1,560

  1,700

  1,550

  Gateshead

  460

  950

  940

  1,420

  Newcastle

  890

  920

  1,540

  2,100

  North Tyneside

  800

  1,030

  810

  820

  South Tyneside

  530

  530

  580

  800

  Sunderland

  1,100

  1,220

  1,610

  1,480

  Humberside

  2,340

  2,720

  3,210

  3,780

  North Yorkshire

  1,140

  1,210

  1,850

  2,280

  Bradford

  1,440

  2,060

  2,680

  3,110

  Calderdale

  460

  510

  270

  810

  Kirklees

  1,280

  1,400

  1,580

  1,560

  Leeds

  5,490

  4,760

  3,990

  3,440

  Wakefield

  1,050

  1,150

  1,350

  1,470

  Derbyshire

  3,330

  3,420

  4,180

  3,880

  Leicestershire

  1,580

  2,360

  3,210

  3,580

  Lincolnshire

  1,460

  2,200

  2,150

  2,420

  Nottinghamshire

  2,700

  2,960

  4,080

  5,060

  Barnsley

  960

  880

  690

  1,310

  Doncaster

  780

  790

  730

  1,140

  Rotherham

  750

  710

  1,100

  1,180

  Sheffield

  1,710

  1,840

  2,380

  3,130

  Cambridgeshire

  540

  1,350

  1,420

  670

  Norfolk

  2,860

  3,170

  3,780

  4,080

  Suffolk

  1,270

  1,480

  2,010

  2,580

  Bedfordshire

  900

  1,010

  1,330

  1,470

  Hertfordshire

  2,820

  3,050

  4,490

  5,030

  Barnet

  1,150

  1,260

  2,140

  2,090

  Brent and Harrow

  1,260

  1,530

  1,690

  2,790

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  1,350

  1,670

  2,490

  2,150

  Hillingdon

  420

  460

  950

  930

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  2,910

  1,350

  1,630

  830

  Essex

  6,560

  7,330

  8,210

  8,010

  Barking and Havering

  970

  970

  1,590

  2,230

  Camden and Islington

  1,390

  1,550

  2,420

  2,200

  City and East London

  3,390

  3,600

  4,970

  4,690

  Enfield and Haringey

  1,130

  1,490

  2,040

  2,990

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  1,810

  1,580

  2,320

  2,170

  East Sussex

  4,350

  4,190

  4,600

  4,590

  Kent

  2,850

  4,140

  5,310

  6,740

  Greenwich and Bexley

  630

  870

  1,350

  1,460

  Bromley

  610

  1,370

  1,990

  1,530

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  3,170

  3,640

  4,790

  6,740

  Surrey

  2,190

  1,970

  2,370

  3,230

  West Sussex

  1,440

  1,750

  1,810

  2,260

  Croydon

  630

  1,150

  20

  40

  Kingston and Richmond

  620

  580

  780

  1,130

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  1,290

  1,600

  2,590

  3,490

  Dorset

  6,250

  8,430

  7,020

  3,250

  Hampshire

  3,140

  4,310

  5,220

  4,820

  Wiltshire

  2,620

  1,330

  1,330

  1,560

  Isle of Wight

  210

  260

  280

  220

  Berkshire

  1,070

  1,010

  1,390

  1,780

  Buckinghamshire

  350

  400

  830

  1,030

  Northamptonshire

  1,260

  1,910

  1,830

  2,280

  Oxfordshire

  910

  650

  980

  1,110

  Avon

  2,430

  2,740

  3,270

  3,900

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  910

  730

  1,350

  1,770

  Devon

  2,900

  3,570

  5,200

  6,700

  Gloucestershire

  1,260

  1,600

  1,650

  1,990

  Somerset

  810

  820

  1,280

  1,840

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,170

  1,570

  2,260

  2,830

  Shropshire

  820

  990

  1,270

  1,340

  413

  Number of domiciliary sight tests paid for by FHSAs in England

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Staffordshire

  1,470

  2,300

  3,200

  3,510

  Warwickshire

  1,140

  1,600

  1,260

  1,930

  Birmingham

  4,610

  2,400

  5,150

  5,720

  Coventry

  2,040

  1,770

  2,510

  3,510

  Dudley

  940

  1,470

  1,600

  1,480

  Sandwell

  2,250

  1,740

  1,620

  1,590

  Solihull

  350

  330

  270

  410

  Walsall

  870

  1,180

  870

  1,020

  Wolverhampton

  880

  860

  990

  1,210

  Cheshire

  1,450

  2,590

  2,160

  3,260

  Liverpool

  2,050

  3,400

  3,200

  3,560

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  750

  1,220

  1,820

  2,030

  Sefton

  1,410

  2,000

  2,010

  2,330

  Wirral

  1,240

  1,110

  1,120

  1,240

  Lancashire

  3,510

  6,510

  7,740

  9,420

  Bolton

  710

  1,020

  1,110

  1,340

  Bury

  390

  950

  1,000

  1,120

  Manchester

  1,570

  2,490

  3,260

  3,420

  Oldham

  470

  610

  720

  980

  Rochdale

  220

  770

  920

  980

  Salford

  8,200

  1,260

  1,620

  1,700

  Stockport

  490

  730

  790

  730

  Tameside

  360

  870

  1,130

  1,120

  Trafford

  910

  1,570

  1,510

  1,630

  Wigan

  2,080

  940

  1,090

  1,130

  Total England

  152,260

  167,380

  200,310

  222,500

  Source:

  SBE515.

  Basildon and Thurrock General Hospitals NHS Trust
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 9 July,Official Report, column 504, what was the nature of the work carried out by Drivers Jonas in respect of Orsett hospital. [8979]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information about the exact nature of the work carried out by the chartered surveyors Drivers Jonas in respect of Orsett hospital is not held centrally. However, the recent executive letter EL(97)35 "Making Available Information about PFI Projects" gave notice and guidance to trust and health and authority chief executives on requests for information on their private finance initiative schemes.

  Provided the information is not commercially sensitive and its release is consistent with the EL, the information should be obtainable from the chief executive of the trust. Copies of the EL (97)35 have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 9 July,Official Report, column 505, from whom the remuneration committee of the Basildon and Thurrock General Hospitals NHS trust board receives advice as to the appropriate pay, conditions and bonuses to be paid to its directors. [8980]

  Mr. Milburn
  Guidance on the role of the remuneration committee was issued to trust chief executives in national health service executive letter EL(94)40 on the codes of conduct and accountability. The NHS executive has also issued guidance (TEL(94)2 and TEL(95)1) to all NHS trusts on the principles and procedures to apply when considering severance payments to general and senior managers on short-term rolling contracts. Copies of all the guidance have been 414
  placed in the Library. Subject to these provisions, it is a matter for the remuneration committee to decide who it should take advice from.

  Alcohol Abuse
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost of alcohol abuse to the United Kingdom economy. [9218]

  Ms Jowell
  The most recent academic study of which we are aware estimated the cost of sickness absence to industry in England and Wales in 1992 as a result of alcohol misuse at £1,059.2 million.(Source: Godfrey, C. and Hardman, G. Changing the Social Costs of Alcohol. Final report to the Alcohol Education and Research Council. York: Centre for Health Economics, 1994.)

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library copies of each of the PFI bids for NHS facilities as produced by each of the health care providers involved. [9873]

  Mr. Milburn
  The recent NHS executive letter EL(97)35 "Making Available Information about PFI Projects" gave notice and guidance to trust and health authority chief executives on requests for information on their PFI schemes. Copies of the letter have been placed in the Library.

  Provided the information is not commercially sensitive and its release is consistent with the EL, the information should be obtainable from the chief executives of the trusts.

  Insulin Pen Needles
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 12 June,Official Report, column 530, when he expects to have completed consideration of whether general practitioners should be allowed to prescribe insulin injection pen needles on the national health service. [9546]

  Mr. Milburn
  It is not possible to give an estimate at this stage in our consideration.

  HIV-AIDS
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new HIV infections there have been in England and Wales among(a) intravenous drug-users, (b) heterosexuals and (c) homosexuals in the age groups (1) 16 to 25, (2) 26 to 35, (3) 36 to 45, (4) 46 to 55 and (5) over 55s by health authority (i) each year since 1985 and (ii) in total; if he will list the year-on-year change in each group in percentage terms; and if he will make a statement about the Government's targeting of HIV-AIDS prevention materials. [9222]

  Ms Jowell
  Tables showing diagnosed HIV infections reported to the public health laboratory service communicable disease surveillance centre, based on data to the end of June 1997, have been placed in the Library. Individuals often do not seek testing unless they believe themselves to be at risk or develop symptoms; hence reported HIV infections underestimate the true number of cases. In addition, these figures are subject to under-reporting.
  415
  Data are given by region because presenting data by health authorities may enable deductive disclosure about individuals in low-prevalence areas and health authorities boundaries have changed over time. Tables showing year on year percentage changes by probable exposure category, age group and region have been prepared.

  National health promotion campaigns for HIV-AIDS are targeted in line with the UK Health Department's strategy, "HIV and AIDS Health Promotion: An Evolving Strategy", November 1995. This emphasised the need for better targeting of vulnerable groups as well as the need to inform the general population about the continuing potential risks from HIV. The strategy identified vulnerable groups as gay men—in particular, young gay men—bisexuals and other men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, men and women who travel to or have links with high prevalence countries, currently those in sub-Saharan Africa, and women partners of men in these groups.

  In line with the strategy, main Department of Health contracts for national HIV-AIDS health promotion work are with:

  (a) the Terrence Higgins Trust: to undertake through community-based groups, targeted HIV-AIDS health promotion work for gay and bisexual men in England.

  (b) the Health Education Authority: to undertake health promotion work for the general population.

  In addition, the Department is currently developing a national programme of HIV-AIDS health promotion work for sub-Saharan African communities living in England.

  Guidance issued by the Department to health authorities on the use of ring-fenced HIV prevention funds stresses the need for locally targeted HIV prevention and health promotion programmes aimed at the groups identified in the evolving strategy.

  The Government have encouraged the development of needle and syringe exchange schemes in order to reduce the harm caused by injecting drugs, in particular the risk of transmitting blood-born viruses. Guidance issued to health and local authorities in March 1997 asked commissioners to address the needs of injecting drug misusers as a priority, by ensuring that they have access to needle and syringe exchanges and appropriate treatment services.

  Hospital Trust Mergers (West Sussex)
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to merge hospital trusts in West Sussex. [9600]

  Mr. Milburn
  No proposals for merger have come forward from hospital trusts in West Sussex.

  Asthma
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes have occurred in the incidence of asthma in children over the past 20 years; what regional variations apply; and what assessment his Department has made of the causes of increases in the incidence of asthma. [9875]
  416
  Ms Jowell
  The table shows the mean weekly incidence of new general practitioner episodes of asthma in children per 100,000 of the population in England for each year since 1977. The data are collected from individual practices, and are not collated on a regional basis. It is therefore not possible to provide a regional breakdown. The figures show a clear increase over three decades up to the early 1990s. Although increasing awareness of asthma may have contributed to part of this rise, it does appear likely that part is due to an actual growth in the prevalence of the disease. However, it is still not known what causes asthma or what accounts for this rise.

  Nevertheless, there has been a decline in general practitioner episodes of asthma since 1993, suggesting that the previously rising incidence of asthma has abated. This may reflect more effective treatment and higher-quality medical care. The Department of Health remains committed to tackling the burden of asthma on those who suffer from it, and continues to fund research into its causes.

  Age group

  0–4

  5–14

  19771

  13.7

  15.1

  19781

  26.6

  23.4

  1979

  33.0

  25.6

  1980

  31.6

  28.8

  1981

  31.3

  32.7

  1982

  32.2

  31.5

  1983

  35.4

  35.7

  1984

  52.4

  36.5

  1985

  57.1

  43.4

  1986

  52.4

  41.1

  1987

  74.4

  58.9

  1988

  102.4

  68.7

  1989

  92.9

  66.3

  1990

  108.4

  71.0

  1991

  145.9

  89.4

  1992

  147.8

  84.2

  1993

  152.6

  90.2

  1994

  137.4

  89.2

  1995

  108.9

  73.7

  1996

  104.7

  63.7

  Note:

  1 Data for 1977 and 1978 are not directly comparable with data for subsequent years as the International Classification of Disease (ICD codes) used to extract asthma data were changed in 1978.

  Source:

  Royal College of General Practitioners Weekly Returns Service.

  Male Fertility
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the estimated reduction in the male sperm count in the United Kingdom over the last 10 years; what research his Department has(a) evaluated and (b) commissioned into the factors causing change; and what international comparisons his Department has made. [9874]

  Ms Jowell
  Some of the recent research from the United Kingdom and other countries has suggested a decline in sperm count, but overall the results are inconsistent and there is no scientific consensus.
  417
  Data on semen quality are not collected routinely and arise principally from sources such as tests in infertility clinics or prospective research studies from disparate laboratories whose methods of analysis and reporting may be of doubtful consistency or comparability. This reflects a continuing problem of standardisation in semen analysis, which has not yet been resolved. The same difficulty applies to reports of substantial differences in quality and trends between countries and between areas within countries.

  The Department does not currently fund research in this area. The main agency through which the Government have supported research in this area is the Medical Research Council. Recently, two projects have been funded. These are:

  1. "Has male fertility been declining—a population survey of Time to Pregnancy" (Imperial College School of Medicine at St. Mary's). This was completed on 31 March 1997.

  2. "Environmental oestrogens and the central pulse generator controlling reproduction: a novel approach to critical issue" (King's College, London). This is due to be completed at the end of February 1999.

  The Department is planning a joint three or four-year programme of research, with the Health and Safety Executive and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The programme will look at trends in male reproductive health and the possible influences of occupational or environmental exposure to chemicals.

  Respite Care
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to vary levels of funding for respite care. [8910]

  Mr. Boateng
  No sums are specifically earmarked for respite care within the total community care funding that local authorities receive. Support for carers is an integral part of community care and authorities are expected to provide an appropriate range of respite and other support services. However, the precise level and type of services locally are a matter for individual authorities to determine in the light of local needs and priorities.

SCOTLAND

  Procurators Fiscal
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, for each sheriff court area in Scotland, the number of cases reported by the police to the procurator fiscal over the most recent 12-month period indicating the number of cases(a) where no action was taken, (b) where prosecution took place and (c) where a conviction was achieved. [9003]

  Mr. McLeish
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has provided the following table listing the number of cases reported, the number of cases marked 418
  "no proceedings", the number of cases marked for an alternative to prosecution and the number of cases proceeding to prosecution in respect of each procurator fiscal office for the 12-month period to 31 May 1997.

  Statistics about reports received by procurators fiscal are collected by reference to individual procurator fiscal office and not by reference to sheriff court area. The statistics on the cases reported to the procurator fiscal do not distinguish between those reported by the police and those reported by the many other agencies that report offences for consideration of proceedings. The procurator fiscal service does not collect statistics on the number of convictions achieved.

  Procurator Fiscal Service, 1 June 1996–31 May 1997

  Reports received

  Reports marked "no proceedings"

  Reports marked for alternative to prosecution

  Reports proceeding to prosecution

  Aberdeen

  13,732

  882

  1,225

  11,625

  Airdrie

  7,694

  891

  1,602

  5,201

  Alloa

  2,257

  464

  321

  1,472

  Arbroath

  2,606

  216

  424

  1,966

  Ayr

  8,505

  1,062

  1,654

  5,789

  Banff

  1,114

  158

  233

  723

  Campbeltown

  669

  80

  239

  350

  Cupar

  1,879

  318

  439

  1,122

  Dingwall

  1,791

  219

  236

  1,336

  Dornoch

  408

  77

  70

  261

  Dumbarton

  8,032

  1,199

  1,567

  5,266

  Dumfries

  6,296

  819

  960

  4,517

  Dundee

  10,118

  1,165

  1,086

  7,867

  Dunfermline

  5,564

  705

  835

  4,024

  Dunoon

  1,180

  163

  294

  723

  Duns

  818

  51

  72

  695

  Edinburgh

  26,980

  3,210

  2,905

  20,865

  Elgin

  3,364

  510

  489

  2,365

  Falkirk

  7,243

  1,137

  1,387

  4,719

  Forfar

  1,753

  154

  319

  1,280

  Fort William

  1,565

  96

  263

  1,206

  Glasgow

  65,328

  8,986

  15,056

  41,286

  Greenock

  6,268

  796

  1,404

  4,068

  Haddington

  2,795

  385

  394

  2,016

  Hamilton

  17,772

  2,315

  3,458

  11,999

  Inverness

  6,908

  1,205

  2,157

  3,546

  Jedburgh

  1,746

  94

  142

  1,510

  Kilmarnock

  10,146

  1,289

  1,758

  7,099

  Kirkcaldy

  6,473

  847

  1,033

  4,593

  Kirkcudbright

  1,636

  144

  286

  1,206

  Kirkwall

  767

  50

  199

  518

  Lanark

  3,973

  376

  672

  2,925

  Lerwick

  833

  94

  87

  652

  Linlithgow

  6,256

  900

  1,062

  4,294

  Lochmaddy

  227

  35

  37

  155

  Oban

  1,081

  127

  212

  742

  Paisley

  10,079

  1,474

  1,593

  7,012

  Peebles

  180

  34

  29

  117

  Perth

  6,756

  959

  942

  4,855

  Peterhead

  2,908

  277

  702

  1,929

  Portree

  495

  65

  135

  295

  Rothesay

  275

  18

  36

  221

  Selkirk

  1,972

  258

  355

  1,359

  Stirling

  4,576

  685

  848

  3,043

  Stonehaven

  2,521

  121

  384

  2,016

  Stornoway

  1,171

  142

  194

  835

  Stranraer

  2,272

  253

  173

  1,846

  Tain

  1,203

  245

  283

  675

  Wick

  1,195

  151

  190

  854

  Totals

  281,380

  35,901

  50,441

  195,038

  Homosexuals (Age of Consent)
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Crown Office's policy on prosecution for consensual homosexual acts involving males between the ages of 16 and 18 years. [9219]

  Mr. McLeish
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is responsible for the prosecution of crime in Scotland. He informs me that he considers that the public interest is not served by routinely prosecuting all persons who participate in private consensual homosexual acts, which are unlawful by reason of the fact that one or both are under 18 years.

  The Lord Advocter had directed procurators fiscal to report to the Crown Office for Crown counsel's consideration cases of consensual homosexual acts in private where both the participants are over 16 years but one or both are under 18 years.

  This is consistent with the approach taken by the Lord Advocate's predecessors in office since February 1994 when an identical direction was issued to procurators fiscal by the then Lord Advocate.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Vehicle Excise Duty (Disabled Drivers)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what reasons underlie(a) the entitlement of recipients of the higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance to exemption from vehicle excise duty and (b) the non-entitlement of people with mobility difficulties in receipt of attendance allowance to such exemption. [8829]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The basis for entitlement to exemption from vehicle excise duty for those in receipt of the higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance is severe mobility need which may require some form of private transport. Provision is focused on those disabled before the age of 65. However, those in receipt of attendance allowance are entitled to VED exemption under transitional protection arrangements if their application for exemption was approved before 13 October 1993.

  Radioactive Materials (Transportation)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 14 July,Official Report, column 16, how many movements of radioactive material (a) have occurred through the channel tunnel since its opening and (b) have passed through each south coast port in each year since 1990. [9209]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department does not hold information of the kind requested.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 14 July,Official Report, column 15, on the transportation of radioactive materials, what estimate he
  420
  has made of the proportion of the flights on which the radioactive material carried was (a) high level and (b) intermediate level. [9210]

  Ms Jackson
  It is estimated that less than 5 per cent. of such flights carry packages of radioactive material containing in excess of the quantities previously referred to. For transport purposes, the terms high level and intermediate level radioactive material are undefined.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions how many crashes have occurred involving road vehicles carrying radioactive material in the United Kingdom in each year since 1985. [9205]

  Ms Jackson
  The number of such crashes notified to the Department are:

  Number

  1985

  4

  1986

  1

  1987

  2

  1988

  5

  1989

  2

  1990

  0

  1991

  2

  1992

  1

  1993

  1

  1994

  1

  1995

  3

  1996

  1

  19971

  0

  Total

  23

  1 To date

  In none of these crashes was there any loss of radioactive material from any package.

  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many flights carrying mixed oxide fuel will pass from Carlisle airport over the Lancaster and Wyre constituency(a) from 1 July 1997 to 31 December 1997, (b) in 1998 and (c) in 1999. [9654]

  Ms Jackson
  British Nuclear Fuels informs me that none will.

  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on safety in respect of the proposed increase in the number of mixed oxide fuel flights from Carlisle airport in 1998. [9656]

  Ms Jackson
  I am informed by British Nuclear Fuels that no increases are planned.

  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many flights carrying mixed oxide fuel from Carlisle airport passed over the Lancaster and Wyre constituency(a) in 1996 and (b) from 1 January to 30 June 1997. [9655]

  Ms Jackson
  British Nuclear Fuels informs me that there was none.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each year since 1985 the incidents where(a) chemicals and (b) radioactive material have been lost overboard (i) in UK waters and (ii) elsewhere from UK-registered

  421
  ships, giving for each instance the location, the chemicals or materials involved and the amounts subsequently recovered. [9207]

  Ms Jackson
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, the table gives a summary of major incidents since 1985 involving the loss of packages

  Name of ship

  Date

  Nature or incident

  Area affected

  Filia Sea

  March 1987

  Packages lost from general cargo ship and washed ashore

  East Anglia

  Ardlough

  September 1988

  Containers lost from sunken general cargo ship and washed ashore

  Cumbria and Lancashire

  Wessertal

  October 1990

  Tank containers lost from deck of ro-ro ferry

  Southern North sea

  Perintis

  March 1989

  Package containing pesticide lost from sunken general cargo ship

  English channel

  Fathulkhair

  February 1990

  Canister of potassium cyanide lost from deck of freighter and washed ashore

  Kent and Sussex

  Nordic Pride

  May 1991

  Deck cargo lost from ro-ro ferry and washed ashore, resulting in the evacuation of the local population

  Norfolk

  Tokio Express

  February 1997

  Containers lost from container ship and washed ashore.

  Cornwall

  Channel Tunnel (Safety)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the classes of material banned from passage through the channel tunnel for reasons of public safety. [9206]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Channel Tunnel Intergovernmental Commission, on the advice of the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority, has approved a carriage list of dangerous goods allowed through the channel tunnel. Three classes of dangerous goods are excluded from the list: class 4.2—substances liable to spontaneous combustion; class 4.3—substances which in contact with water emit flammable gases; class 5.2—organic peroxides.

  Minister for Roads
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on which occasions the Minister for Roads has met(a) Mr. Des Wilson of BAA and (b) other representatives of BAA, since her appointment. [9208]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  None.

  Thames Gateway
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to make an announcement on the Government's overall transport priorities for the Thames gateway area. [9946]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Our manifesto recognised the need for modern transport links to enhance accessibility and support regeneration within the Thames gateway. We are reviewing options and priorities and hope to report our conclusion later in the year.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the proposed high-tech bus link between Greenwich and Thamesmead. [9947]

  Ms Jackson
  None. I understand that London Transport has made a preliminary study of the Thamesmead-Greenwich area following a review of the 422
  containing dangerous or harmful goods from ships operating in UK waters. This information has been provided by the Advisory Committee on the Protection of the Sea.

  potential for new forms of public transport in outer London. London Transport is working with local authorities to develop proposals.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will provide financial support for the proposed Thames gateway metro; [9911]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the proposed new tunnelled rail crossing linking the North London line in the royal docks with the North Kent line at Woolwich Arsenal; and if he will make a statement; [9910]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the regeneration potential of the proposed Thames gateway metro. [9945]

  Ms Jackson
  A study of the Woolwich rail tunnel, the potential for Thames gateway metro services and the regeneration benefits these may offer is being undertaken for my Department as part of a study of potential new east Thames river crossings. I expect this to be completed by the autumn. Consideration of these proposals will be made in the light of the study's findings and our fundamental review of transport policy. Regeneration benefits of the Thames gateway metro will be examined using the appraisal framework my Department is developing.

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what environmental assessment he has made of the proposed east London river crossing. [9948]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Revocation orders for the east London river crossing were published on 26 March. At the same time, an alignment was safeguarded for a multi-modal crossing between Beckton and Thamesmead, which is being promoted by London Docklands development corporation and Thamesmead Town Ltd. They have undertaken an initial appraisal of the new crossing's environmental impacts; further assessment is planned using an appraisal framework that is being developed by my Department.

  Coach Safety
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he
  423
  is taking to ensure that children are not carried in the United Kingdom on coaches that do not have seat belts fitted. [9793]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Children who are taken on organised trips in newer coaches in Britain already have to be provided with a seat belt. From 10 February next year, seat belts will also have to be provided for children in older coaches first used before 1 October 1988. Similar arrangements will apply in Northern Ireland from 1 September this year. Enforcement of these regulations is a matter for the police.

  A564 Derby (Footbridge)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the estimated cost to date of providing a footbridge, new vehicular access and associated works across and adjacent to the A564 Derby southern bypass to serve Tynefield court and mews, Etwell; and what is the budget for these works. [9147]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The estimated cost is £385,000—the same as the budget.

  Trains (Disabled Persons)
  Ms Kingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which railway operating companies do not permit disabled people's trikes to be carried on their trains; and when each introduced that prohibition. [9466]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This information is not held by the Department. We understand, however, that a ban on the carriage of scooters and larger powered wheelchairs is applied by the majority of train operating companies. A similar ban was operated pre-privatisation by British Rail.

  The Department's statutory advisers, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, has examined the ban on a number of occasions. It shares the industry's concerns about the stability and manoeuvrability of scooters and has supported the train operating companies' ban. The committee recognises that larger powered vehicles that are designed to give local outdoor mobility are simply too large to be accommodated on public transport.

  The regulations we will be making under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 will ensure that wheelchairs constructed to international standard dimensions can be accommodated on new trains. In the meantime, we have been holding discussions with wheelchair manufacturers with the aim of establishing a marking protocol which would indicate to disabled people the suitability of manual and powered wheelchairs for use on public transport to help them make informed choices.

  Port of London Authority
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what piloting experience on the River Thames the Chief Harbour Master of the Port of London authority possesses. [9293]
  424
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Chief Harbour Master of the Port of London authority is appointed by the board and his qualifications and experience are a matter for them. The Port of London Act 1968 requires that one member of the board appointed by the Secretary of State"shall be a person with wide experience of navigation (including the command of sea-going ships, pilotage and navigational aids)".
  This position is currently filled by a former deputy master and chairman of Trinity House.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the safety implications of reductions in the number of pilots in service in the Port of London authority. [9292]

  Ms Jackson
  I refer to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond), on 1 July,Official Report, column 102.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Government plan to exercise the voting rights pertaining to their residual shareholding at the forthcoming annual general meeting of Railtrack. [8892]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 15 July 1997]: No. The Government hold only 0.8 per cent. of Railtrack's shares. Our most effective way of influencing the company is through improved regulation of the rail industry, on which we are currently reviewing the options.

  Urban Trees
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the regions what representations he has had concerning the provision of water access zones for urban trees; and if he will make a statement. [8490]

  Angela Eagle
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has received a letter from the Permaculture Association (Britain), which is concerned about the impact on urban trees of action to reduce the amount of drinking water lost through leakage.

  Events over the past few summers have shown that water conservation is an issue that must be taken seriously. Against this background, average losses of nearly 30 per cent. through leakage from the mains system are intolerable. As part of the Government's 10-point plan for a better water industry, tough mandatory targets are to be put in place to secure a substantial reduction in leakage over the next five years.

  Existing leakages may artificially increase the availability of water to trees in the immediate vicinity. However, not all trees in towns will be situated near leaking pipes and so be serviced in this way. In addition, as the naturally dry condition of recent years have demonstrated, most trees are able to adapt to changing conditions above and below ground and to adjust their water demand accordingly. Action taken to reduce leakage is, therefore, unlikely on its own to result in major losses of trees from our towns.

  Construction Industry
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the members of staff seconded to the construction sponsorship directorate from the construction industry, indicating their employers; and if he will place in the Library a copy of their business plans for(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99. [8459]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There are two inward secondments from the construction industry to the construction sponsorship directorate.

  Dr. Mark Mawhinney of Tarmac International Ltd. has been seconded to fill an administrative grade 7 post in the construction export promotion and materials sponsorshipCEPMS—division and heads a team of four people responsible for the promotion of export opportunities in Europe, the former Soviet Union and the Americas. The secondment began in June 1996 and will end in October this year. Activities include commissioning market information, organising seminars, arranging programmes for inward visitors, planning and briefing of ministerially led trade missions overseas and managing export-related research projects. Dr. Mawhinney's team also provides the secretariat for the export action group for building materials, which is an advisory non-departmental public body set up to boost export activity in the building materials sector.

  Work Plan:

  1. To plan and implement the branch's trade mission programme.

  Action

  Supervise the briefing for the 1997 trade missions and ensure that the accompanying companies receive maximum measurable benefit.

  2. To build up a knowledge of the work of other Government Departments, specifically those with construction interests and to encourage further co-operation across Departments.

  Action

  Participate in cross-Department briefings on export issues and, in addition to routine work, aim to work jointly with other Departments on a new project by September 1997.

  3. To assist exporters with awareness and generation of proposals for partners in technology—PIT—and sector challenge schemes and to manage robustly the assessment and implementation of nominated projects.

  Action

  Publicise the results of completed projects, actively manage projects, actively seek proposals for the programmes, co-ordinate assessment of proposals to ensure consistent, quality approval process, contribute to generation of proposals in 1997 PIT and sector challenge schemes.

  4. To work on presentation or press opportunities allowing greater publicity for the export support activities of CEPMS division.

  Action

  To make presentations on 10 occasions at export promotion events by October 1997. To develop better links with the press and to produce one article which is published in the trade press by October 1997. To continue to use "Construction Monitor" to publicise activities and outputs.

  5. To develop new ideas which will reflect changes in construction exports and allow greater effectiveness in export promotion and which will enhance the skills base of CEPMS staff.
  426
  Action

  Promote training of staff to develop their knowledge of the industry and of the requirements for career development, conduct open door policy to encourage communication on all issues, involve staff in the management of the consultancies.

  6. To understand and make full use of the Internet to tap information on markets and business opportunities.

  Action

  To produce a plan for a database by June 1997 and implement.

  Dr. Les Parrott is seconded from the British Cement Association to work with the Department on a two days per week basis. His secondment is for one year and is due to end in August 1997. Dr. Parrott's remit is to produce a cross-sectoral analysis of the environmental issues relevant to the use of materials in all aspects of the construction process and to assist the directorate in the application of this information to the development of the construction research programme.

  Work Plan:

  1. To identify and prioritise cross-sectoral—concrete, steel, timber, masonry and insulation, for example—environmental issues relevant to construction materials and to analyse these with respect to the Department's policy concerns: climate change, resource depletion, waste, air quality, water and soil pollution.

  2. To identify key current UK and international research initiatives relevant to environmental impacts of construction materials; to liaise with the environment business plan manager in the construction innovation and research management division to identify future departmental research needs.

  3. To liaise with industry to identify opportunities for specific material sectors to take initiatives to minimise adverse environmental effects.

  Environmental Task Force
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to what extent the costs for non-governmental organisations taking part in the environmental task force will be reimbursed. [8643]

  Angela Eagle
  Non-governmental organisations that provide placements for the environmental task force will receive appropriate funding to manage, supervise and provide project materials for their placements.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what qualifications will be awarded to those taking part in the environmental task force. [8644]

  Angela Eagle
  We expect a wide range of educational and vocational qualifications to be available to placements on the environmental task force, reflecting the nature of the projects being undertaken.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the criteria for projects undertaken by the environmental task force. [8675]

  Angela Eagle
  Suitable projects will be identified based on the quality of work offered, the opportunities for training and qualifications and environmental benefits.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions (Gas Levy)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate his Department has made of the impact the abolition of the gas levy will have on carbon dioxide emissions in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [8651]

  Angela Eagle
  The abolition of the gas levy will have a minimal effect on carbon dioxide emissions. My Department has estimated that it will result in an annual increase in emissions of about 0.04 million tonnes of carbon in 2000, equivalent to 0.02 per cent. of emissions. We estimate a negligible effect by 2010 because the real value of the gas levy and the quantity of gas covered by it both decline over time.

  Stationery
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much his Department spent on stationery provision in respect of paper items in each of the last five years. [8866]

  Angela Eagle
  The expenditure on stationery items over the last five years was as follows:

  1992–93: £1.5 million

  1993–94: £1.7 million

  1994–95: £1.7 million

  1995–96: £1.9 million

  1996–97: £1.6 million

  It is not possible to separate paper from non-paper stationery items in these figures, which do not include expenditure by the Government offices of the regions.

  Solar Energy
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will include the installations of simple solar energy projects in the activities of the environmental task force under the welfare-to-work initiative. [8770]

  Angela Eagle
  We want a wide range of high-quality projects to be carried out by the environmental task force, including projects that contribute to energy conservation.

  Environmental Impact Assessments
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which Government policies have been subjected to an environmental impact assessment since 1 May. [8898]

  Angela Eagle
  Environmental impact assessment normally applies to projects rather than policies. None the less, we are committed to the integration of environmental concerns into all our policy making and are currently investigating the best means of achieving this.

  Green Ministers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To aks the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many times green Ministers have met since 1 May. [8899]
  428
  Angela Eagle
  Green Ministers are currently being appointed and have not therefore met. They will play a key role in helping fulfil our manifesto commitment to put concern for the environment at the heart of government.

  Aggregates
  Mrs. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the extent of aggregate prospecting in the middle deep and outer Thames estuary and what consultation his Department has had with which companies on the commercial extraction of such aggregates. [8831]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 16 July 1997]: The Secretary of State has no involvement with offshore aggregate prospecting and, consequently, he has no information about its extent within the middle deep and outer Thames estuary.

  Prospecting for marine sand and gravel is licensed by the Crown Estate as a custodian of virtually all the territorial sea bed out to 12 nautical miles. Before the Crown Estate issues a prospecting licence, it seeks comments from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the appropriate countryside agencies and the royal commission on historical monuments of England. Prospecting has very little impact on the sea bed because the survey techniques are mainly non-intrusive and surveys are governed by a voluntary code of practice between the industry and MAFF. Bulk sampling—maximum 500 tonnes—requires the prior agreement of MAFF.

  Commercial extraction of marine aggregates requires a dredging licence granted by the Crown Estate which will not grant a licence until the Secretary of State issues a favourable "Government view" on the application for a licence. The "Government view procedure", co-ordinated by this Department, provides for a comprehensive environmental assessment to be made of the dredging proposals, including their possible effect on coastal defences, nature conservation and fishing interests. Unless the Secretary of State is fully satisfied that all these interests will be safeguarded, a favourable "Government view" will not be issued.

  The Secretary of State consults the British Marine Aggregates Producers Association on matters of dredging policy.

  Housing
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if new homes built by local authorities are compulsorily subject to secure tenancies; and if he will make a statement. [9095]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Section 79 of the Housing Act 1985 states that a tenancy is a secure tenancy at any time when the landlord and tenant conditions are satisfied. The landlord condition is that the interest of the landlord belongs to one of a number of bodies listed, such as a local authority, and the tenant condition is that the tenant is an individual and occupies the dwelling house as his only or principal home.
  429
  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if a local authority that has transferred its housing stock to a housing company is permitted to provide funds to the company in subsequent years; and if he will make a statement. [9094]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Yes. A local authority may give grants for housing to any registered social landlord.

  Climatic Conditions
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to adopt a sea level rise limit objective as part of his climate policy. [8923]

  Angela Eagle
  We have no plans currently to adopt a sea level rise limit objective. However, in developing our policy on climate change, we keep under continual review the implications of its impacts, including sea level rise.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many and what percentage of employees in his private office are(a) of Asian origin and (b) of Afro-Caribbean origin. [8958]

  Angela Eagle
  In the whole of the private office for all Ministers, the total number of employees, including support grades and typists, who have declared their ethnic origin through voluntary and confidential surveys as Asian are eight, or 7.4 per cent., and as Afro-Caribbean seven, or 6.5 per cent. The combined percentage is 14 per cent.

  Unmodernised Private Properties
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the estimated number of privately owned properties in the Greater London area that are in need of modernisation; and if he will make a statement. [9087]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There is no agreed definition of properties "in need of modernisation". However, the 1991 English house condition survey—EHCS—identified dwellings in which the kitchen and bathroom fittings were at least 25 years old. This provides an indication of the rate of modernisation and the figures for privately owned properties in Greater London are shown in the table. More recent information, collected in the 1996 EHCS, will be available later this year.

  Privately owned properties in Greater London: 1991

  Number

  Percentage of stock

  Kitchen fittings more than 25 years old

  325,000

  14.1

  Bathroom fittings more than 25 years old

  486,000

  21.1

  Kitchen and bathroom fittings more than 25 years old

  224,000

  9.7

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Sir Paul Beresford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the recent survey of local authorities relating to the financial impact and results of CCT. [9074]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Research recently published by the Department looked at both the financial and service quality impact of CCT on blue collar services covered by the Local Government Act 1988. It showed average annual savings on contract prices of 9 per cent. for the second round of tendering. This finding is, however, dependent on the way in which the social costs and benefits of CCT are treated. Other research, commissioned outside the Department, suggests a wide variation in estimates of savings when these factors are taken into account.

  The departmental study also indicates that these savings have been accompanied by only relatively minor improvements in service standards; more attention needs to be given to the development of local performance indicators. A majority of the authorities surveyed also thought that user involvement in the specifying and monitoring of services could be improved. These issues will be addressed by our best value proposals, currently being developed with the support of local government and the private sector.

  Green Belt
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about Government policy on large-scale housing developments in the green belt. [8985]

  Mr. Prescott
  The Government's policy on development in the green belt is set out in planning policy guidance—PPG—2. There is a presumption against inappropriate development in the green belt unless very special circumstances exist which outweigh the harm caused by the development.

  Proposals in draft plans that would result in releasing land from the green belt must be fully justified. The Government are committed to protecting the green belt and encourage the recycling of land urban areas wherever possible to meet development needs.

  Hostel Conversions
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many enforcement orders have been issued by local authorities against the unlicensed conversion of hotels, bed-and-breakfast establishments and guest houses to hostels since 1994. [9491]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This information is not available. Although local authorities provide my Department with quarterly statistics showing the number of enforcement notices they have issued, the figures do not differentiate between different kinds of breaches of development control.

  Advance Corporation Tax Credits
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to meet representatives of the Local Government Association to discuss the effect of the abolition of the advance corporation tax credit on local authorities. [9400]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Secretary of State, with ministerial colleagues, last met the Local Government Association on Wednesday 16 July. The subjects discussed included the likely impact of the abolition of the advance corporation tax on local authority pension funds.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each local authority the effect on their pension fund contributions of the withdrawal of ACT credits in the Budget. [9908]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The next valuation of local authority pension funds in England and Wales is due in March 1998. Only after that exercise has been completed will a true picture emerge of the effect of the Budget proposal on ACT credits and what effect this will have on future employer contributions to the separate funds.

  Dependent Relatives (Accommodation)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans the Government have to issue guidance to local authorities in respect of families who seek planning permission to accommodate dependent relatives; and if he will make a statement. [8975]

  Mr. Raynsford
  holding answer 18 July 1997]: This issue was raised for discussion in last year's Green Paper on household growth. The Government are still considering the responses to the consultation, on which we will make a statement in due course. I have no plans currently to issue further advice.

  Rights to erect annex buildings in the gardens of dwelling houses similar to those that currently apply under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 have existed for many years. To benefit from permitted development rights, however, such new buildings in the gardens of dwelling houses must be "incidental to the enjoyment" of the house. The creation of a separate main residential unit would constitute development requiring planning permission.

  However, extensions to create annexes for dependent relatives may be appropriate in certain circumstances, subject to conditions. This is to prevent the creation of independent living accommodation which could subsequently be let or sold off separately from the main house.

  The same is true for separate buildings—often conversions of outbuildings—intended for use for dependent relatives. In these cases, it is even more likely that a separate unit of accommodation will be created.

  The Government are aware of the need to give householders as many rights to develop their properties as possible, but consider that these freedoms should not be detrimental to the interests of neighbours or the quality of the area in general, and therefore have to draw a line beyond which a planning application is required.

  Planning Decisions
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what mechanisms are in place to ensure objectivity in planning decisions; what plans he has to change planning regulations; and if he will make a statement. [9133]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 18 July 1997]: The law requires that planning decisions are made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The principal mechanisms to secure objectivity are up-to-date development plans and a prompt, efficient appeals systems. The Department is carrying out a comprehensive review of the planning system.

  Planning Policy Guidance
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to revise PPG13; and if he will make a statement. [9474]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 18 July 1997]: We have no immediate plans to revise PPG13. However, better integration of transport and land use planning will be an important part of the wide-ranging review of policy leading to a White Paper on an integrated transport strategy to be published next spring.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if a planning permission for residential and nursing home can, without a change of use, apply to a residential care home for people with challenging behaviour. [9592]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 18 July 1997]: Planning permission is not required for changes of use within each class of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. Use class C2 of the order covers use for the provision of residential accommodation and care to people in need of care, use as a hospital or nursing home, and use as a residential school, college or training centre. Use class C3 can cover use as a dwelling house where care is provided for not more than six residents living together as a single household.

  Area Cost Adjustment
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the future of the area cost adjustment. [9325]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 18 July 1997]: The work of the review of the area cost adjustment during 1996 provided an examination of the issues, although not one the local authority associations wanted implementation for 1997–98 standard spending assessments. The Department has commissioned research to examine some of the concerns of local government about the review's proposals. It is due to report this week. We shall discuss with local government both the research findings and the way forward on the area cost adjustment.

  Unauthorised Campers
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment. Transport and the Regions if he will provide advice to local authorities on time scales for consultation with health and welfare authorities before proceeding to evict unauthorised campers. [9473]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 18 July 1997]: My Department has commissioned researchers from the university of Birmingham to examine the scope for disseminating good practice for local authorities to deal with unauthorised camping. The research is well under way and includes discussions with local authorities on how they liaise with the relevant statutory agencies when deciding whether to evict unauthorised campers. We want to encourage all relevant agencies to work together and to be clear about each other's responsibilities.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what powers exist for local authorities to evict unauthorised campers under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 when health and welfare authorities do not respond to consultations on individual cases. [9330]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 18 July 1997]: Local authorities intending to use their powers in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to direct unauthorised campers to leave land should make reasonable attempts to ascertain the campers' health and welfare needs before deciding whether eviction is justified. They need to inquire first from the campers themselves if they are receiving assistance from health and welfare services. Even if they are not, this does not mean that they do not need assistance. If it appears that assistance is being received, or is needed, local authorities should liaise with the relevant statutory agencies; the local authority may well at this stage have sufficient information to assess whether it would be justified in evicting.

  It is important that local authorities maintain close relationships with the statutory agencies and that, if those agencies have relevant information, this is made known.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what targets his Department sets for responding to letters from hon. Members. [9854]

  Angela Eagle
  My Department's target for responding to letters from hon. Members is 15 working days.

  Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which animals he proposes to add to the list of those covered by the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. [9538]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department has no plans to add any animals to the list covered by the Act.

  Local Authority Pension Funds
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to change the solvency and funding requirements for local authority pension funds. [9648]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 1995, which control this statutory pension scheme in England and Wales, already require actuaries, as part of each triennial valuation, to set an employer contribution rate to ensure fund solvency, having regard to existing and prospective liabilities and the desirability to maintain as constant a rate as possible. There are no plans to change the current provisions.

  Navigation Safety
  Mr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of state for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent discussions have taken place with Clydeport and other interested parties about the safe navigation of vessels and off-shore installations through the River Clyde and the firth of Clyde; and if he will make a statement. [9086]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the chief executive 0of the Marine Safety Agency to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Norman A. Godman, dated 21 July 1997:
  The Deputy Prime Minister has asked me to reply to your Question as to what recent discussions have taken place with Clydeport and other interested parties concerning safe navigation of vessels and off-shore installations on the River Clyde and the Firth of Clyde. This question was referred from the Secretary of state for Scotland to the Deputy Prime Minister as the matter falls within the responsibilities of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
  The question of safe navigation on the Clyde was discussed at the meeting of the Strathclyde Sub-Committee of the West of Scotland District Marine Safety Committee at its meeting on 28 February this year. The Sub-Committee meeting was chaired by the Marine Safety Agency's Regional Chief Surveyor for Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Sub-Committee includes representatives of a wide range of interested bodies, including Clydeport Ltd., the Competent Harbour Authority (CHA) for the Clyde, and the Scottish Guild of Pilots.
  At the meeting there was a very full discussion of the case, put by the representative of the Scottish Guild of Pilots, for compulsory pilotage of all tankers on the Clyde. There was some but not unanimous support for the views put forward on pilotage. However, it was made clear at the meeting that, under the Pilotage Act 1987, the statutory responsibility for this matter lies with Clydeport Ltd in its role as Competent Harbour Authority. The Sub-Committee is a consultative body only, providing a forum for discussion of marine safety issues amongst interested parties. It has no executive or statutory powers itself.
  We understand that, since the meeting in February, there have been further exchanges between the management of Clydeport Ltd and the Pilots and that an agreed view on the matter has been reached.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many civil servants there are on each pay band in his Department. [8960]
  435
  Angela Eagle
  The following information covers non-industrial staff in my Department and its agencies at 1 April 1997. The Health and Safety Executive has a pay band structure, but still with some non-banded grades. The senior civil service has nine pay bands, which are

  Summary of DETR staff numbers at 1 April 1997

  Grade equivalent

  DETR central

  DETR staff in Government offices

  Agencies

  Total

  Pay band

  HSE

  Senior civil service

  186

  25

  48

  259

  Senior CS including Band 0

  47

  Grade 6

  79

  11

  256

  346

  Band 1

  96

  Grade 7

  524

  100

  342

  966

  Band 2

  481

  SEO

  327

  108

  570

  1,005

  Band 3

  1,026

  HEO

  706

  157

  1,134

  1,997

  Band 4

  462

  EO

  796

  223

  2,758

  3,777

  Band 5

  409

  AO

  1,053

  229

  3,179

  4,461

  Band 6 higher

  809

  AA

  331

  132

  2,976

  3,439

  Band 6 lower

  671

  Non-banded grades

  217

  Total

  4,002

  985

  11,263

  16,250

  4,218

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  North Yorkshire and Humberside Arts Board
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to meet the chair and director of the North Yorkshire and Humberside regional arts board to discuss the development of the arts in their region. [7508]

  Mr. Fisher
  I met the chair and chief executive of North Yorkshire and Humberside regional arts board during my visit to Leeds on 17 July. I was able to see for myself the high quality of artistic activity in the region and was impressed by the commitment of North Yorkshire and Humberside arts board to the arts in the area. I wish them great success when they host the year of photography and the electronic image next year. We look forward to an innovative programme of events.

  Sports Facilities
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proposals he has to assist sports other than Association Football to improve grounds and stadiums. [7509]

  Mr. Banks
  I am keen to see higher standards of crowd safety at all sports. The English Sports Council has announced that it will give greater priority to the provision of lottery funding for spectator facilities for the major spectator sports. I welcome that decision.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what national strategy guidance is used to ensure that lottery money is targeted strategically at sports facilities; and if he will make a statement. [7995]

  Mr. Banks
  The lottery sports fund has provided an excellent opportunity to make great improvements to the nation's sporting facilities. To date, capital funding of more than £570 million has been awarded to some 2,200 projects throughout England.

  The English Sports Council—the statutory distributor of lottery funds for good causes in sport in England—undertakes this responsibility within the framework set
  436
  combined as a single total for this reply, and the Department and its agencies are moving towards the introduction of pay bands for remaining grades.

  Except where stated, therefore, numbers are shown against standard grade equivalents for the civil service.

  out in directions issued to it by the Secretary of State. A copy of the directions is available in the Library of the House.

  In addition, the ESC has developed additional strategies to help schools and areas of social deprivation, both urban and rural. The schools community sports initiative and the priority areas initiative have been introduced which allow up to 90 per cent. funding for new projects.

  More needs to be done to help those regions that have been less successful in securing awards and we are looking into how the distribution of awards can be spread more evenly.

  National Lottery
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to reform the national lottery. [7511]

  Mr. Smith
  I will make a statement later this afternoon on my proposals for reforming the lottery. They will widen access to the benefits of the lottery, particularly in the areas of health, education and the environment.

  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to review the terms of the national lottery operator's licence. [7520]

  Mr. Smith
  My Department does not have the power to change the terms of operation for the current licence holder. I will make a statement later this afternoon on my proposals for reforming the lottery including improvements to the way it is operated.

  Tourism Grants
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to reintroduce section 4 grants in England. [7512]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The Government have no plans to reintroduce section 4 grants in England.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to promote the British film industry. [7513]
  437
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to stimulate the British film industry. [7522]

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on his Department's plans to assist the United Kingdom film industry. [7524]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The Government's commitment to film was demonstrated by the new tax relief announced in the Budget. The film policy review group, set up by my Department, aims to double the audience of the British films and to help the film industry to achieve its full creative and economic potential.

  Millennium Projects
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent representations he has received in respect of the millennium dome. [7514]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 19 June that the new millennium experience would go ahead, I have received numerous representations from Members of the House and their constituents, companies and the public. I have been encouraged by the number of people who have been enthused by our plans for celebrating the year 2,000 and have forwarded the many excellent ideas proposed to the operating company, the New Millennium Experience Company.

  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has for supporting millennium events in the regions. [7517]

  Mr. Smith
  The Millennium Commission and the New Millennium Experience Company Ltd., are working together on proposals for a regional programme of events in the years up to and during the year 2000. In addition, we would encourage communities and local authorities throughout the country to organise celebrations, and my Department is promoting co-ordination between organisers of major regional events.

  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much has been allocated by the Millennium Commission to projects to mark the millennium. [7518]

  Mr. Smith
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral answer that I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

  BBC News
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he next intends to meet the chairman of the BBC governors to discuss the 24-hour news channel. [7515]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I have no current plans to meet the BBC chairman to discuss the 24-hour news channel. However, as my hon. Friend will know, approval has already been given in principle, under the provisions of the charter and agreement, to the BBC's initial proposals for public service digital television, including 24-hour news.

  Sand Yachting
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on his Department's support for sand yachting. [7516]

  Mr. Banks
  The Government give support for individual sports mainly through the English and UK Sports Councils. The British Federation of Sand and Land Yacht Clubs, the sport's governing body, has been awarded a grant of £19,000 by the UK and English Sports Councils. This runs to September 1997. From September, the funding and development of the sport will rest with the UK Sports Council. Sand yachting has so far been awarded £47,660 from the lottery sports fund.

  Architectural Heritage
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what further initiatives he intends to take to conserve and enhance the nation's architectural heritage. [7519]

  Mr. Banks
  We are committed to giving a high priority to protecting our heritage. Government funding to achieve this is channelled in the main through English Heritage. Increasingly, the lottery is also contributing substantial aid. English Heritage and the heritage lottery fund have had continuing discussions in recent months about possible funding initiatives in which they can collaborate to the greater benefit of historic buildings.

  Ballroom Dancing
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received in respect of ballroom dancing being given Olympic recognition. [7521]

  Mr. Banks
  I am not aware that we have received any representations about recognising ballroom dancing as an Olympic sport. It is a good idea; it already has provisional recognition, but a final decision is a matter for the International Olympic Committee.

  Football
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to the oral statement by the Minister for Sport of 27 June,Official Report, column 1127, what progress has been made on the creation of a task force for football; and what its remit will be. [7525]

  Mr. Banks
  I am currently looking into how the task force can be put into effect, its composition and its remit. I shall be making an announcement shortly.

  Arts Access
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to enable greater access to the arts. [7510]

  Mr. Fisher
  Access is a central theme of my Department's policies for the arts. The public has a right to the widest possible access in return for the public funding which the arts receive. The proposals we have made to increase access to the arts include plans to pilot open theatre nights and an artscard scheme for young
  439
  people as well as plans to review the case for admission charges to core collections in our national museums and galleries.

  House of Commons (Radio Broadcasts)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to meet the chairman and Director General of the BBC to discuss the future radio broadcasting of the House; and if he will make a statement. [9878]

  Mr. Fisher
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no such plans. Under the terms of its agreement with the Secretary of State, the BBC is required to transmit an impartial day-by-day account of the proceedings in both Houses of Parliament, but it is for the BBC to determine the best way in which to meet this obligation. The BBC is carrying out an extensive consultation exercise about the future direction of Radio 4 and I am sure that it will take into account in arriving at its decisions the strong feelings expressed by Madam Speaker and by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the broadcasting of our proceedings.

  Works of Art (Export Licences)
  Sir Patrick Cormack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the items for which the issuing of export licences was withheld on the recommendation of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art during the half-year ended 30 June, specifying in each case the valuation and whether an item was exported or retained, with particulars in the latter event of the acquiring institutions; and if he will list any items for which licences have been withheld but the final disposal of which is not yet decided, specifying in each case(a) the valuation and (b) the relevant time limit. [8977]

  Mr. Fisher
  The information is as follows:

  Description of item

  Valuation £

  Outcome

  A painting Madonna and Child with Saints with a Distant Landscape by Annibale Carracci (1560–1609)

  197,325

  No offer made, so export licence was issued

  A mother-of-pearl casket by Pierre Mangot, c. 1532

  3,000,000

  No offer made, so export licence was issued

  An altar-piece by Giuliano da Rimini, c. 1307–23

  560,512.50

  No offer made, so export licence was issued

  A pair of late eighteenth-or early nineteenth-century Anglo—Indian ivory armchairs

  138,275

  Owner declined to accept matching offer, so export licence was refused

  A pair of French silver wine-coolers, c. 1766–67

  297,605.62

  Owner declined to accept matching offer, so export licence was refused

  A painting Descent into Limbo by Lelio Orsi (c. 1511–87)

  595,000

  Originally deferred, but subsequently discovered to have been imported within last 50 years, so export licence was issued

  440

  Description of item

  Valuation £

  Outcome

  A Venetian bronze andiron attributed to Niccolò Roccatagliata, c. 1600

  77,752.50

  Acquired by the National Galleries of Scotland

  A gold box by G. M. Moser, c. 1760

  314,171.15

  Acquired by the Royal Museum of Scotland

  A Neolithic stone ball

  8,000

  Acquired by Aberdeend Museum

  A painting Cup of Water and a Rose by Francisco de Zurbarán, c. 1627–30

  305,997.10

  Acquired by the National Gallery

  A painting Eine kleine Nachtmusik by Dorothea Tanning, 1943

  156,250

  Deferred until after 8 August 1997

  A painting After Rain by Alexander Cozens (c. 1717–86)

  437,587.50

  Deferred until after 8 August 1997

  A sword of honour presented to the Earl of Northesk (1758–1831)

  74,400

  Deferred until after 8 August 1997

  Medals presented to the Earl of Northesk (1758–1831)

  107,925

  Deferred until after 8 August1997

  A seventeenth-century gold signet ring

  21,172.50

  Deferred until after 11 September 1997

  A painting Landscape with a Calm by Nicolas Poussin, 1651

  16,000,000

  Deferred until after 18 October 1997

  A ewer and basin from St. Martin in the Fields, c. 1720

  850,000

  Deferred until after 13 November 1997

TREASURY

  Strip Searches
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what procedures are in place at ports of entry to inform people of their rights of appeal before being subjected to a strip search by Customs and Excise officers. [8523]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Before customs carries out a strip search travellers must be informed of their right of appeal orally by the officer and the traveller's attention is drawn to customs notice No. 11—available in the House of Commons Library—which is displayed in all search rooms. This notice advises travellers that before a strip search is undertaken they have a right of appeal to:—a senior officer of Customs and Excise, or
  —a justice of the peace

  who will decide whether or not the search is justified.

  MIRAS
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the administrative costs of retaining tax relief on mortgage interest. [7987]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Figures for the total expenditure on this task could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  VAT (Energy-efficient Materials)
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will incorporate within this review of the
  441
  effects of a reduced rate of VAT for energy efficiency materials all correspondence received by his Department over the past three years, pertaining to this matter. [9194]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Chancellor announced in the Budget an extension of the review on the revenue effect of a reduced rate of VAT on energy-saving materials. We want to be sure that we identify effective and efficient ways of helping those on low incomes keep warm. Customs and Excise is leading the review and is taking full account of representations previously received.

  Representations (Sir David Simon)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will(a) list and (b) publish those representations his Department received from Sir David Simon prior to his joining the Government; [7425]

  (2) if he will (a) list and (b) publish those representations his Department received from BP prior to the Budget statement. [7428]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  The content and origination of representations from members of the public that the Treasury receive are treated as confidential. Their release is a matter for the individual concerned.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many and what percentage of employees in his private office are(a) of Asian origin and (b) of Afro-Caribbean origin. [8934]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Treasury collects data on the ethnic origin of its staff on a confidential, self-declaration basis. When it was collected, an assurance was given that the information would be used in aggregate form only and never in a way that might enable individuals to be identified. The analysis sought cannot be given because the total number of staff in the private office of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is sufficiently small to enable the individuals to be identified.

  Employment Advertisements
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how often since 1992 his Department has been responsible for employment advertisements that contained age restrictions upon those who could apply. [9500]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Age is not a criteria used in recruitment advertisements except for those who join the Treasury through the European fast stream, where there is an age limit of 31. The European fast stream offers EU-related work in the British civil service which, together with specially structured training, is designed to help young British graduates in the competitions for entry into the EU institutions. The age limit of 31 for such entrants reflects a period of training in advance of an age limit of 35 imposed by the European Commission on recruitment to the European institutions. The reason for the age limit is explained in the recruitment literature.

  Construction Industry
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate the Inland Revenue has made of the degree of compliance of companies in the construction industry 442
  with changes in the application of the rules concerning the employed or self-employed status of workers in that industry. [9126]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Following requests from the construction industry for help in correctly determining the employment status of its workers, the Inland Revenue and Contributions Agency published new guidance in 1996. To provide uniformity of approach across the industry, construction companies were required to review the employment status of their workers and, by 5 April 1997, make necessary changes and start accounting for Pay-as-you-earn and national insurance contributions where appropriate.

  It is too soon to estimate with confidence the number of workers whose employment status has been changed, but it is clear that a substantial number of companies have made changes and started to account for PAYE and NICs where appropriate.

  Written Parliamentary Questions
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will raise the advisory cost limit of £450 for answering written parliamentary questions; and if he will make a statement. [10265]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The advisory cost limit was last increased in 1993—Official Report, 18 February 1993, column 307—and is to be further increased to £500 from today.

  The purpose and application of the advisory cost limit remain unchanged. It is intended to act as a threshold for disproportionate cost parliamentary questions. Any written PQ where the marginal cost of preparing the answer is considered likely to exceed the threshold may be refused in whole or in part on the ground of disproportionate cost. Alternatively, the Minister may decide that the PQ is to be answered irrespective of cost. There is no advisory limit for oral PQs.

  The advisory limit continues to be based on eight times the average marginal cost for written PQs, which is now £62, rounded to the nearest £50 for convenience of application.

  Ivory
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all seizures of ivory made by Her Majesty's Customs between 1 January 1996 and 30 June 1997, giving date, quantity, type, whether whole or pieces of raw tusk, semi-worked or worked ivory, country of origin and intended country of destination for each seizure. [8166]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 14 July 1997]: The records maintained by HM Customs and Excise of finalised ivory seizures do not include all the details requested, but I am able to supply the following information for the period 1 January 1996 to 31 March 1997, which are the latest figures available. With one exception, an export to Japan, the seizures were made at the time of importation into the United Kingdom, the presumed country of destination.

  The description "carving" embraces a miscellany of worked ivory wares such as bracelets, statuettes, animal figurines and other ornaments.
  443

  Description

  Date of seizures

  Country of export (where recorded)

  3 carved tusks

  10 January 1996

  —

  12 carvings

  11 January 1996

  South Africa

  1 carving

  3 February 1996

  —

  2 necklaces, 1 bracelet

  6 February 1996

  South Africa

  1 carving

  6 February 1996

  —

  1 necklace, 1 pair of earnings

  7 February 1996

  —

  3 carvings

  8 February 1996

  South Africa

  1 carving

  8 February 1996

  Zimbabwe

  5 carvings

  8 February 1996

  Uganda

  1 carving

  12 February 1996

  —

  10 carvings

  14 February 1996

  Nigeria

  1 carving

  20 February 1996

  —

  6 carvings

  15 March 1996

  Thailand

  2 carvings

  19 March 1996

  Cameroon

  8 carvings

  28 April 1996

  South Africa

  4 carvings

  2 May 1996

  Zambia

  1 carving

  4 May 1996

  U.A.E.

  2 carvings

  8 May 1996

  —

  1 carving

  11 May 1996

  —

  8 carvings

  11 May 1996

  —

  7 carvings

  20 May 1996

  Ghana

  5 carvings

  22 May 1996

  Malta

  1 carving

  26 May 1996

  Argentina

  1 carving

  28 May 1996

  South Africa

  1 carving

  30 May 1996

  Ghana

  7 carvings

  9 July 1996

  Senegal

  1 carving

  12 July 1996

  USA

  2 carved tusks

  25 July 1996

  Thailand

  56 carvings

  26 July 1996

  Cyprus

  2 tusks

  29 July 1996

  —

  3 carvings

  30 July 1996

  —

  1 pair of earrings

  6 August 1996

  Zimbabwe

  1 carved tusk

  19 August 1996

  —

  7 carvings

  22 August 1996

  —

  16 chess pieces

  28 August 1996

  Zimbabwe

  8 carvings

  5 September 1996

  Kenya

  1 tusk

  6 September 1996

  —

  1 carving

  14 September 1996

  South Africa

  12 carvings

  15 September 1996

  —

  1 tusk

  21 September 1996

  —

  17 carvings

  22 September 1996

  Zambia

  Maternities in England and Wales by multiplicity 1990–96

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Singletons

  692,885

  685,477

  675,329

  659,962

  650,826

  633,366

  634,979

  Twins

  7,934

  8,160

  8,314

  8,302

  8,451

  8,749

  8,615

  Triplets

  201

  208

  202

  234

  260

  282

  259

  Quadruplets

  10

  10

  8

  12

  8

  7

  8

  Quintuplets

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sextuplets

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Septuplets

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Total

  701,030

  693,857

  683,854

  668,511

  659,545

  642,404

  643,862

  Oil Revenue
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the expected revenues to the Exchequer for each of the next 10 years arising from development of the British oil fields west of the Shetland Islands. [8048]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 17 July 1997]: Reliable forecasts are not available.
  444

  Description

  Date of seizures

  Country of export (where recorded)

  2 carvings

  25 September 1996

  Ghana

  1 carving

  28 September 1996

  —

  1 carving

  28 September 1996

  —

  5 necklaces

  28 September 1996

  —

  3 carvings

  28 September 1996

  —

  8 carvings

  28 September 1996

  —

  1 tusk

  31 October 1996

  South Africa

  1 carving

  1 November 1996

  Netherlands

  1 carving

  4 November 1996

  —

  1 carving

  5 November 1996

  UK (to Japan)

  13 carvings

  8 November 1996

  Uganda

  1 tusk

  9 November 1996

  Zimbabwe

  1 tusk

  4 December 1996

  South Africa

  12 carvings

  19 December 1996

  Ghana

  1 carving

  28 December 1996

  —

  1 carving

  16 January 1997

  Nigeria

  1 carving

  25 January 1997

  —

  3 carving

  28 January 1997

  —

  3 carving

  28 January 1997

  —

  1 carving

  28 January 1997

  —

  1 carving

  19 March 1997

  —

  Multiple Births
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many sets of(a) twins, (b) triplets, (c) quadruplets, (d) quintuplets and (e) sextuplets were born in England and Wales in each year since 1990; and how many maternities there were in each year. [8174]

  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 a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Dafydd Wigley, dated 21 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 multiple births.
  The requested data are shown in the table below.

  Tax Measures
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what previous occasions the Treasury has announced by press release anti-avoidance tax measures to take effect from Budget day but not to be enacted until the Finance Bill in a subsequent year. [8139]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 11 July 1997]: None, as far as I am aware.

  Budget (Leaks)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) which of his advisers had meetings with Robert Peston of the Financial Times prior to the Budget statement; and if they gave Mr. Peston any information concerning the Budget proposals on advance corporation tax; [7691]

  (2) which of his advisers travelled back in the same aeroplane from the G7 summit as Robert Peston of the Financial Times; [7693]

  (3) which of his advisers gave information to Robert Peston at the Financial Times concerning his proposals on ACT in the Budget prior to the delivery of the Budget statement to the House. [7692]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 10 July 1997]: Neither I nor my advisers gave Robert Peston any information about the Budget proposals on ACT in advance of my Budget statement.

  Foreign Income Dividends
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about his proposed abolition of foreign income dividends. [8138]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 11 July 1997]: Several companies with major international interests have made representations concerning foreign income dividends. We wish to foster the United Kingdom's role as a centre for international business. As both the Chief Secretary and the Paymaster General have made clear, we are looking sympathetically at the position of UK groups with substantial foreign income.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's plans regarding foreign income dividends. [8703]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 15 July 1997]: Payment of foreign income dividends will cease from 6 April 1999. However, in order to maintain the United Kingdom's role as a centre for international business, provision will be made in the next Finance Bill to ensure that international headquarters companies can continue to pay dividends out of foreign income without having to pay advance corporation tax.

  In addition, as both the Chief Secretary and the Paymaster General have made clear, we are looking sympathetically at the position of UK groups with substantial foreign income.

  Medical Insurance (Tax Relief)
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors underlie the discrepancy between the figures on page 34 of the Red Book on the number of people receiving tax relief on private medical insurance premiums and that given in Inland Revenue press release No. 5 issued on the same day. [8698]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 15 July 1997]: There are two different sets of measurements: the number of contracts—or taxpayers getting relief—and the number of people covered by the contract. It is common for more than one person—usually spouses—to be covered by a contract. The lower figure of one third million quoted in the Red Book represents the number of eligible contracts
  446
  and the number of people who get tax relief by making their payments net of tax. The higher figure quoted in the press release—550,000—represents the total number of individuals covered by the contracts.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will investigate the total costs of the English liquidators of BCCI to date for dealing with staff loans of former employees. [9893]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  No. This is a matter for the liquidators and the liquidation committee of creditors. I met Tony Scott of the liquidation committee on 10 June.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the issue of writs by the English liquidators of BCCI against former employees of BCCI. [9891]

  Mr. Griffiths
  No. This is a matter for the liquidators. The bringing of any such proceedings requires the sanction of the liquidation committee.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much was set aside by the BCCI liquidators for the payment of the first dividend; how much has actually been paid; what is the balance amount remaining; and what plans the liquidators have to pay a second dividend. [9895]

  Mr. Griffiths
  Details of the first dividend payment are given in the report of the joint liquidators to the Secretary of State, pursuant to regulation 14 of the Insolvency Regulations 1994, for the period 16 January 1996 to 15 January 1997, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House and a copy of which I sent to my hon. Friend on 30 May 1997.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much extra money has been collected by the liquidators of BCCI since the payment of the first dividend for the payment of the second dividend; and what costs and fees have been incurred by the liquidators for this. [9896]

  Mr. Griffiths
  This information will be contained in the next annual report of the liquidators to the Secretary of State, pursuant to regulation 14 of the Insolvency Regulations 1994 which will cover the period 16 January 1997 to 15 January 1998.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will take steps to have the costs and legal fees of the liquidators of BCCI audited by an independent accountant. [9890]

  Mr. Griffiths
  No. These are matters for the liquidation committee of creditors or for the court.

  Newsagents
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action she proposes to take to safeguard the future of independent retail newsagents; and if she will make a statement. [9909]
  447
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The Director General of Fair Trading continues to monitor the newspaper market following the Monopolies and Mergers Commission investigation into the supply of national newspapers in England and Wales in 1992–93. I understand that he is currently considering a submission from the National Federation of Retail Newsagents which calls for a further reference of the industry to the MMC.

  British Overseas Trade Board
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the key functions of the British Overseas Trade Board; when the board was established; by what authority; and if she will list the names of the chairman and the secretary. [9628]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The key function of the British Overseas Trade Board—BOTB—is to act as principal adviser to the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on overseas trade and the official export promotion programme.

  Set up in 1972 by the then Minister of Trade, the board draws on the experience of senior British business people to help improve the export performance of UK industry and commerce, guide the Government's export promotion efforts, including the provision of export services, and provide advice on policy issues affecting international trade promotion.

  The current chairman is Sir Martin Laing CBE and the secretary is Dr. Denis Walker.

  Utilities Regulation
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to revise the regulatory set-up for the utilities; and if she will make a sttaement. [8645]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) on 30 June 1997,Official Report, columns 20–21.

  Members' Interests
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade 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 Members under categories 1, 2, 3, 4(b), 8 and 9 in the Register of Members' Interests. [8953]

  Mrs. Beckett
  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 Members to declare that interest, not the Minister to know—paragraph 63 of Cm 2850. It is not practicable for Ministers and officials, among 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.
  448
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will ensure that(a) Ministers and (b) officials in her Department refuse requests from hon. Members to (i) arrange and (ii) attend meetings relating to interests held by those Members under categories 1, 2, 3, 4(b), 8 and 9 in the Register of Members' Interests. [8050]

  Mrs. Beckett
  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.

  Commercial Lobbyists
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) on what dates since 1 May(a) Ministers and (b) officials in her Department have met commercial lobbyists to discuss matters relating to the business of her Department; and if she will introduce a register of such meetings; [8051]

  (2) on what dates since 1 May (a) Ministers and
  (b) officials in her Department have attended meetings with organisations representing (i) commercial and (ii) non-commercial interests organised by commercial lobbying firms; and if she will introduce a register of such meetings. [8052]

  Mrs. Beckett
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained in response to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn),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 as lobbyists, the Department cannot keep a register of such meetings.

  Indonesia
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many licences have been issued for the export of Hawk aircraft to Indonesia since 1978; and in each case what was the date of the licence and the number of aircraft covered by it. [7222]

  Mrs. Roche
  A licence was formally issued on 2 January 1996 in respect of the approval given for Hawk aircraft and equipment and announced by the then Minister of Trade on 19 December 1995,Official Report, column 1081. This licence was for eight 100 series Hawks and 16 200 series Hawks. Six other licences, on the same date, covered equipment including weapon systems, and spares.

  A licence was issued on 22 November 1996 for 16 200 series Hawks. Again, six other licences on the same date, covered equipment, including weapons systems, and spares.
  449
  To provide details of Hawk aircraft or any related spares licensed for earlier years would entail disproportionate cost.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the number and categories of export licences granted to Manroy Engineering Ltd. for the export of(a) general purpose machine guns and (b) other automatic weapons to Indonesia since 1988. [3436]

  Mrs. Roche
  Since 1991, when records became readily available, no export licences for such weapons for export to Indonesia have been issued to the company. Information for the earlier period could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The company has, however, told officials that it has not applied for licences for such weapons to Indonesia.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the(a) number and (b) categories of export licences granted to Broadcast and Surveillance Systems Ltd. for the export of surveillance systems to Indonesia since 1988. [3698]

  Mrs Roche
  Readily available records—from 1991—show that two export licences have been granted to Broadcast and Surveillance Systems Ltd., for the export of surveillance systems to Indonesia: one in September 1995 and the other in May 1996.

  Both licence were for the temporary export of goods categorised under the heading ML15 of the relevant Export of Goods (Control) Order. All the exported goods have now been returned to the UK.

  It is possible that goods covered by the question may have been supplied as part of a larger order, but not specifically recorded as such in the licensing database. A search of paper records to identify any of these would entail disproportionate cost, as would provision of information for the earlier period.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Broad of Trade if she will list the number of current export licence applications for command control, communication and information systems to Indonesia. [3526]

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

  The licences issued to Procurement Services International Ltd. for Glover Webb Tactica vehicles, which was announced in the House on 9 December 1996, Official Report, column 30, contained 12 Hornet command and communications vehicles, eight Tactica command and communications vehicles and two sets of communications base station equipment. This was announced in the House on 23 January 1997, Official Report, columns 708–709.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many licences have been granted since 1988 for the export of MP5 sub-machine guns to Indonesia; how many shipments there were; and what assurances the United Kingdom Government were given by the Indonesian authorities that the weapons would not be used for internal repression. [2772]

  Mrs. Roche
  Readily available records—since 1991—show no licences granted for export of these weapons to Indonesia have been issued. It is possible that goods 450
  covered by the question may have been supplied as part of a larger order, but not specifically recorded as such in the licensing database. A search of paper records to identify any of these would entail disproportionate cost, as would provision of information for the earlier period.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will provide details of the export licences granted to the Nitor group of companies for the export of firearms training systems to Indonesia since 1988. [2803]

  Mrs. Roche
  Firearms training systems, unless they are specialised equipment for military training or for simulating military scenarios, do not require an export licence.

  Readily available records—since 1991—show that no licences have been issued to the Nitor group of companies for the export of firearms training systems to Indonesia.

  To search paper export licence records for earlier years would entail disproportionate costs.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will provide details of the exports by Henckler and Koch of MP5 sub-machine guns to Indonesia. [2771]

  Mrs. Roche
  Details of deliveries of equipment exported are not held by my Department.

  Heckler and Koch MP5 sub-machine guns are manufactured in the UK by Royal Ordnance, a subsidiary of British Aerospace.

  Since 1991, when records became readily available, no licence is shown as having been issued to Royal Ordnance for export of these weapons to Indonesia.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will provide details of all licences granted for the export of(a) sub-machine guns, (b) machine guns, (c) assault rifles, (d) automatic rifles and (e) sniper rifles to Indonesia, in each of the last three years. [2773]

  Mrs. Roche
  In the three years to 15 July 1997, readily available records show that only one licence has been issued for the export of such weapons rated under heading ML1 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order to Indonesia. The export licence was issued in 1995 and was for 10 sniper rifles for the Indonesian armed forces. It is possible that goods covered by the question may have been supplied as part of a larger order, but not specifically recorded as such in the licensing database. A search of paper records to identify any of these would entail disproportionate cost.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many licences have been granted for the export of close quarter battle facilities and firearms training systems to Indonesia since 1988; and if she will provide details of the Indonesian security and military training for which the equipment was intended. [2804]

  Mrs. Roche
  Readily available records—since 1991—show that three export licences have been issued for the export of close quarter battle facilities and fireanns training systems to Indonesia; in one case, the goods were destined for the Indonesian for the Indonesian army headquarters for army training. The other two were temporary licences, the goods destined for the Indonesian
  451
  Department of Defence and Security for demonstration to the Indonesian armed forces. These two temporary licences were subsequently returned to the DTI unused.

  It should be noted, in general, that firearms training systems, unless they are specialised equipment for military training or for simulating military scenarios, do not require an export licence.

  A search of records for earlier years would entail disproportionate cost.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the number of export licences granted in each year since 1990 for export to Indonesia of(a) machine guns, (b) automatic cannon and (c) 7.62 mm ammunition. [18467]

  Mrs. Roche
  From readily available records—dating from 1991—the numbers of licences issued specifically for these goods for export to Indonesia are as follows:

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Machine guns

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Automatic cannon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7.62 mm ammunition

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  In addition, one further licence was issued in 1995 for 30 in ammunition which is interchangeable with 7.62 mm ammunition.

  It is possible that goods covered by the question may also have been supplied as part of a larger order, but not specifically recorded as such on the licensing database. A search of paper records to identify any of these, and for any such items licensed in 1990, would entail disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will revoke the licences for Hawk jets to Indonesia granted in November 1996. [9146]

  Mrs. Roche
  Any decision to revoke an export licence issued before I May by my Department would be announced to the House.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many licence applications are awaiting approval for the export of sub-machine guns and other automatic weapons to Indonesia. [2774]

  Mrs. Roche
  At 10 July, four individual export licence applications had been received which included such weapons for Indonesia. These will be considered in light of the Government's commitment not to license for export arms to regimes that might use them for internal repression or international aggression.

  Armoured Vehicle Exports
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if she will list(a) the export licences granted since 1988 to (i) GKN and (ii) GKN Defence or Glover Webb for the export of Saxon vehicles and (a) their destination; [3385]
  452
  (2) which export licences granted since 1988 to (a)
  GKN, (b) GKN Defence and (c) Glover Webb for the export of Saxon vehicles covered associated equipment to provide electrified deterrents. [3637]

  Mrs. Roche
  To search export licences issued for these companies for Saxon vehicles would entail disproportionate cost.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the export licences granted since 1988 to(a) GKN, (b) GKN Defence and (c) Glover Webb for the export of (i) armoured vehicles, (ii) armoured personnel carriers and (iii) internal security vehicles to Nigeria since 1988. [3638]

  Mrs. Roche
  From readily available records—since 1991—no export licences have been issued to the companies in question for such equipment for Nigeria. Information for the earlier period could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the export licences granted to(a) Procurement Services International and (b) Greys Defence Systems for the export of Tactica and Hornet vehicles to (i) Brunei, (ii) Malaysia and (iii) Turkey. [3695]

  Mrs. Roche
  Readily available records show that Procurement Services International was granted two temporary export licences for Tactica vehicles to Turkey. One was in May 1995 and the goods were returned to the UK approximately three months later. The other was in October 1996 and as yet has not been used. A temporary licence was also granted for Hornet vehicles to Malaysia in November 1996. There is no record of licences having been granted to PSI in respect of exports to Brunei. Nor is there any record of export licences having been granted to Greys Defence Systems for the export of Tactica or Hornet vehicles.

  Nitor Group of Companies
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many licences have been granted to the Nitor group of companies for the export of(a) training systems and (b) close quarter battle facilities in each of the last five years; which countries the licences related to; and how many of the training facilities were for (a) military forces, (b) security police, (c) paramilitary forces and (d) special forces units. [2802]

  Mrs. Barbara Roche
  Two licences have been issued to the Nitor group for training systems, both in 1992. One was for targets for shooting practice to the Singapore Ministry of Defence, and the other for firing range targetry equipment to the Saudi Arabian Ministry of Defence and Aviation. No export licences are recorded as having been granted to this company for close quarter battle facilities training systems.

  Export Licences
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the(a) number and (b) categories of export licences granted to Manroy Engineering Ltd., for the export of the Manroy L80 Manpack CS mist backpack sprayer; and if she will indicate the destination (i) countries and (ii) agencies for this equipment. [3697]
  453
  Mrs. Roche
  Readily available records—since 1991—show no licences issued for this equipment. The company has informed my officials that this equipment did not go into production.

  Johore Jungle Warfare School
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the number and details of export licences granted for military training equipment within category ML14, to the Johore jungle warfare school, Malaysia, and the types of equipment covered by the licence. [18310]

  Mrs. Roche
  From readily available records—dating from 1991—there is no record of any export licence being issued for equipment rated under heading ML14 for Malaysia showing the Johore jungle warfare school as the end user.

  It is possible that goods covered by the question may have been supplied as part of a larger order, but not specifically recorded as ML14 in the licensing database. A search of paper records to identify any of these would entail disproportionate cost.

  Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what date the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe dispensed with the car and driver provided to him by BP. [8750]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Wednesday 7 May 1997.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 10 July,Official Report, column 601, on the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe, if she will list those energy issues which she defines as not bearing on British Petroleum. [9016]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 17 July 1997]: In order to ensure compliance with "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", the Minister does not see papers, or take part in discussions or decisions, that could rise to a conflict of interest with his past or his present private interests in BP. As QPM also makes clear, these are ultimately matters for his judgment.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will define those(a) papers the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe cannot see and (b) matters he cannot decide which (i) have a bearing on and (ii) affect BP. [9327]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 18 July 1997]: In order to ensure compliance with "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", the Minister does not see papers, or take part in discussions or decisions, which could rise to a conflict of interest with his past or his present private interests in BP. As QPM also makes clear, these are ultimately matters for his judgment.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the meetings the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe has held since 7 May with(a) executives and (b) directors of BP. [9112]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 17 July 1997]: Since 7 May, the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe has had no formal meetings with executives of BP. He has had three meetings with directors of BP to
  454
  deal with matters relating to the handover of his duties. He has also attended three farewell social engagements hosted by BP.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the Minister of Trade and Competitiveness in Europe last visited a BP office or installation since becoming a Minister. [9113]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 17 July 1997]: The Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe has visited no BP installation since his appointment on 7 May 1997. He visited BP's offices at Finsbury circus on Friday 9 May to clear his desk and again on Wednesday 4 June for his farewell reception.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many and what percentage of employees, in each pay band, in the quangos for which her Department is responsible, are of(a) Asian origin and (b) Afro-Caribbean origin. [9581]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  My Department is responsible for 22 executive non-departmental public bodies, 25 advisory bodies and seven tribunals, considering the 28 industrial tribunals as one body. I regret that the information requested by my hon. Friend is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many civil servants there are in total on each pay band in her Department. [9582]

  Mr. Griffiths
  There are 3,950 civil servants in the DTI, excluding agency and Government office staff, with the following numbers by grade:

  Current serving grade

  Number of staff

  Assistant Librarian

  18

  Assistant Statistician

  10

  Administrative Assistant

  216

  Assistant Information Officer

  2

  Administrative Officer

  676

  Administration Trainee

  12

  Administration Trainee (Europe)

  2

  Chief Investigation Officer

  1

  Communications Officer IV

  2

  Deputy Chief Investigation Officer

  7

  Economic Assistant

  13

  Executive Officer

  672

  Grade 6

  98

  Grade 7

  541

  Higher Executive Officer

  594

  Higher Executive Officer D

  33

  Higher Executive Officer D (Europe)

  3

  Higher Mapping and Charting Officer

  1

  Higher Professional and Technology Officer

  10

  Higher Scientific Officer

  12

  Higher Scientific Officer (Development)

  11

  Insolvency Grade A

  3

  Insolvency Grade B

  17

  Insolvency Grade C

  24

  Investigation Officer

  57

  Information Officer

  16

  Legal Officer

  5

  Legal Trainee

  2

  Librarian

  16

  Mapping and Charting Officer

  3

  Petroleum Specialist 3

  3

  Petroleum Specialist 4

  5

  455

  Current serving grade

  Number of staff

  Petroleum Specialist 5

  2

  Principal Research Officer

  1

  Personal Secretary

  146

  Professional and Technology Officer

  1

  Reservoir Evaluation Specialist 3

  8

  Reservoir Evaluation Specialist 4

  13

  Reservoir Evaluation Specialist 5

  1

  Research Officer

  1

  Senior Economic Assistant

  5

  Senior Examiner (Patents Office)

  1

  Senior Librarian

  9

  Senior Civil Service

  175

  Senior Engineering Inspector (Electricity)

  4

  Senior Executive Officer

  189

  Support Grade Band 1

  25

  Support Grade Band 2

  59

  Senior Information Officer

  16

  Science Management Trainee

  2

  Support Manager 3

  7

  Scientific Officer

  3

  Senior Personal Secretary

  41

  Senior Profession and Technology Officer

  30

  Senior Research Officer

  4

  Senior Scientific Officer

  27

  Sandwich Course Student

  24

  Translator Grade 1

  2

  Translator Grade II

  5

  Typing Manager

  4

  Typist

  60

  Total

  3,950

  Some grades have separate London and national pay scales.

  A new staffing and pay system for staff below the senior civil service, replacing grades by ranges grouped into three bands, will be introduced on 1 August.

  Acquired Rights Directive
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what infraction proceedings have been instigated by the European Commission against the United Kingdom with regard to the acquired rights directive—collective redundancy consultation—and if she will make a statement. [9204]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 18 July 1997]: We have had contact with the Commission on this subject and it is under review.

  Space Programme
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps she is taking to develop a strategy for ensuring that the purely scientific aspects of Earth observation from space are fully integrated into the research council system. [9423]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 18 July 1997]: Mechanisms are already in place, through the British National Space Centre partnership and the responsibilities of the Natural Environment Research Council, for ensuring that the scientific aspects of Earth observation are fully integrated into the research council system. NERC, as well as the Office of Science and Technology, is a partner in BNSC and NERC staff are fully involved in the definition and implementation of BNSC's EO activities. NERC's responsibilities include the promotion
  456
  and support of high-quality basic, strategic and applied research in EO and NERC expenditure on such EO research is currently about £6 million a year.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps she is taking to ensure that the United Kingdom investment in the European Space Agency Envisat Earth observation satellite yields the fullest returns to the United Kingdom in terms of its commercial, strategic and scientific potential. [9437]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 18 July 1997]: The United Kingdom has been more successful than any other ESA country in winning announcements of opportunity for scientific and strategic exploitation of data from ESA's European remote sensing satellites. We are also one of the leading countries in the development of commercial applications of Earth observations. The British National Space Centre is aiming to continue this success by working with ESA, the EU, Government Departments, industry and academia to ensure an effective infrastructure for processing, archiving, and distribution Envisat data combined with continuing promotional and applications development support.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what additional funding the United Kingdom space science mission will receive to compensate for PPARC's inability to fund the appropriate United Kingdom involvement in some of ESA's science missions. [9434]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 18 July 1997]: The Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council received an allocation from the science budget of £200.65 million—including provision for its international subscriptions—for 1997–98. Within that allocation, it is for PPARC to determine its priorities, including deciding whether and at what level it should participate in ESA missions.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the board of Trade what monitoring PPARC undertakes of the comparative industrial spin-off of its space science expenditure including the ESA subscription against that of its expenditure on ground-based astronomy and particle physics. [9433]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 18 July 1997]: As the only research council which exclusively supports basic research, the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council's mission requires it to "take account" of the potential for contributing to the UK's industrial competitiveness, as opposed to the requirement on the other research councils to place "special emphasis" on this issue. Nevertheless, PPARC seeks to ensure that UK industry benefits from contracts for the construction of major facilities, and that technologies developed for research are exploited in industry.

  PPARC is developing performance indicators to help to monitor the number of contracts won by UK companies, and the extent to which the academic community collaborates with companies. As contracts placed by ESA are linked to the level of the UK's subscription, and the high-technology contracts placed by the Gemini telescope project are linked to the level of the UK's participation in the project, there are already good opportunities for UK companies to win contracts. While UK companies already benefit substantially from contracts from ESA, they have not done so well at winning supply contracts

  457
  from CERN—although they have been more successful at winning service contracts. To address this, PPARC, jointly with the DTI has appointed an industrial co-ordinator to promote to UK industry the opportunities that the new large Hadron collider at CERN will provide.

  The PPARC industrial programme support scheme — PIPSS—was launched in 1994 to promote technology transfer from technology research groups to industry. Thirty-four projects totalling £1.6 million have been awarded over three years.

  Global Free Trade
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps she is taking to achieve tariff-free trade across the globe by 2020; and if she will make a statement. [9424]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 18 July 1997]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the right hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) on 14 July 1997, Official Report, column 71.

  Cot Mattresses
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will ban inclusion of(a) phosphorus, (b) arsenic and (c) antimony compounds in the composition of cot mattresses; and if she will make a statement. [5843]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 1 July 1997]: The use of phosphorus, arsenic and antimony in cot mattresses is currently being considered by the Expert Committee on Cot Death Theories set up by the chief medical officer in November 1994. This committee is due to report to the chief medical officer at the Department of Health.

  Coal Authority
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the Coal Authority's report and accounts for 1996–97 will be laid before Parliament. [10086]

  Mr. Battle
  I have today laid a copy before each House of Parliament.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for the review of animal welfare controls on live exports(a) the expected completion date and (b) the cost of conducting the review. [8236]

  Mr. Morley
  The conclusions of this review will be announced as soon as practicable. Work such as this on the validation of procedures is part of the Department's planned activities and does not result in an addition to running costs.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) live sheep and (b) consignments of live sheep were exported from Dover on 5 July; what was (i) the place of departure and (ii) the final destination given on the route plan in respect of each consignment; what was (1) the time of departure and (2) the time of arrival at final destination
  458
  of each consignment; where each consignment received the 24-hour break stipulated by the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997 and if a full 24 hours was spent there; how many livestock vehicles were turned away from Dover by his officials on 5 July and for what reasons; and if he will make a statement. [8537]

  Mr. Morley
  Four vehicles containing 2,280 sheep were exported from Dover on 5 July. Two locations in Italy were declared as the destinations and the place of departure was in Essex. The ship departed from Dover at 01.00 and the animals were due to arrive at their destinations during the early morning of 7 July having received two 24-hour rest periods, one at the start of the journey and the other at premises in Belgium during the journey. In the port of Dover, two vehicles were served with an enforcement notice requiring the animals to be accommodated in premises close to Dover because the vehicles did not meet the additional criteria necessary for a journey of over more than eight hours, as required by schedule 7 to the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he takes to establish the journey times taken for each movement of non-human primates from entry into the crate in the country of export to arrival at point of destination in this country; if he sets a maximum journey time for such journeys; and if he will make a statement. [8216

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 14 July 1997]: There are no statutory limits on journey times for such animals. The Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997, implementing directive 91/628 as amended, sets transport conditions and specifies that animals which are subject to the convention on international trade in endangered species—CITES—shall be transported in compliance with CITES guidelines or the standards set by the International Air Transport Association. Enforcement of the order is a matter for local authorities.

  Green Pound
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will bring into operation compensation provisions for farmers to take into account the appreciation of the green pound; and if he will make a statement. [9547]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) on 3 July,Official Report, column 261.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the security of Britain's tuberculosis-free status. [8893]

  Mr. Rooker
  The officially tuberculosis-free status of individual cattle herds in the United Kingdom is protected by routine tuberculin testing and by post mortem examination of cattle at the time of slaughter or killing.

  BSE Research (Primates)
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement of the use of primates in BSE research commissioned by his Department. [9127]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department has commissioned no research on BSE which involves the use of primates.

  Basic rate in ecu/kg

  Sterling rate for cull cows and bulls liveweight £/kg

  Sterling rate for cull cows and bulls deadweight £/kg

  Sterling rate for clean cattle liveweight £/kg

  Sterling rate for clean cattle deadweight £/kg

  Date

  Cows

  Bulls

  Cows

  Bulls

  Cows

  Bulls

  29 April 1996

  1.0

  0.86

  1.71

  1.11

  2.22

  18 June 1996

  1.0

  0.86

  1.71

  1.01

  2.02

  1 July 1996

  1.0

  0.83

  1.66

  0.98

  1.96

  14 July 1996

  1.0

  0.83

  1.66

  0.93

  1.86

  5 August 1996

  1.0

  0.83

  1.66

  1.41

  0.93

  1.58

  1 September 1996

  1.0

  0.83

  1.66

  1.41

  0.88

  1.50

  21 October 1996

  0.9

  0.75

  1.50

  1.28

  0.80

  1.36

  1 November 1996

  0.9

  0.73

  1.46

  1.24

  0.78

  1.33

  2 November 1996

  0.9

  0.73

  1.46

  1.24

  0.73

  1.24

  1 February 1997

  0.9

  0.69

  1.38

  1.17

  0.69

  1.17

  1 April 1997

  0.9

  0.67

  1.34

  1.14

  0.67

  1.14

  1 July 1997

  0.9

  0.65

  1.30

  1.10

  0.65

  1.10

  4 August 1997

  0.8

  0.9

  0.58

  0.65

  1.15

  1.10

  0.65

  1.10

  1. The sterling rate of compensation has been reduced on six occasions as a result of green pound fluctuations.

  2. Compensation is fixed in terms of payments per kilogram live weight. Where cattle are not weighed live, a coefficient—of 2 for cows and 1.7 for all other cattle—is applied to the recorded dead weight.

  3. A depressive top-up payment for clean cattle—heifers and steers—originally set at 25p/kg was available for the first six months of the scheme. The original top-up payment is still available for clean cattle that were over 30 months of age on 17 June 1996.

  4. With effect from 25 November 1996, the minimum period during which an animal has to be present on a UK holding before becoming eligible for the scheme was increased from three months to six months.

  5. With effect from 4 August 1997, payment will be limited to a maximum weight of 560 kg per animal.

  6. All basic rates of payment in ecu or sterling apply to cows and bulls unless otherwise indicated.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to help beef farmers cope with recent changes in the compensation regime. [9539]

  Mr. Rooker
  The changes to the compensation arrangements for the over-30-months scheme, which will apply from 4 August, have been introduced to reduce scheme expenditure, which is considerable. Providing financial assistance to offset the impact of the changes would frustrate the objective of reducing scheme expenditure.

  Nevertheless, in the period leading up to 4 August, it is recognised that some farmers will accelerate their culling patterns to benefit from the current compensation rates. The Intervention Board has made provision for abattoirs to slaughter more animals than would otherwise have been accepted in this period, although it can not rule out the possibility that demand will exceed the capacity available.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minster of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the cost to farmers of the introduction of the weight limit on cull cattle compensation. [9542]

  Mr. Rooker
  The effect of the weight limit on farmers' incomes will depend on the weight of the animals being presented. For a typical suckler cow farmer culling five cows per year, each weighing 620 kg, the reduction in

  Cattle Cull
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the changes in the level of payment and terms for cattle entering the over-30-months scheme since its introduction. [8929]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information requested is as follows:

  income arising from the introduction of the weight limit and the lower compensation rate for cull cows will be about £395.

  The weight limit and the reduced compensation rate for cull cows are being introduced to reduce expenditure on the over-30-months scheme, which is expected to amount to well over £200 million this year in compensation alone.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the effect on farmers' incomes of the change in the base rate of compensation for over-30-months cattle to begin on 4 August. [9541]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) on 4 July,Official Report, columns 296–97.

  BSE
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the percentage of the total Government expenditure relating to the BSE crisis that reaches farmers. [9540]

  Mr. Morley
  Of the £1.54 billion expenditure on BSE in 1996–97, about 60 per cent. was paid to farmers primarily through the over-30-months scheme and top-ups to the suckler cow and beef special premium schemes.

  Intervention Stocks
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the intervention stocks which have been sold to third countries in each of the last five years for which figures are available, indicating for each year the price and overall volume and the relevant world market price at time of sale. [8996]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information requested is as follows:

  Intervention product

  Calendar year

  Quantity sold to third countries (tonnes)

  Sale price per tonne (£)

  World market price (£)

  Beef

  1992

  18,212

  11,200.70

  2—

  1993

  19,863

  11,401.83

  2—

  1994

  49,940

  11,061.1

  2—

  1995

  6,276

  11,582.46

  2—

  1996

  0

  Barley

  1992

  367,851

  368.34

  4—

  1993

  225,362

  359.64

  4—

  1994

  519,592

  364.07

  4—

  1995

  91,930

  368.01

  4—

  1996

  0

  Butter and skimmed milk powder

  1992

  0

  1993

  0

  1994

  0

  1995

  0

  1996

  0

  1 Intervention beef is sold by cut and different cuts have different sale prices. The sale prices shown are therefore average sales prices for all the cuts concerned. The work involved in establishing the individual sale prices for each of the cuts sold for each sale could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  2 The world beef market is fragmented and prices vary considerably according to the export zone and/or country concerned. Consequently, there is not a recognized and established world market price for beef.

  3 The sale prices shown are average sale prices. The work involved in establishing the individual price for each sale could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  4 The work involved in establishing the world market price at the time of sale could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Certified Herds Scheme
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what estimate he has made of the percentage of beef herds in(a) Scotland, (b) England, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland which would be eligible under the export certified herds scheme for re-entry into world beef markets; [9548]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the percentage of beef herds in (a) Scotland, (b) England, (c) Wales and d) Northern Ireland which would be eligible under a date-based certified herds scheme, using a cut-off date of 1 August 1996, for re-entry into world beef markets. [9549]

  Mr. Rooker
  Discussions on an export certified herds scheme and a date-based export scheme are still at an early stage in Brussels. Some 84 per cent. of beef suckler herds in Great Britain and 98 per cent. of such herds in Northern Ireland have never experienced a case of BSE,462
  but it is not possible to estimate the proportions of these or other herds that would have eligible animals for export under either scheme until the rules have been finalised.

  Cormorant Cull
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will order a cormorant cull. [9599]

  Mr. Morley
  Cormorants are protected by the 1979 EC birds directive, implemented in the UK by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. This Act provides for them to be shot under licence in strictly limited numbers in cases where they are causing serious damage to a fishery and where there is no other satisfactory solution. There are no powers to undertake a general cull.

  Sheep Dips
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the environmental consequences of the use of synthetic pyrethroid sheep dips; and if he will make a statement. [9702]

  Mr. Rooker
  As with all veterinary medicines, no sheep dip is authorised for use unless it meets stringent statutory requirements for safety, quality and efficacy. Safety includes safety of the environment.

  Following its review in 1996 of the effectiveness of the certificate of competence scheme for the purchase of organophosphorus sheep dips, the independent scientific Veterinary Products Committee—VPC—which advises Agriculture and Health Ministers on veterinary medicines, has begun a further review of the use of non-OP sheep dips, including synthetic pyrethroid dips. Ministers expect to receive the VPC's advice later this year.

  South-west Regional Service Centre
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the(a) target and (b) performance data percentage for each of the services provided by (i) the regional service centre in Exeter and (ii) the Truro office of the regional service centre in each year since 1992. [9658]

  Mr. Morley
  Performance targets were introduced for some schemes in 1993–94 in "Commitment to Service" as part of the citizens charter arrangements. Further schemes were covered subsequently. Information on the main common agricultural policy and other schemes in the south-west region is as follows:
  463

  Performance data for South-west RSC

  (all figures shown as percentage)

  Scheme

  Target

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Administered from Exeter

  Arable Area Payments Scheme

  Advanced oilseed payments made by end September

  —

  100

  n/a

  100

  Final oilseed payments made within 60 days of publication of rate by EU

  —

  100

  n/a

  100

  Main payments made between 16 October and 31 December

  —

  100

  73

  99

  Five-year Set-aside Scheme

  Claims received by 30 September paid by 15 December

  100

  100

  100

  100

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances

  Claims paid within three months of receipt

  96

  83

  74

  95

  Sheep Annual Premium Scheme

  Final payment made by the end of the April following scheme year (or if rate not fixed until after 1 April, within one month of public announcement of rate)

  86

  94

  99

  96

  Suckler Cow Premium Scheme

  Advanced payments to be made within three months of scheme closing date; balance to be paid by 30 June

  —

  99

  99

  99

  Beef Special Premium Scheme

  Advanced payments made by 15 December if retention period completed by 1 November, otherwise within six weeks of end of retention period

  —

  98

  97

  98

  Balance payments made by 30 June in year following claim

  —

  —

  99

  100

  Applications processed and CIDs issued within 10 working days of receipt

  —

  99

  98

  99

  Premium claimed CIDs returned before end of retention period

  —

  99

  99

  99

  Farm Woodland Premium Scheme

  Applications accepted or rejected within 1 month of receipt

  100

  100

  100

  100

  Claims received by 1 August paid between 17 October; those received after 1 August paid within three months of receipt

  100

  10

  100

  100

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas—Dartmoor and Blackdown Hills3

  Applications: in first year agreement or rejection of application six months after end of application period; for existing claims, within four months

  —

  99

  100

  100

  Claims: received by 1 October paid by 30 November except Stage IV claims (Blackdown Hills) received by 1 March paid by 30 April

  —

  54

  95

  100

  Conservation Plan applications: accepted or rejected within three months of receipt or completion of Management Agreement (whichever is later)

  —

  100

  100

  100

  Conservation Plan claims: paid within two months of receipt

  —

  100

  100

  100

  Administered from Truro4

  Agricultural Improvement Scheme

  Claims paid within three months of receipt

  100

  100

  100

  100

  Farm and Conservation Grants Scheme (Capital Grants)1991

  Applications accepted or rejected within four months of receipt

  295

  98

  100

  —

  Claims paid within three months of receipt

  298

  99

  100

  100

  Farm and Conservation Grants Scheme (Capital Grants) 1989

  Plan Claims paid within three months of receipt

  2—

  100

  69

  100

  Non-plan claims paid within three months of receipt

  2—

  99

  100

  43

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas—West Penwith

  Applications: in first year agreement or rejection of application 6 months after end of application period; for existing claims, within four months

  100

  100

  100

  66

  Claims: received by 1 October paid by 30 November except Stage IV claims (Blackdown Hills) received by 1 March paid by 30 April

  100

  100

  100

  99

  Conservation Plan applications: accepted or rejected within three months of receipt or completion of Management Agreement (whichever is later)

  —

  100

  100

  90

  Conservation Plan claims: paid within two months of receipt

  —

  100

  100

  66

  1 Due to a combination of changes in FEOGA reimbursement dates and the difficulties of linkage with charter targets and payment dates, a large proportion of payments were made after target date for 1994–95.

  2 Data for 1989 and 1991 schemes aggregated.

  3 Not designated until 1994.

  4 Performance in respect of countryside stewardship scheme and objective 5(b) is not covered by the citizens charter. n/a not available.

  464 465
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the estimated redundancy costs of closing the Truro office of the regional service centre. [9660]

  Mr. Morley
  It is too early to say what redundancy costs there might be. We are closing the office over a period of six months or so to find alternative employment for as many of the staff as possible and have appointed a resettlement officer to assist with that objective.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many staff were employed in the regional service centre in Exeter on(a) full-time, (b) part-time and (c) temporary contracts in each year since 1992. [9662]

  Mr. Morley
  The table shows the number of staff in post at Exeter as at 1 April each year from 1992. This includes field inspectors out-stationed from Exeter, including at Truro, but who form part of the Exeter RSC. Data on part-time staff are compiled on a head count basis.

  Stuffing figures for the Exeter RSC, April 1992 to April 1997

  Permanent

  Temporary

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  Figures as at:

  1 April 1992

  60

  8

  16

  0

  84

  1 April 1993

  105

  13

  24

  3

  145

  1 April 1994

  104

  10

  72

  2

  188

  1 April 1995

  137

  10

  44

  1

  192

  1 April 1996

  154

  17

  10

  0

  181

  1 April 1997

  204

  20

  5

  0

  229

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of representations received by his Department(a) supporting and (b) opposing his decision to close the Truro office of the regional service centre. [9657]

  Mr. Morely
  We have received a petition and a number of letters from organisations and individuals, all opposing the decision to close the Truro office.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many staff were employed on less than(a) £2.50 per hour, (b) £3 per hour, (c) £3.50 per hour, (d) £4 per hour and (e) £4.50 per hour in the regional service centre in Exeter in each year since 1992. [9659]

  Mr. Morley
  This information could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many staff were made redundant from the regional service centre in Exeter in each year since 1992. [9661]

  Mr. Morely
  None.

  Departmental Reorganisation
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on consultation with respect to departmental reorganisation. [9664]
  466
  Mr. Morley
  Departmental organisation is a matter for internal decision, bearing in mind the jobs to be done and the need for efficient and economic administration. It is not a subject for public consultation or negotiation, although we consider very carefully representations made by interested bodies and individuals. We do, of course, consult fully with the departmental trade union side on the effects of our decisions on our staff.

  Food Chemical Surveys
  Mr. Michael John Foster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to ensure that the public are properly informed of the results of food chemical surveys for which his Department has a responsibility; and if he will make a statement. [10072]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government believe that the public should be properly informed about all food safety matters. I have therefore decided to make some important changes to improve the reporting of results from our regular food chemical surveys. I plan to increase the amount of information available about surveys and ensure wider publication of the results. For all relevant surveys, the full results for individual samples, including brand names, will he given. Furthermore, I will open up the food chemical surveillance programme to greater public scrutiny by publishing information on surveys to be undertaken.

  I endorse fully the view that we must release the results fairly and provide the public with the best possible advice on their significance. These changes will benefit consumers by enabling them to make a more informed choice about the food that they buy. The only surveys which will be excluded from these arrangements are those for which brand names have no bearing on the interpretation of the results, such as dietary surveys involving individual people or exploratory surveys aimed at developing analytical methods.

  In addition, I propose to review the current arrangements for reporting surveys on pesticides, veterinary residues and microbiological safety of food, which are administratively different from food chemical surveys. I will report on proposed changes to the House as soon as possible.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Obesity
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what new initiatives her Department is planning in respect of obesity; and if she will make a statement. [8745]

  Mr. Worthington
  A multi-agency action plan aimed at increasing the levels of physical activity among the sedentary population is presently being developed and people who are obese will be one of the target groups. In addition, "Eating and Health—A food and nutrition strategy for Northern Ireland", which was published in November 1996, aims to improve nutrition including the reduction of obesity in Northern Ireland.

  Drumcree March
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost of the police action to enable the Drumcree march to take place. [8771]

  Mr. Ingram
  The cost of the police action to enable the Drumcree march to take place is not currently available. I will write to my hon. Friend when the costing has been finalised.

  Type

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  11996

  Sets of

  (a) twins

  267

  315

  258

  308

  303

  324

  311

  (b) triplets

  5

  6

  8

  9

  6

  7

  11

  (c) quadruplets

  2

  2

  (d) quintuplets

  1

  (e) sextuplets

  (I) IVF2

  (i) twins

  12

  11

  N/K

  N/K

  N/K

  N/K

  N/K

  (ii) triplets

  2

  1

  N/K

  N/K

  N/K

  N/K

  N/K

  Maternities

  26,338

  26,058

  25,425

  24,729

  24,119

  23,663

  24,398

  1 Provisional

  2 These figures are as result of IVF by year of conception.

  Gamete intra-fallopian transfer (GIFT) was available in Northern Ireland only in 1986 and 1987.

WALES

  Members' Interests
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) 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 Members under categories 1, 2, 3, 4(b), 8 and 9 in the Register of Members' Interests; [8061]

  (2) 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 Members under categories 1, 2, 3, 4(b), 8 and 9 in the Register of Members' Interests. [8058]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I do not intend to hold or attend any meetings solely for the purpose of discussing Members' registered interests.

  Welsh Language Teaching
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to ensure that Welsh will be a core subject under the national curriculum at key stage 4 from 1999. [8913]

  Mr. Hain
  The White Paper "Building Excellent Schools Together", Cm 3701, published on 8 July, re affirmed the manifesto commitment to the teaching of Welsh in schools in Wales. Welsh is compulsory at key stage 4 in Welsh-speaking schools, and will remain so. The regulations to make it a compulsory part of the curriculum for 14 to 16-year-olds in non-Welsh-speaking schools from September 1999 are already in place. I

  Multiple Births
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many sets of(a) twins, (b) triplets, (c) quadruplets, (d) quintuplets and (e) sextuplets were born in Northern Ireland in each year since 1990; how many maternities there were in each year; and how many multiple births in each category were conceived as a result of (i) in vitro fertilisation, (ii) gamete intra-fallopian transfer and (iii) other forms of assisted conception. [8178]

  Mr. Worthington
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  regard it as essential that all schools should now be actively preparing themselves for the full implementation of national curriculum requirements at key stage 4 from that date, and that their school development plans and prospectuses should set out what they are doing in that regard.

  There are 10 secondary schools in Wales that do not currently come within the scope of the regulations to make Welsh compulsory from 1999. The Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales will be consulting on a proposal to bring them into line with all other non-Welsh-speaking schools from that date.

  Multiple Births
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many sets of(a) twins, (b) triplets, (c) quadruplets, (d) quintuplets and (e) sextuplets were born in Wales in each year since 1990; and how many multiple births in each category were conceived as a result of (i) in vitro fertilisation, (ii) gamete intra-fallopian transfer and (iii) other forms of assisted conception. [8176]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The available information on multiple maternities in Wales recorded by the Office for National Statistics is as follows:

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Twins

  397

  416

  423

  399

  431

  417

  436

  Triplets

  11

  6

  8

  8

  11

  14

  12

  Quadruplets

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Quintuplets

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sextuplets

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  469
  Figures relating to multiple births following assisted conception are only available for the United Kingdom as a whole and are contained in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority annual report, copies of which are held in the Library of the House.

  School Pupils (Exclusion)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children with statements of special educational needs were permanently excluded from schools in Wales in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95; and what each figure was as a proportion of the total number of children permanently excluded from schools. [8723]

  Mr. Hain
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Quangos
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the contracts of Secretary of State appointees to quangos expire by April 1999. [9552]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Of the appointments to public bodies which I make, singly or jointly with other Ministers, 399 are due to expire before 1 April 1999. I announced on 13 June 1997 the new procedures for making public appointments in Wales, and I will write to my right hon. Friend with details of that announcement.

  Mr. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the management costs of all-Welsh quangos. [9556]

  Mr. Davies
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the reply that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) on 4 June 1997,Official Report, column 204.

  Mr. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what action he proposes to reduce unnecessary quango administrative costs before April 1999; [9551]

  (2) what action he will take to abolish quangos before April 1999; [9555]

  (3) what action he proposes better to coordinate the Welsh Development Agency, the Land Authority for Wales and Development Board for Rural Wales before April 1999. [9557]

  Mr. Davies
  I will announce my proposals in the White Paper, which is to be published tomorrow.

  Mr. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what studies have been undertaken of unnecessary quango administrative costs; and if he will place them in the Library. [9553]

  Mr. Davies
  All non-departmental public bodies are subject to a comprehensive review at least every five years. The reviews test firstly whether an NDPB's function is required at all and, if so, the scope for contracting out, privatising or transferring any of the functions to another body. The second stage considers the whole system of financial management and control, including administration costs, within the body.

  Copies of the action plans of the financial management and policy reviews are available in the Library of the House.

  Lead Water Pipes
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with Dwr Cymru in relation to the rate at which lead piping in the water supply system will be replaced(a) between the main road tapping point up to the customer's premises and (b) in the public mains supply. [9914]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  On 8 July, the drinking water inspectorate, which advises me on drinking water quality matters, published a report on "Nitrates, Pesticides and Lead 1995 and 1996" which describes the actions being taken by the water companies to reduce levels of lead in water supplies. The measures taken include the replacement of lead communication pipes and table 5.8 in that report includes the numbers of such pipes replaced by Dwr Cymru in 1995 and 1996. In addition, Dwr Cymru's response to the Government's 10-point plan launched at the water summit describes the grants available from the company to its customers toward the cost of replacing lead supply pipes and plumbing. Copies of both reports are in the Library of the House.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will review the eligibility criteria of the all work test, with particular reference to its application to people suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome; and if she will make a statement. [3345]

  Mr. Denham
  We are aware of concerns about the way incapacity benefit all work tests are applied to sufferers of chronic fatigue syndrome. As part of the general review of social security provision, we will look at a number of eligibility issues, including those surrounding the all work test, and seek to ensure that the test provides a fair assessment of incapacity for benefit purposes.

  Mr. Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will review the length of the transition period between a failed all work test and the subsequent withdrawal of incapacity benefit. [3346]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government are committed to looking across the range of current social security provision to ensure that it meets our objectives for a modern welfare system to take us into the next century. A key priority will be to provide more support to enable people to make the transition from benefit into employment. In this context, we will look at what changes are necessary to ensure that the particular needs of people who have disabilities, or who have lost contact with the labour market through long-term sickness, are provided for.

  Reduced Earnings Allowance
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people in the United Kingdom have received letters confirming the award of reduced earnings allowance(a) for life and (b) until a specified date beyond the date on which the benefit was abolished; [5378]
  471
  (2) if she will issue a circular letter to hon. Members to assist them in giving advice to constituents who receive letters from her Department confirming the award of reduced earnings allowance for life, or until a specified date beyond the date on which the benefit was abolished. [5377]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  Any of the 24,000 over pension age reduced earnings allowance recipients who transferred to retirement allowance after March 1996 may have had earlier letters advising that their award would continue for life or a specified period.

  We are currently reviewing the arrangements for the transfer of REA recipients to RA and will consider whether a circular letter to hon. Members would be appropriate when that review is completed.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the additional revenue resulting from the abolition of the upper earnings limit on the payment of national insurance contributions. [5458]

  Mr. Denham
  An estimated £4.05 billion would be raised in a full year if the upper earnings limit on employees' class 1 contributions and the upper profits limit on class 4 contributions paid by self-employed people were removed and about 3.75 million people would become liable to pay more contributions.

  The figures assume that the current 10 per cent. class 1 contribution rate would apply to earnings above the present upper earnings limit, the current 6 per cent. class 4 contribution rate would apply to profits above the present upper profits limit and that an upper earnings limit would remain in place for the calculation of employee and employer contracted-out rebates.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Asbestos-related Conditions
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications made to the War Pensions Agency in respect of asbestos-related conditions have not yet been determined. [6485]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social. Security (1) how many war pensioners are in receipt of(a) a pension and (b) a gratuity in respect of (i) pleural plaques, (ii) diffuse pleural thickening, (iii) asbestosis, (iv) mesothelioma, (v) lung cancer and (iv) other conditions attributable to asbestos exposure during their service in (1) the Royal Navy, (2) the Royal Air Force and (3) the Army; [6493]

  (2) if she will list the (a) highest, (b) lowest and (c) average pension and gratuity paid for asbestos-related conditions over the last five years in
  472
  respect of (i) pleural plaques, (ii) diffuse pleural thickening, (iii) asbestosis, (iv) mesothelioma and (v) lung cancer. [6491]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Retirement Pensions
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what assessment she has made of the impact on income of paying retirement pensions on the first Monday after a 65th birthday and not on the day on which a pensioner reaches pensionable age; [6850]

  (2) what representations she has received in respect of financial loss for the days before the pay day following retirement; and if she will make a statement; [6848]

  (3) what plans she has to review the payment of pensions on a weekly basis; and if she will make a statement; [6847]

  (4) what estimate she has made of the annual cost of paying the retirement pension on the day on which a pensioner reaches pensionable age. [6849]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government are committed to reviewing all the main areas of insecurity that affect pensioners. The key objectives of the review will be that pensioners should have an adequate income in retirement, that they should share fairly in rising national prosperity and that public finances should be both sustainable and affordable.

  I have received a number of representations from hon. Members on the issue of retirement pension pay days. Retirement pension is a weekly benefit paid in advance from the first pay day, usually a Monday, on or after the 65th birthday. In assessing the impact on income, account needs to be taken of the fact that, although retirement pension is paid in advance, income received immediately preceding retirement, such as earnings and most social security benefits, are generally paid in arrears. Most pensioners are therefore entitled to a week's pension within a week of receiving their last income.

  Account also needs to be taken of the fact that, as a consequence of the pension being paid in advance, any change of circumstances which would result in reduction of benefit, such as hospitalisation, is effective only from the next pay day. In addition, no benefit is recoverable in respect of the week in which the pensioner dies.

  The estimated gross annual cost of paying retirement pension for the days between state pension age and the first retirement pension pay day is £22 million.

  We will announce shortly our pensions review which will examine all aspects of the basic pension and its value. We will consider any representations that are submitted on this issue.

  We will retain the basic state pension as the foundation of pension provision, increasing it at least in line with prices.

  Notes

  1. Estimate provided by the Government Actuary's Department. This cost is in 1997–98 prices and is the gross cost to the national insurance fund. Some £l million of this cost would be offset by reduced payments of widow's benefit where cases transfer from widow's benefit to retirement pension.

  Cyclical Social Security
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list(a) the categories of people in receipt of cyclical social security, (b) the number of recipients in each category and (c) the total amount paid or forecast to be paid for each year between 1995 and 2002. [6809]

  Case Load (000s)

  Expenditure (£ million)

  Category

  1995–96

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Unemployed

  Unemployment benefit

  433

  1,102

  574

  0

  0

  0

  Income support

  1,656

  4,823

  2,212

  0

  0

  0

  Jobseeker's allowance—(contribution based)

  0

  0

  425

  619

  619

  626

  Jobseeker's allowance—(income based)

  0

  0

  2,414

  4,150

  3,848

  3,673

  Lone parents

  Income support

  1,060

  4,265

  4,205

  4,344

  4,363

  4,453

  Short-term sick

  Income support

  163

  364

  390

  446

  478

  509

  Long-term sick and disabled

  Income support

  808

  2,858

  2,984

  3,378

  3,723

  4,098

  Widows and others

  Income support

  251

  494

  531

  577

  608

  648

  Total cyclical social security

  4,236

  13,906

  13,736

  13,515

  13,638

  14,008

  1. Figures for expenditure have been taken from the 1997 social security departmental report, tables 1, 4 and 5, and are given in £ millions. Estimates of expenditure for the years 2000–01 and 2001–02 are not available.

  2. Figures for case load are based on data collected in February and are given in thousands. They are consistent with those given in tables 6 and 7 in the 1997 social security departmental report. Figures split by broad groups of recipients are not available for years after 1995–96 on the same basis. It is estimated that in 1995–96 135,000 people received both income support and unemployment benefit.

  3. Figures given may not sum due to rounding.

  4. Income support paid to a person aged 60 and above is treated as part of the social security control total—i.e. it is not cyclical social security—irrespective of whether that person would also fit one of the other categories listed in the table.

  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is her Department's definition of cyclical social security. [6810]

  Mr. Bradley
  Cyclical social security is defined as the jobseeker's allowance and income support paid to people under the age of 60.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total amount paid out in housing benefit in(a) 1974, (b) 1979, (c) 1988, (d) 1992, (e) 1993, (f) 1994, (g) 1995 and (h) 1996. [6680]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Our objective is to reduce poverty and welfare dependency and to promote work incentives. We will develop a system that supports work, savings and honesty.

  The information is set out in the table:

  Housing Benefit expenditure

  £ million

  1974–75

  1237

  1979–80

  11,238

  1988–89

  3,763

  1992–93

  7,901

  1993–94

  9,213

  474
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Our objectives is to reduce poverty and welfare dependency and to promote work incentives. One of our first steps is to focus on helping people off welfare and into work.

  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Housing Benefit expenditure

  £ million

  1994–95

  10,120

  1995–96

  10,885

  1996–97

  11,523

  1. The current housing benefit scheme was introduced in April 1988. The 1974–75 and 1979–80 figures are an approximation of the housing benefit expenditure component of supplementary benefit.

  2. Figures for 1988–89 to 1996–97 are taken from the 1997 DSS departmental report and show total expenditure paid by local authorities in the relevant years.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on her Department's timetable for dealing with the year 2000 computer problem; who is in charge of the project; how many staff are working on it; what is the proected cost of resolving the problem; and whether the project is on schedule. [7135]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The central information and technology unit, CITU, through its agent the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency, CCTA, has set a model timetable and framework for Government Departments to follow to ensure that business-critical systems are year 2000 compliant and thoroughly tested well in advance of 2000. The Department is on course to meet this timetable.
  475
  The Department of Social Security has established a year 2000 project led by the Information Technology Services Agency, ITSA, to co-ordinate the extensive activity across DSS. An ITSA director, reporting to the chief executive, leads the work. There is a project manager and a core team of five staff to take the project forward within the CCTA-approved framework. In addition, each business unit has appointed co-ordinators and staff to work with the project which is working within the CCTA-approved framework for managing IT projects. The departmental board, chaired by the permanent secretary, is receiving regular reports on progress.

  The project is on schedule. The Department's main computer systems have now been fully analysed for year 2000 compliance and plans to complete the necessary changes are being implemented. All the major benefit and recording computer systems supporting the day-to-day delivery of social security will be amended by the end of 1998 to permit a full year's processing before 2000. Like any large organisation, the Department also makes full use of a wide range of personal computers and commercial software packages. We are working closely with external suppliers to assess the year 2000 compliance of these products and other non-IT areas.

  The total projected cost to the Department has been estimated at £30 million. A further review is to be carried out at the end of August 1997 to enable updated, costed plans to be produced in October.

  Council Tax Benefit
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to alter the assumption on income from capital in calculating council tax benefit from the current rate of £1 per week for each £250 held over £3,000. [7241]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on 2 July,Official Report, columns 205–206.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households claimed family credit in each of the last five years; and if she will make a statement. [7181]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Work is the best form of welfare for people of working age. We will develop a system that supports work, savings and honesty. Our objective is to reduce poverty and welfare dependency and to promote work incentives.

  The information is in the table.

  Year

  Family credit case load

  November 1992

  458,800

  November 1993

  525,000

  November 1994

  584,300

  November 1995

  648,700

  November 1996

  725,300

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 100 cases.

  2. Figures relate to the family credit live case load at 30 November each year.
  476
  3. Case load represents the number of families receiving family credit. If a household contains more than one family receiving family credit—for example, lone parents in a shared household—that household would be counted more than once.

  4. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and subject to a degree of sampling error.

  Source:

  Analytical services division 5 per cent. sample of family credit awards.

  Members' Interests
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what occasions(a) Minister and (b) officials have refused to (i) arrange and (ii) attend meetings with hon. Members to discuss matters relating to interests registered by those Members under categories 1, 2, 3, 4(b), 8 and 9 in the Register of Members' Interests. [8057]

  Ms Harman
  The first report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, Cm 2850, made it clear that, when Members are meeting Ministers or others on topics in which they have an interest, the onus is on the Member to declare that interest not the Minister to know—paragraph 63 of Cm 2850. It is not practicable for Ministers and officials, among their other duties, to vet requests for meetings against the Register of Members' Interests.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will ensure that(a) Ministers and (b) officials in her Department refuse requests from hon. Members to (i) arrange and (ii) attend meetings relating to interests held by those Members under categories 1, 2, 3, 4(b), 8 and 9 in the Register of Members' Interests. [8054]

  Ms Harman
  The first report of 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.

  Commercial Lobbyists
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) on what dates since 1 May(a) Ministers and (b) officials in her Department have met commercial lobbyists to discuss matters relating to the business of her Department; and if she will introduce a register of such meetings; [8055]

  (2) on what dates since 1 May (a) Ministers and (b) officials in her Department have attended meetings with organisations representing (i) commercial and (ii) non-commercial interests organised by commercial lobbying firms; and if she will introduce a register of such meetings. [8056]

  Ms Harman
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained in response to my hon. Friend the 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

  477
  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, the Department cannot keep a register of such meetings.

  Uxbridge Benefits Agency
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if she will make a statement on the current proposals to move staff from the Uxbridge Benefits Agency office to the Harrow Benefits Agency office; [9332]

  (2) if she will extend the current consultation period for the proposed move of staff from the Uxbridge Benefits Agency office to the Harrow Benefits Agency office; and if she will make a statement; [9333]

  (3) what estimate she has made of the amount of money which will be saved by the transferral of Benefits Agency activities form the Uxbridge Benefits Agency office to the Harrow Benefits Agency office; and if she will make a statement. [9334]

  Mr. Field
  One of our key aims is that delivery of service should be simpler and more efficient. To maintain and improve the level of service while keeping within announced spending totals, managers are proposing to move the processing of benefits from the Benefits Agency office at Uxbridge to the Harrow office but, as the hon. Member will see, the Benefits Agency guarantees that the range of services offered to the public will be unaltered. Queries on operational mattes are for the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, Peter Mathison. I have asked him to reply to the hon. Member directly and for his reply to be published with the answer.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Mark Oaten, dated 18 July 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions concerning the Benefits Agency (BA) offices at Harrow and Uxbridge.
  The BA is currently undertaking a reappraisal of its services and the way they are delivered, in order to maintain and improve the level of service whilst keeping within the spending targets that have been set for the next two years.
  The agency is committed to ensuring that people will get the help they need to claim the benefits they are entitled to. The Chilterns Area Directorate remains committed to providing a high level of service to its customers and equal access to the benefit system for all members of the public.
  It is proposed to move processing staff from Uxbridge to the Harrow site. The two offices are only 11 miles apart with excellent transport links. The range of services offered to the public will be unaltered. The BA would normally only consult with outside organisations in cases where there would be a significant change in services provided. In this case, in addition to consulting staff, outside organisations were consulted, as a matter of good practice. There are no plans therefore to extend the consultation period.
  Staff have been aware of the proposals since November 1996, they were disclosed to local customer organisations earlier this year and have also been reported in the local press. A letter was issued to local Members of Parliament and outside organisations on 9 July, asking for comments by 30 July, a copy of which is attached. All comments and representations will be taken in account before any decision is made.
  It is expected that by making better use of existing building space, this project will save £7.9 million of public money, based on a 20 year business case. In the first 5 years the savings will be on average £370k per year.
  478
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Text of consultation letter
  Dear
  I am writing to let you know about proposed changes to the way we process and maintain claims to benefit in the Harrow and Hillingdon offices.
  At this point I would like to reassure you that this would be an internal reorganisation and does not involve the closure of any public caller facilities.

  Current Position
  Until recently we have always had a full claims processing and claims maintenance operation at both Colham House, Uxbridge, and King's House, Harrow.
  However, when the new Job Seekers Allowance was introduced in October last year, we moved the processing and maintenance of claims for unemployed customers into the five local Job Centres. This is a more practical arrangement as it means that these customers can deal with both job search and benefits issues at the same time.
  With our staff now spread over seven sites (5 Job Centres and 2 Benefits Agency offices) the building space at Colham House and King's House is not being used efficiently, and I have to look at ways of rationalising our estate to make the best use of resources and to ensure value for money.

  Proposed Changes
  We propose to move all remaining processing and claims maintenance work from Colham House, Uxbridge to King's House, Harrow starting in November this year. There will be no change to the arrangements for personal callers who go to our Uxbridge office, and staff remaining at Colham House will be able to deal with all enquiries and make Crisis Loan payments as they do now.
  Advances in Information Technology allow us to process claims off-site, and staff are linked by computer terminals and a telephone network to allow them instant access to customer information to answer queries and give advice.
  As most of the contact we have with customers is by phone or correspondence, the changes would be largely invisible to your constituents. In fact we would expect to be able to raise the quality of the service we provide because of the increased viability gained from the merger of processing work into a larger unit.
  In the longer term I would also be looking to improve caller facilities at Uxbridge by vacating Colham House completely and moving to more suitable premises in the town centre.
  I am discussing these proposals with our staff and customer organisations. I welcome your views and would appreciate a response by 30 July 1997.
  I look forward to hearing from you.
  Yours sincerely
  Jane Manning (Mrs)

  Vaccine Damage Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on her Department's review of the operation of the vaccine damage compensation scheme, with specific reference to(a) the 80 per cent. disability rule and (b) the six-year rule; and what groups and individuals her Department intends to consult in connection with the review. [8830]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) on 17 July,Official Report, column 242.

  Welfare to Work
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the number of single parents in Warrington, North who will benefit from the Government's welfare-to-work policy. [9212]
  479
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State today launched the historic new deal for lone parents, fulfilling the Government's manifesto commitment to help lone parents get off benefit and into work. In the first phase, up to 40,000 lone parents will be contacted over eight areas throughout the UK and offered help in finding work. Up to 4,300 lone parents will be contacted in north Cheshire, which includes Warrington, North. The programme will be rolled out nationally from October 1998.

  The new deal for lone parents marks a radical new approach to welfare and is central to our plans for long-term reform of the welfare state. A unique feature of the scheme is the use of new technology to help co-ordinate benefit, employment and career services. This will start in Cambridge and later roll out across the other areas. From today, lone parents will be given a helping hand up into work, not just a hand out of benefit. Lone parents on income support with school age children will get their own personal adviser who will help them develop
  480
  their own individual plan of action on job search, training and child care. The personal adviser will explain how the lone parent can be better off in work than on benefit and help them with family credit.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to re-examine the entitlement of persons receiving disability living allowance. [7148]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 7 July 1997]: Our aim is to restore confidence in the social security system by having systems which promote honesty and integrity and ensure that people are receiving their correct entitlement.

  Over the next two to three years, in addition to the normal maintenance of disability living allowance claims, the Benefits Agency will be making inquiries by post and through home visits of around 425,000 DLA recipients to establish whether the correct amount of benefit is being paid.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool.
Lord Haden-Guest—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
Lord Wolfson of Sunningdale—Took the Oath.

Baltic States: Status
The Earl of Carlisleasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that the three Baltic states are former Soviet Union states as is now claimed by the Russian Government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the United Kingdom Government never recognised de jure the annexation of the Baltic states in 1940, although de facto they were a part of the Soviet Union from 1940 until 1991. We welcomed the restoration of the independence of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in 1991 and considered them to be sovereign European states.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her unambivalent and unambiguous reply. It will give great comfort to all 5 million people living in the Baltic states, whatever their ethnic origin. During the interim period before the states are brought into the Western institutions, will Her Majesty's Government use their influence with their NATO allies to see in what way they can enhance the security of the states? I ask Her Majesty's Government not to leave the United States of America to take the lead in this most important task.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government will certainly use what influence they have to ensure the security of the Baltic states. As the noble Earl knows, we already spend a great deal of money on the security of the Baltic states. At the Madrid Summit, NATO repeated its pledge that the door will remain open to further enlargement. Article 10 of the Washington Treaty states that the allies may, by unanimous agreement, decide to invite to join NATO any European country in a position to further NATO's principles and contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, what help is being given by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and what additional help will the Minister consider giving to the three Baltic states to build up their civil society, without which they will be prey to many of the people still interested in their future who now reside in Russia?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Baltic states are increasingly important partners to the United Kingdom both politically and commercially. Indeed, in 1996 United Kingdom exports to the Baltic states were £218 million—an increase of 83 per cent. on the previous year. Imports, at £606 million, rose by 33 per cent. on the previous year. In addition, the know-how fund has played an important role in the transition of the Baltic states and £7.3 million has been spent since the restoration of independence. The UK share of the EU PHARE spending is 16 per cent., £100 million being spent in 1995. The PHARE spending is, of course, the EU technical assistance programme.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, if the three states, as they obtain independence, are absorbed into NATO and NATO arms are stored there, will it not be the case that increasingly the view will be held in Russia that that is a threat and not an act of friendship?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there is no question of Russia having a veto over the rights of the Baltic states, or any other European country, to join NATO. The right of states to choose the means to ensure their own security was acknowledged in the NATO Russian Founding Act.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, is it correct that people of Russian origin living in the Baltic states are deprived of the ability to stand for election and to vote in elections in those countries? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that all people living in those states are accorded the human right of standing for election and voting in elections?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Government are indeed concerned that all minorities should enjoy full civic rights. But we welcome the progress made by Estonia in addressing the concerns of the Russian minorities. The OSCE and Council of Europe have confirmed that the allegations that were made in some parts of Russia of massive human rights abuses are unfounded. We look forward to further progress on that issue. The OSCE mission in Estonia and the OSCE High Commissioner for Minorities is doing very valuable work in monitoring the treatment of the minorities in Estonia. Her Majesty's Government wish that valuable work to continue.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, what is the Government's reaction to the statement by Mr. Chernomyrdin last week that Russia wishes to join the European Union?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that there are a number of countries which have said that they wish to join the European Union. It is interesting if they embrace the Russian Government also. I am sure that in due course the United Kingdom Government will give their view on that matter.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, will the Government confirm that they support the Baltic battalion for peace-keeping purposes and will they confirm their commitment to that within the Strategic Defence Review?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am able to confirm the Government's commitment to the BaltBat arrangements.

BBC World Service
2.44 p.m.
Lord Chalfontasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the arrangements being made by the BBC for the future of the World Service.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we are monitoring the situation closely. As I believe the noble Lord is aware, the joint FCO-BBC World Service working group will reconvene in the autumn of this year to determine whether the measures it agreed last year to ensure the continued protection of World Service interests and the maintenance of its special character, style and ethos are functioning satisfactorily.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Can she give an assurance that the views of a very distinguished media journalist and three former managing directors of the World Service which have recently appeared in the press will be taken fully into account when the working party prepares its report? In that context, what arrangements are being made to ensure that the grant-in-aid which the Foreign Office gives to the World Service is kept separate from the BBC's revenue through licence fees so that there is no danger or even possibility of cross-financing?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I think we are all aware of some of the criticisms and worries that have arisen. I assure the noble Lord that all strands of argument about the World Service are being taken into account. As I said in my original Answer, we shall be looking at the 20 measures in concert with the committee of experts which is to reconvene in the autumn—I expect that it will be in October although no date has yet been set—to review the important points raised. On the noble Lord's second question, I can assure him that as far as I am aware there is no suggestion at all of the two sources of finance being brought together.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, it does seem rather odd that the three previous managing directors, who did so much to establish the success of the World Service, should have their opinions disregarded. Is the noble Baroness aware that there is a widespread fear, to which the director general of the BBC seems immune, that the quality of that service is in danger of being somehow swallowed up in the general digestive system of the corporation as a whole?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course I am aware of the particular criticism that was made. As I believe is widely known, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was not consulted in advance and was given only 24 hours' notice of the reorganisation proposals announced on 6th June last year. Following the widespread criticisms to which the noble Lord refers, the joint FCO-BBC working party was set up to meet those points. It is only since April of this year that the reorganisation has been functioning and we believe that we should leave it a little longer—until the autumn of this year—before coming to any decisions. We should remember that the BBC World Service remains the most popular such service in the world. It is pre-eminent among international broadcasters. Indeed, it is twice the size, and growing, of its nearest competitor, the Voice of America.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, that being so, will my noble friend give the House an undertaking that notwithstanding any emanations which come from the director general of the BBC on this matter the Government will ensure that the service remains intact and as efficient as she described it?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course Her Majesty's Government wish to see the BBC World Service remain intact and listened to as widely as it is at present. Indeed, we wish to see the World Service grow and prosper. We are spending a great deal of money on it. Its audience is at a record figure of 143 million people throughout the world and, as I said, increasing.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, can the noble Baroness give an assurance about the grant-in-aid mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont? Will it continue at a level which enables the World Service to plan ahead adequately bearing in mind the developing nature of technology in this area?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that I can give such an assurance. Of course, there are a number of different unknowns at the moment. I have referred to the review to take place later this year. The expansion in digital broadcasting must also be taken into account. But, as the House is aware, the Government are currently undertaking a comprehensive spending review of all government departments. That also affects the FCO. I am sure that that will have to be taken into account in assessing the future needs of the World Service. I assure your Lordships that this Government are fully seized of the importance of the World Service and its importance to people throughout the world as the voice of this country.
Lord Peston: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister reassure the House on the question of standards? Is there any danger that the World Service will follow Radio 4 in "dumbing down", which, I believe, is the correct technical term? Will the Government ensure that that does not happen to the

1191
World Service? The rest of the world at least needs to know that we try to maintain some standards in this country?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I expect noble Lords throughout the House will have their own views on the "dumbing down", as my noble friend puts it, of Radio 4. The 20 measures which were agreed by the previous Secretary of State at the FCO and by the chairman of the BBC are designed to safeguard,
"the special character, style, ethos and quality of the World Service."
We shall see whether the working party believes that those features have been sustained when it reconvenes in the autumn.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that there will be a recording of these exchanges in "Today in Parliament" or "Yesterday in Parliament" before Mr. Birt gets down to abolishing those programmes?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, unfortunately I am not able to dictate what is broadcast on Radio 4's "Yesterday in Parliament" programme. I sometimes wish I could. I usually find that such programmes feature what the broadcasters consider to be particularly exciting or funny exchanges in this House which do not necessarily reflect the merits of the argument. If the latter were to prevail, I am sure that we would hear a great deal about this issue tomorrow.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is the Minister aware—
Baroness David: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I believe we have sufficient time to hear both the question of my noble friend Lady David and that of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt. Perhaps my noble friend may go first.
Baroness David: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that Mr. Younger, who is at present in charge of the World Service, came to the Houses of Parliament last week to make himself available for questions? Indeed, a number of those who have asked questions today also put questions to Mr. Younger. I believe they received reassuring answers. I believe Mr. Younger is anxious that the funding and the freedom should continue. To judge from what my noble friend said, it seems that that will continue. Nevertheless, it would be very nice to have that reassurance.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am aware of that meeting. Indeed, there is a close day-to-day working relationship between the FCO and the staff of the World Service. We want that to continue
1192
and we want information to be readily available, not only to this House and to another place but also to the public.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the reason for the World Service being so respected and valued throughout the world is that it is accurate and impartial, unlike the BBC at home which is both inaccurate and partial?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am not in a position to comment on the editorial policy of the BBC at home. Suffice it to say that the editorial independence of the World Service is guaranteed and will continue to be so.

Private Health Insurance
2.53 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlegeasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards private health insurance.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, private medical insurance is not a matter for government policy but of individual, personal choice. As an individual representing the Government in this House, I can say that I have complete confidence in the excellent care provided by the NHS.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that rather short Answer. However, can she say how the first part of her answer squares with the announcements made by her right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health that he intends to sack chairmen and non-executive directors of trusts and health authorities who have private health insurance? Further, can the Minister say how this Labour ideology leaves the 14,000 NHS doctors who have private health insurance? Are they also to be sacked and, if not, why not?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the Government believe that those people in positions of responsibility for the governance of the health service should indeed put their faith in the health service, as I have done. The position of individual medical practitioners who are not employed by the health service may be different.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, as a former chairman of BUPA, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether she is aware—and I am sure she is—of the innumerable occasions over the years when the professionals, not the politicians, working in the NHS and the private sector have co-operated together extremely happily to the great benefit of patients in both sectors, which is an important consideration. Does the Minister agree that the Government would do well to promote similar co-operation in the future?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I believe there has been effective co-operation between the NHS and private providers of healthcare, especially in some specialised areas such as, for example, long-term mental health problems. I believe that nothing I have said detracts from that.
Lord Winston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the problems with private health insurance is that the companies concerned frequently cherry pick in that they actually insure those things which are most profitable for them? Secondly, will my noble friend also agree that such companies often renege on their agreements in advertising; for example, in one case BUPA is particularly misleading in suggesting that people can see the doctor of their choice when that is not actually true because it depends on the quality of the insurance?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for drawing those problems to the attention of your Lordships. There have been particular concerns about elderly people and their problems with long-term medical conditions which, as my noble friend said, are sometimes not covered under their health insurance. They are, therefore, most worried when they find themselves afflicted with a long-term condition which is not adequately covered.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, although the Government are ideologically opposed to private health insurance, will the Minister agree that the people who take up private health insurance are relieving the responsibility on the NHS and thereby helping resources? Would it be possible for the Minister to make an estimate of how much additional funding would be required for the NHS if private health insurance were abolished? Further, can she say how much more would that mean in terms of income tax or, indeed, in terms of other financial measures such as, for example, the abolition of dividends on pension funds?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, with respect to the noble Baroness, perhaps I may, first, correct what she said at the beginning of her supplementary question; namely, that the Government are ideologically opposed to private medical insurance. As I said in my original Answer, we regard this as a matter of individual, personal choice. As to the calculation about what may or may not be the possible implications for the NHS, some rather alarming stories have been spread over the past few weeks about the impact on the NHS of, for example, removing tax relief. Of course, any additional expenditure would be dwarfed by the £1.2 billion extra given by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that private healthcare has always been permissible even within the NHS? However, the fact is that the NHS is
1194
cast in the noblest mode of any party measure that has come before our Parliament; and, furthermore, our NHS is the envy of the world.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am very happy to endorse my noble friend's views and I accept exactly what he said.

AIDS Survivors: Treatments
2.58 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdleyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the uncertainty about the nature of the treatment regimes followed by long-term HIV/AIDS survivors, and the importance of this information, they will fund a long-term study.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the Medical Research Council is the main sponsor of medical research in the UK and would obviously consider proposals on their scientific merits in competition with other applications. However, the MRC has already funded research on people who, although they are HIV positive, have not, over a period of some years, gone on to develop AIDS. That research looked at lifestyle and behavioural factors. The noble Earl may be interested to know that it also included the use of complementary therapies, in addition to detailed laboratory studies. I understand that the published results of that research should be available within the next six months.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, in thanking the noble Baroness for that reply, perhaps I may also thank her for her detailed response to my letter, following my earlier Question of 19th June, which has only just arrived and which I have not had time to digest. Will the noble Baroness accept that I am not here seeking simply to bang a complementary medicine drum in attempting to follow up information which seems to suggest that patients survive by rejecting conventional treatment and embracing a wide range of alternatives?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I understand that that is the noble Earl's view, based on a number of learned papers which he was kind enough to send to me. The Department of Health and the Medical Research Council have no evidence of long-term survival among people who have deliberately avoided conventional therapies.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, has any research been carried out into the possible increase in HIV and AIDS among practising male homosexuals if the age of homosexual consent is reduced to 16—a step which the Government apparently support?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, that has certainly not been the subject of research. As my noble friend will know, there has been an increase in

1195
HIV positive status among young homosexual men. It is a matter for speculation what change would occur if there were a change in the law.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, will the noble Baroness explain why it is proposed that people should be sodomised at the age of 16 which will obviously greatly increase the number of people with AIDS? What is the sense in that policy?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I can respond only as I did to my noble friend Lord Stoddart. Any relationship between a change in the law on homosexual consent and potential HIV infection is at this moment simply a matter of speculation.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, does the Minister agree that drug-based approaches have got almost nowhere in the past 10 years, and that the new protease inhibitors have not yet shown any actual survival benefit? In the light of that, are we not at risk of repeating earlier errors with AZT, as shown by the recent Concorde trial? I refer the Minister to col. 628 of the Official Report of 9th July when I asked a similar question about HIV and AIDS. I asked the Minister to write to me. I hope that I shall receive an answer in due course.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I apologise. I thought I had given the information to the noble Earl. I shall of course pursue that matter with the Department of Health. I believe that the noble Earl is somewhat incorrect in his rather pessimistic analysis of what has happened in respect of these therapies. My understanding is that data from clinical trials such as the multinational Delta trial show a relative reduction of about 30 per cent. when the combination therapies are used. Of course we are still looking at the early data on the combination therapies using three different drugs, the so-called "cocktail" drugs, which have been in use in this country only for some 18 months to two years. At the moment the results are rather optimistic.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is it the case that no government in recorded history have ever had a complete statistical base of the number of either heterosexual or homosexual sexual acts, and that therefore the statistical base for the research requested by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, does not exist?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as always, I defer to the noble Earl in any matter of historical comparisons.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, your Lordships will have seen in the press this afternoon the assessment that each case of AIDS in London costs £10,000 and that many foreigners come here to receive treatment at our expense whereas complementary medical treatment has negligible costs in many cases. We greatly look forward to the review of the Medical Research Council. If the MRC does not persist in its research in this field will
1196
the department consider funding research directly itself? I understand that the directly funded research budget is something of the order of £30 million.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that suggestion. It would be sensible for us to await the outcome of the research from the Medical Research Council which, as I said in answer to the original Question, should be within a matter of months. As regards overseas visitors being treated in London, I am glad to say for the record—because I know that there has been press speculation on this matter—that trusts should charge overseas visitors for their treatment. That charge can either be made against the individual concerned or, in the case of those countries which have a reciprocal agreement with the UK, with the bodies specified in that reciprocal agreement.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that patients with AIDS and tuberculosis are becoming resistant to antibiotics? How much research is being done into this dangerous, worldwide condition?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot tell the noble Baroness exactly what is being done on a worldwide basis to look into the relationship between TB and HIV infection. I am aware that it is a matter of concern to clinicians in this country. That may well be a sensible suggestion as regards future research.

Business
3.5 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on reform of the National Lottery.

Wireless Telegraphy Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Haskel.)
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I welcome this Bill on behalf of my noble friend Lord Inglewood and the Opposition. As my noble friend said at Second Reading, we would have introduced the Bill had we won the general election. We wish it well.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to be allowed to take part in the debate at this stage. This is a splendid Bill. We are grateful to the

1197
Government for accepting my amendment and others and for tabling one themselves. I hope that the Bill is well received in the other place.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their kind words. I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this Bill for their helpful contributions. It will lead to a more efficient use and better management of the radio spectrum.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill
3.7 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Referendum in Scotland]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, leave out ("Her Majesty may by Order in Council") and insert ("the Secretary of State may by order").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 8, 10, 13, 14, 19, 21, 24 and 27. I gave an undertaking at Committee stage on 3rd July that the Government would bring forward suitable amendments on Report to incorporate the material from the draft Orders in Council into the Bill. I am pleased to present these amendments to the House. In the interests of clarity we shall debate the new schedule and the amendments to it later. The amendments before us now pave the way for the new schedule incorporating the Orders in Council. This is the first stage of a two-stage process.
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, made a convincing argument that we should not detain your Lordships' House and another place into August simply to debate the draft Orders in Council. We were content to take that step in the interests of everyone. However, I should point out that our original approach was perfectly acceptable technically and procedurally. The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee was of the view that the detailed conduct of the referendums could be dealt with perfectly well by Order in Council. However, in the interests of time we bring forward these amendments today.
It may be of assistance if I outline the purpose of our amendments. Amendment No. 1 allows the Secretary of State to specify the date of the referendum by order. This replaces the procedure whereby the date is specified in the Order in Council. Amendment No. 13 requires the order to be made by statutory instrument.
Amendment No. 8 replaces the provision of Clause 3(2), which allowed the Orders in Council to specify a cut-off date for alterations to the register of electors. The cut-off date is to be 10 days before the date of the referendum.
Amendment No. 10 requires the counting officer to conduct the count in accordance with part of the new schedule, in addition to any direction issued by the chief counting officer. This covers arrangements for appointment of observers, attendance at the count and certification of the result.
Amendments Nos. 14, 19, 21 and 24 have similar effect for Wales. We will come to the main amendment, the new schedule, later. For the moment, I commend these amendments as an essential preparatory step. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the amendment, and for taking on board the suggestions I made at Committee stage. Perhaps that negates some of the more hysterical comments we have heard about the Upper House having no business to examine legislation and make its views known. We made our views known at Committee stage. The Government accepted them, and here we are with the results. I am glad that it was a convincing argument. The noble Lord was kind enough not to point out that it was a brief argument and to draw the conclusion that the shorter the argument the more chance I have of success. I am not entirely convinced. I believe that my chance of success was hugely enhanced by the fact that the proposal I made meant that this House and another place would not have to sit until 8th August and could rise at the end of next week.
Perhaps I may ask a few questions of the Minister. My first point relates to the statutory instrument under which the Secretary of State makes the order. I presume that it is by negative procedure; otherwise the device that I have chosen so that we shall not sit into August would not work. We would have to sit in order to go through the affirmative procedure. That was the problem with the route which the Government had originally set out.
The second point is more serious in many ways. I refer to Amendments Nos. 8 and 19. When I put down the amendment to the Bill at Committee stage, I chose a rather longer time period than 11 days. I decided to make the beginning of August the cut-off point. I did so because the constituency in which I live in Glasgow has had some controversy over the question of late additions to the register during the election held on 1st May. As I understand it, those controversial points have not yet been resolved. I do not wish to go into the detail because the matter is the subject of police inquiries. No doubt a report will go, if it has not already gone, to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, who I see sitting on the Government Bench. However, I believe that a little longer is needed for the authorities to make sure that the corrections and additions to the register are justified.
The issue may well go wider than just the referendum. Parliament may well have to consider the issue after we hear the results of the investigations at Govan. My recollection is that the procedure whereby people can register long after 10th October is of fairly recent date. The period for checking the register was towards the end of a year. Those dates are long gone. As I understand it, one can register in any month of the year if one were a

1199
qualifying elector on 10th October previously. That is what caused the difficulty in the constituency of Glasgow Govan. I hope that the Minister is right in choosing 11 days ending with the date of the referendum and that we do not have controversy about additions to the register during the month of August, with people claiming that they were in residence on 10th October last.
I invite the noble Lord to tell me whether there are any checks. I fear that he will tell me that there are none. Therefore, perhaps he will agree with me that it is a matter to which we should return in greater detail at a future date when we examine the Representation of the People Act.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, perhaps I may deal briefly with the points raised by the noble Lord. I think that I can give him the assurance that the order will be subject to the negative procedure. Therefore I believe that we can all go away safely.
I have some sympathy with the general point made about the 11 days. However, I heard arguments from the Benches opposite at an earlier stage that people should be allowed to register up until the last moment. I believe that that would have created havoc as regards proper regulation of the referendum.
On all the points covered by the amendments—they will incorporate the orders into the Bill—we have very much leant on the advice that we received from the electoral officers. We have to rest on their judgment and advice at this stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 5, at end insert (", but not less than eight weeks after publication of the White Paper detailing the Government's proposals,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2, I speak also to Amendment No. 3. Both amendments deal with the question which exercised the Committee about the dates of the White Paper and the referendum. At Committee stage, noble Lords will remember that the dates were treated as somewhat of a state secret by the party opposite. We made it clear at Committee stage that we expected those dates to be made available before the Bill completed its parliamentary stages. I am glad to see that in at least one regard the Government have heeded what we said at Committee stage, and that we now know the two dates.
It would have been perhaps more mannerly to your Lordships' House if the Government had announced these matters today in response to the two amendments. Instead the announcements were made in answer to two Parliamentary Questions last week. I believe that the Government could have announced them today as a way of showing that they appreciated the debates at Committee stage and of indicating that it is a two-Chamber Parliament and not simply a one-chamber Parliament.
It is welcome that we have something close to eight weeks as regards publication of the White Paper. Noble Lords will recall that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, envisaged six weeks, give or take a week one way or the other. I was grateful for that assurance. As I understand it, seven weeks will be allowed now between publication of the White Paper and the Scottish referendum. There will be eight weeks between the publication of the Welsh White Paper and the Welsh referendum. That is a matter to which I shall return in a few moments.
The purpose of the two amendments today would have been to tease out the dates from the Government. If they had not allowed a reasonable time, I would have invited noble Lords to indicate their displeasure at the whole matter being rushed. I am still not convinced that the time available is sufficient. It might be sufficient at any other time of the year, in the later autumn or the spring. But I believe that when four of the seven weeks are in August, the period is less than satisfactory.
Many matters will have to be discussed during the seven weeks of the referendum campaign. Indeed, some matters are still coming to the surface. Last week we heard the amazing revelation that—after 18 years—the Labour Party thought that the Royal High School room set aside for the assembly of parliament was unsuitable. So goodness knows what else will emerge during the referendum campaign about which we shall have to think long and hard.
For example, has a deal been done between the Scottish National Party and the Government on the powers of the parliament, so that it will be able to vote Scotland into independence without coming to the Westminster Parliament? Press reports state that the Government have done that deal in order to have the support of the Scottish National Party for the referendum campaign.
Some noble Lords will remember that I suggested in Committee that the support of the Scottish Nationalists in the referendum campaign was very much a two-edged sword for the Government. On the assumption that they won, I said I could assure the Government that the Scottish National Party would claim that they had won only because the majority of the "Yes, yes" votes cast were actually cast for independence. How that could be a stable basis for proceeding with devolution, I failed to see.
However, the Government are clearly very concerned about the turnout and the result of the referendum—to such an extent that they want to try to ensure that the Scottish National Party are on board and are campaigning "Yes, yes" to devolution despite the fact that they believe in devolution no more than I do but actually believe in separatism just as firmly as I believe in the continued existence of the Union with one Parliament.
It is amazing that, at this late stage, the Government appear to be prepared to include in their White Paper (if the reports are true) the possibility that the Scottish parliament will be able to decide, by itself, without coming to Westminster, that Scotland can set itself up as an independent country. The proposal is that there is no so-called glass ceiling on the powers of the

1201
Scottish parliament. If I were a member of the Scottish National Party, I should certainly be celebrating today if the Government have given a secret undertaking to the SNP that they will allow powers to be given to the Scottish parliament which, some time in the future, will allow that parliament, without any reference to Westminster, to vote itself an independent parliament. I do not see in any way how that could be considered to be strengthening the Union.
All those matters will have to be discussed. Many people are on holiday in August—the Glasgow Fair started this weekend. But, frankly, those sorts of holidays have long since passed into history and holidays are spread over a much wider period. Anybody who was in Glasgow this morning would have seen that the city was a good deal busier than it would have been 20 or 30 years ago, when almost everybody went on holiday in the same fortnight. I know of no one in Glasgow who is actually on holiday this fortnight. A few are on holiday today; a few were on holiday on Friday at Troon; but I do not know anybody who has gone away during "fair fortnight". That has passed out of people's normal practice; people take staggered holidays. Anyone who goes to Glasgow airport over the next four weeks will see that holiday flights out and in are just as busy as they are this weekend and as they were last weekend. So it is a holiday period in Scotland. I have lived there all my life and I know. The schools are on holiday until the middle of August, and the private schools for slightly longer. All those who are not tied to school holidays will tend to take their holidays after the schools return, for reasons which I am sure the House appreciates.
I simply do not believe that the proposed period of time is long enough. It is better than I feared it would be when I thought that the referendum would be held on 4th September and that we should not see the White Paper until the end of July or in August. So we have made some slight progress in this place in regard to the length of time.
Perhaps the most significant part of the answers last week was that, instead of saying as they ought to have done that the Scottish and Welsh referendums would be held on 11th September, the Government announced that the Welsh referendum would be held on 18th September, despite the fact that the Bill as it now stands has the referendums on the same day.
I do not normally get into a state of righteous indignation. However, to say, before we had reached Report or Third Reading, that the Government will overturn the decision of this House is disgraceful.
Before the Liberal Democrats start smiling weakly at me and the Benches opposite start jeering, perhaps I ought to remind the House of what happened in this place on 30th July 1980 in similar circumstances. Your Lordships decided an amendment to the Housing Bill by 109 votes to 74 (a larger majority than for the amendment two weeks ago in Committee reducing the two-day referendum to one day). An announcement was made in the House of Commons that the Government of the day intended to overturn
1202
the decision of this House even before the Report stage. The indignation started from no less a person than Lady Birk, who was an esteemed Member of this place and of the party opposite. Asking that the House be adjourned during pleasure, just after three o'clock in the afternoon, she said about the Bill and the decision made:
"The Bill has not yet been passed, and yet we have this behaviour on the part of the Government in another place which is an absolute insult to this House".
She went on to say:
"But how are we, as a House, as one of the legislative Chambers of this country, to be able to proceed when we are treated in this way?".—[Col. 8791
Lord Byers, Leader of the Liberals at that time, said:
"all quarters of the House will regard this as a Parliamentary outrage of the first order".
Lord Shinwell, then still in fine form, said in the course of his intervention:
"It is all very well lambasting and criticising us [the House of Lords], running us down and saying nasty things about us, and it is all right for some sections of the press and media to supplement those opinions of us, but we are an independent institution?' Are we or are we not?".—[Official Report, 30/7/80: cols. 879–82.]
That is a question that we could easily ask today. Lord Shinwell went a little further than I would have gone and talked about abolishing the other place! My noble friend, the then Leader, Lord Soames, had some difficulty in resisting the onslaught of the then Opposition and their friends on the Liberal Benches. The issue was put to a vote; namely, that the Sitting should be suspended. Indeed, your Lordships voted for that. The House was adjourned during pleasure. No time limit was placed on the "pleasure"; the Lord Chancellor, on the Woolsack, said that he would return shortly, and if that did not meet with everybody's satisfaction the House could adjourn again and this time place a time on the adjournment.
That sounds a humorous exchange, but the point is this. Quite clearly, when the party opposite were in Opposition and we did this to them in 1980, they thought, and stated very bluntly, that it was an affront to this House and to Parliament. They were joined in that view by the Liberals.
I do not intend to ask that the House be adjourned during pleasure. As my noble friend the Shadow Leader said, the Government did not do that again. I do not want that. I agreed that we should make progress with the Bill, and I want to do just that. However, I want to say very firmly to the Government that they could have announced to this House today the date of the White Paper and the referendum. That would have been the right thing to do in response to the amendments we tabled in Committee and the amendments we withdrew. They should also have kept whatever decision they were going to take about the one-day versus two-day referendum until your Lordships had completed consideration of the Bill, just as their distinguished colleagues insisted in 1980 that the then government should have done with regard to a defeat on the Housing Bill.
I do not think it is a very satisfactory position. I am sorry that the noble Lords, Lord Sewel and Lord Williams of Mostyn, are put in the position of appearing to ignore your Lordships' House, because I am sure that that is not their intent. Perhaps they might say very firmly to their colleagues that this is not the way to achieve good relations in your Lordships' House; that this is not the way to proceed with good government in a two-Chamber Parliament; and that in future the Government should resist the temptation to jump the gun on announcements of this nature and should certainly refrain from announcing that they will overturn defeats that they have suffered in this House before the Bill has completed its passage here.
I remember that on the defeats I suffered I certainly did not indicate what would happen before the Bill returned to the other place and the matter was decided there. If I may say so, my defeats were a good deal more significant than the defeat I inflicted upon the Government three weeks ago, although one would not think so from the absolutely hysterical outburst we had from the Prime Minister in Downing Street. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, it seems to me that what the Government have done in announcing the date of the Welsh referendum in the way they have is an affront to the other place as well as to your Lordships' House. How are the Government to know that their Back-Benchers will help them to have a majority on that amendment? How are they to know that those in the other place will think that the people of Wales deserve better than to have to have their referendum on the same day? Is it better than having to wait for their referendum that they will not be able to make up their minds on the same day? It seems an extraordinary thing to do.
Surely the announcement of the date should wait until the other place has decided what it wants to do. In addition, if the Bill is returned to this House, this House could decide to stand by its amendment. The Government should wait for that. The whole referendum could then be held up for more than a year. This is a very odd way to behave and, I suggest, a new example of extraordinary arrogance on the part of the Government.
I support the amendment because eight weeks seems to be the minimum time to enable people to consider this matter. I have discussed the matter with a number of people who are either on holiday now or will be going on holiday soon and they feel that the time allowed is very short. To give satisfaction to the voters in a referendum and to achieve a satisfactory result, this length of time is essential. This is a very good amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, is entirely wrong when he suggests to your Lordships that we On these Benches are smiling weakly at the different dates for the two referendums; we are smiling broadly. We are
1204
smiling broadly because it is the fulfilment of an agreement made on 5th March 1997 prior to the election and very widely publicised in Wales. That agreement said that:
"Both Parties [the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party] agree that a short time should be allowed to lapse after the Scottish referendum in order to ensure the debate in Wales, with its distinctive form of devolution, is not overshadowed by the process in Scotland".
We subscribed to that agreement; we hold the Labour Party to their part of the agreement and we expect the Members of Parliament in the other place who were elected on that platform to reverse the decision taken in your Lordships' House. We say that the choice should be before the Welsh people when they are fully informed and have had the opportunity for mature consideration of all the issues which arise in this referendum.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I support the amendment, although I would prefer that it went further. I would rather have a 12-week period elapse between the publication of the White Papers and the date of the referendums or referenda—I do not know what they should be called; my Latin is a little rusty.
This is a much more important matter than a general election. This referendum concerns a grave constitutional change which may well affect the future of the United Kingdom. That is more than can be said for any general election. At Committee stage the Government compared the time that would be allowed to elapse between the publication of the White Paper and the date of the referendum to the length of time which must be allowed to elapse between the announcement of the date of the general election and that election taking place, which I believe is three weeks.
I have gone back to 1900 and have ascertained that no general election since then has ever taken place in the month of August and I do not think that any have taken place in the month of September. If my memory serves me correctly, I think that the earliest date of an election in the autumn was about 24th October. Why is that? It is because people are away on holiday and do not have an opportunity to read the papers describing what is on offer and to make up their minds. Why are we being pressed on this occasion to have a referendum in the middle of the month of September? What is all the hurry about? Can the Government give me a straight answer, please?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, perhaps I could begin by answering the last question: it is partly because it was a manifesto commitment that we should have the referendums by the autumn.
I have to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, on managing to speak at such length and with so many different flights of fancy; I had difficulty seeing that they had anything to do with the amendment. They included a great flight of speculation about the Scottish National Party and an invitation to us to go into psychoanalysis on the motivation of people who would vote "yes". It seemed to me that the noble Lord was inviting us to reject or repel voters who would

1205
vote for the "yes, yes" campaign because we might not approve of their motivation. That is a novel way of running any kind of election or referendum.
A lot has been said about why the Government did not wait until today to announce dates for the White Papers. I understood the Benches opposite to have been demanding on previous occasions that the Government should announce the dates as soon as possible—like the day before they were speaking. Then, when the dates are announced, people say that the Government should have waited until this afternoon to announce them. I do not see the logic of that.
I quite accept from the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, that the old days of the industrial fortnights in Scotland, when the whole of Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen closed down, may have gone. But there is still a preponderance of Scottish holiday-taking earlier than in England because of the school holidays as well as the light nights and so on. It means that the balance in Scotland is more toward July, with life getting back to normal when the schools go back in August.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, cannot have it both ways. He cannot say on the one hand that everything has been changed and everyone staggers their holiday and at the same time seem to imply that the whole of Scotland is on holiday for all of August. That is not the Scotland I know.
So, if everyone is not on holiday for the whole of that time, it is quite possible to have a campaign when a fair proportion of the people are there for most of August. I do believe that we should get back to basics, if I dare use those words. By that, I mean that we should focus on the amendments. I understand that there will be a period of eight weeks in Wales and seven weeks in Scotland between the White Papers and the referendums. The amendment mentions eight weeks. The only difference is one week in Scotland. I cannot understand what all the fuss is about and why the amendment was moved in the first place.
Lord Forbes: My Lords, I support the amendment. Eight weeks is an absolute minimum when such an important constitutional issue is to be considered, especially during the holiday time.
Lord Parry: My Lords, the Opposition well might like to take into account the fact that, since polls have been taken on the attitude of the Welsh people, the numbers have been doubling. The latest poll conducted over the weekend showed that the ratio was two to one in favour of the assembly proposals. If the period extends for 10 weeks, we might wipe out the opposition, as we did in the election.
Viscount Weir: My Lords, I am a Glaswegian and I am on holiday during the fair holiday at this very moment; that is, if one can describe being in your Lordships' House as being on holiday.
Let me return to the point about timing. The true reason and explanation of why the Government will not give a decent interval between the White Paper and the
1206
vote must be perfectly plain. Despite what we have just heard about the opinion polls being apparently two-to-one, yes-to-no, at the moment, they were, I remind your Lordships, two-to-one, yes-to-no, at the beginning of the referendum campaign in 1979.
The Government have learned their lesson from that campaign, which effectively lasted for three months. They noted that the more the Scots saw of devolution, the less they liked it. The "yes" vote shrank and the "no" vote increased inexorably in the opinion polls as the campaign went on until it was virtually a dead heat on the day. So the reason why a truncated campaign period is being foisted upon us is only too obvious.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, making a fascinating series of Second Reading speeches on each of the amendments that he puts before us. We have had a re-run of one of the glittering Second Reading speeches that he made during Committee stage.
I understand that the argument is that it is entirely wrong for a government to indicate immediately that they do not propose to accept an amendment carried in the House of Lords. I was a little surprised to hear that argument. Those of us who had the pleasure of dealing with Home Office Bills when Mr. Michael Howard was Home Secretary became used to being told within 30 minutes that the Government would in no circumstances whatsoever accept the amendment. Therefore, I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, that he might take an interest in the attitude of some of his Home Office colleagues in the late administration.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he not agree that we never pre-empted the outcome of what the other place would do in any vote? As the Minister responsible, I may have indicated that we would invite the other place to consider overturning a measure but no public statements were made which implied or pre-empted the outcome of a vote in the other place.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the deputy Government Chief Whip and I spent many happy hours debating issues with the noble Baroness. I believe that both of us could recall with the greatest clarity what was said on Mr. Howard's behalf every time that he lost a vote in this Chamber. He lost quite a substantial number of votes in this House, I am glad to say. But I hope that the House will now move on a little more briskly.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, if the noble Lord—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Harris of Greenwich: There is no order involved. I shall gladly give way in a moment. I always do. I simply say that it would be a good idea if we moved rather more rapidly through the amendments; all the more so because the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, last week expressed his concern about the fact that we appear to have an overloaded legislative

1207
programme. One of the reasons why we are proceeding so slowly on this Bill, which has precisely six clauses, is the never-ending series of Second Reading speeches to which we are subjected. I note that the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, wishes to intervene.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord and sorry that I even presumed to interrupt him in full flight. But I could not help wondering whether the noble Lord felt that the defeats that he rightly recalled that he and those whom he and his party adulate so greatly on the other side—the present Government Front Benches—inflicted were any more valid than the defeats which occasionally have been inflicted on the present Government since the general election.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the difference between the defeats in the lifetime of the previous government and those in the very brief lifetime of this Government is, as noble Lords know, that the Conservative Party in this House has three times more representatives than the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties put together. Therefore, when they were defeated in this House, it demonstrated that they could not even obtain the support of their own colleagues.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, we have sat through the usual contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, which was a wide-ranging, fascinating, colourful and predominantly irrelevant speech—perhaps more detached from relevancy than it was from reality, judging from parts of his speech, which I understand he obtained from a certain newspaper circulating in Scotland.
Let us look at what the amendment refers to rather than at cooked-up deals that are supposed to have been going on somewhere hither or thither. The amendment concerns the date of the referendum. Amendment No. 2 is intended to ensure that there are at least eight weeks between publication of the White Papers, which will be debated in both Houses, and the referendums in Scotland and Wales. As we heard, the purpose is to provide sufficient time for the people in Scotland and Wales adequately to examine the proposals contained in the White Paper before being asked to vote on them. Amendment No. 3 would prevent the referendums being held earlier than 18th September 1997.
We have already announced that we intend to publish the White Paper on the Scottish Parliament on Thursday of this week. We have also announced our intention to hold the Scottish referendum on 11th September. That provides a gap of seven weeks between publication of the White Paper and the referendum.
Is it seriously being argued by noble Lords opposite that the whole basis of democratic decision-making will come tumbling down because we have decided on seven weeks rather than eight weeks? Is it being suggested that somehow the people of Scotland can reach a mature, considered decision in a period of eight weeks but cannot make any reasonable, informed decision on the basis of seven weeks' consideration? That is absolute
1208
rot What we have seen today is pure opportunistic oppositionalism for the sake of it. It is nothing more and nothing less.
In Committee noble Lords opposite suggested a gap of six weeks. That is what they were arguing for. Moving the specific amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said,
"This amendment merely seeks to ensure that there will he adequate time, and that sufficient detail will be contained to enable the electorate to take an informed decision".—[Official Report, 3/7/97; col. 391.]
The noble Lord was arguing for six weeks. We listened to him; we heard him; we have given the matter consideration. We are saying seven weeks. Of course, noble Lords opposite are upping the ante to eight weeks. How long does this dutch auction in reverse go on for?
I should also say that we intend to publish the White Paper for Wales tomorrow—Tuesday, 22nd July—and to hold the referendum on 18th September. That will give eight weeks between publication and the referendum. Your Lordships will also note that what I said confirms the Government's intention to seek to overturn in another place the amendment passed in this House requiring the referendums to be held on the same day.
We have had a lot of huff and puff, a lot of bluster about the way the Government announced their intention. We have been accused of pre-empting the decision of Parliament—something that Mr. Howard never did. I must have been listening to a completely different radio programme. Let us go back and see what words have been used to date. The authoritative words on the issue are contained in the Answer given by the Government to the Question of my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees. He asked Her Majesty's Government, on 17th July, when they expected to announce the date of the referendum to establish a Welsh assembly. My noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn replied. The accusation is pre-empting; that is what we are accused of. My noble friend said:
"Subject to the approval of a Motion in another place, to disagree with the amendment on dates of referendums inserted into the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill in this House, the agreement of this House and subject to Royal Assent, the referendum in Wales will he held on 18 September 1997".—[Official Report, 17/7/97: WA130.]
The words "subject to" are used so many times in that sentence that it is preposterous to say that we are pre-empting the decision of this House or the other place. We are not. We are going forward quite properly.
The point was made by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that never could she remember an election being held in August or September. I hesitate to raise the historic point, but if my memory serves me correctly the 1945 election was held in July. In Scotland that was a much greater holiday month, and it still is. The 1945 election was a decisive victory; the referendum will be a decisive victory.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it seems that I am not alone in making a Second Reading speech. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, was making a good job of one towards the end. I am grateful to all noble Lords

1209
who have spoken. I am always amazed how many people can be drawn to the surface, especially from the Liberal Democrat Benches, when I cast my fly. Would that salmon were so obliging during August or any other month for that matter.
I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, graced us with a Second Reading speech. He suggested we get on with it. I suggest to him that for the rest of the afternoon he goes to the Library and studies some of the Committee and Report stages of Bills that I debated from the Dispatch Box and asks himself the question whether Members then sitting on this side of the Chamber were getting on with it. Were they introducing new material? I suggest that he studies in particular the contributions of his noble friend Lord Russell who was a frequent participator in my debates. I always attempted to respond to his questions, whether or not they were germane to the amendment. That is the way your Lordships proceed.
Perhaps we are now seeing new rules as the House has changed position. I hope that the Government do not think that and that they believe it right and well within the rules to raise issues which come up on a day-to-day basis against the amendments that are in front of us. I should have thought that this morning's press reports were perfectly legitimate matters for me to raise. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, thinks otherwise.
I was not, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, implied, arguing again the case for two days as against one day. I was simply pointing out—by quoting, for example, Lord Byers, Lady Birk and Lord Shinwell—that when the Conservative government did something similar there was a great deal of indignation from the then Labour Opposition Benches and the Liberal Democrat Benches. I am not entirely sure whether I should call them the "still opposition" Liberal Democrats". Perhaps not.
I was not arguing about one or two days and I do not disagree with the other place's right to reverse our position. I am simply saying that in 1980 the noble Lord's colleagues and the Labour Party made a great deal of fuss about a Conservative government making a statement in the other place that they intended to overturn the amendment. I was referring to that fact and the making of the statement in the other place last week. That is why I drew your Lordships' attention to the events of 1980.
I notice that no noble Lord who has sought to defend the position responded to my references to 1980. That is perhaps because your Lordships realise that the point made then was a legitimate point against government and the point I am making today is also a legitimate point against government.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, mentioned the fact that we have not, by and large, had general elections in August and September, and that is right. It seems to me therefore that it would be better if the referendums were not held in holiday months. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, has not lived in Scotland for some years. I can assure her that the position I portrayed is right;
1210
that is, that holidays are much more scattered. Indeed, the number of people who do not have children is increasing—either because they have all grown up or they do not yet have them—and they are taking their holidays well into August and September. That is greatly to the benefit of the tourist season but I shall cause a row with the Liberal Democrat Benches if I go into that.
The noble Lord, Lord Parry, smiles. It reminds me of his intervention when he said that in his view the Welsh referendum result prospect is becoming better by the day. Why then, if noble Lords are so confident, have two separate days? But that is the argument we have already resolved.
I am glad about seven weeks. I am sorry to hear that the Government intend to overturn the amendment passed in your Lordships' House that the referendums for Wales and Scotland should be held on the same day. The arguments given, to put it mildly, were weak, indeed, very weak. They deserved to be beaten, and the decision of this House merits being endorsed by the other place. I am not sure that that will happen. The imperative put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in Committee will be the one that rules; in other words, the only way to get a yes result, if that is possible at all in Wales, is to hold the referendum a week after the one held in Scotland. It will be the price of this little bit of gerrymandering if it does not work like that.
I am delighted that we are having seven and eight weeks. I would prefer the vote not to take place in August; that is a serious problem for all the campaigners. The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, will find, in trying to campaign for the yes vote, that many people are away in August and that many of those at home in rural Scotland will be too busy dealing with tourists who take their holidays in August to bother with referendums.
However, we have made some progress in your Lordships' House. We have ensured that the White Paper is published before Third Reading. That was not certain before the Report stage. We also ensured before Report stage that we knew the date of the referendums. With those two small thank your to the Government, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
4 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 4:
Page I, line 6, after ("and") insert ("income").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Committee stage of the Bill we discussed the question of what taxation-varying powers the Scottish Parliament might have and what relevance that would have to the question which is to be put to the Scottish public. I was not in the least convinced by the arguments put forward by Ministers on this subject.
The puzzle is quite simply put. The Scottish Constitutional Convention's final document made it perfectly clear that the limited powers would be to vary the basic rate of income tax. It said:
"The parliament will be financed on a stable, long-term basis. This objective will be attained by basing the financial settlement for the parliament upon a continuation of the principle of equalisation of expenditure within the UK; upon autonomy for the parliament in respect of its expenditure; and upon the limited power of the parliament to vary the basic rate of income tax."
That position has been in all the speeches and publications I have read from the Labour Party except, I suspect, in the manifesto, which, as your Lordships know, is my nightly reading to ensure I do not infringe against this holy text, if I may call it that. There, the limited financial powers were just to vary revenue. They were not about income tax.
I looked at statements made by the Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Donald Dewar, who said on BBC Radio Scotland, as reported in the Scotsman, that there was no retreat. At the time there were some question marks over whether or not the tax-varying powers would be allowed or whether people in, for example, the Treasury had decided there were fundamental defects surrounding that. Mr. Dewar added, when he had said that the Scottish Parliament would have a very substantial budget:
"We think it should be able to vary that budget if the needs of Scotland and electoral opinion makes that sensible".
He went on to say:
"There is no retreat. We hold to Our commitments and we will deliver. The parliament will have the power to vary income tax around the basic rate—the defined financial powers promised in the manifesto".
In a long article in the Financial Times of 11th June, Mr. Henry McLeish, the Minister responsible for devolution, made it clear that it was income tax-raising powers they were discussing.
It is difficult to pick out a particular quotation because almost every paragraph shows and underlines the fact that they are suggesting to the Scottish people that they are referring to income tax-raising powers and, of course, income tax-lowering powers. I should not keep saying "raising" because there is the potential to lower them, though, as your Lordships know, I managed to drag out from the Government—they were very reluctant to answer—what would happen if income tax were lowered by, say, 3p. in the pound. The answer I received was that the Treasury would drop the block grant to Scotland by £450 million. Given the way the current Government, local authorities and so on are always telling us how under-funded everything is in Scotland, I find it hard to believe that they would welcome £450 million being removed from their budget. But that is what will happen if they decide to reduce taxes. If they decide to increase them by 3p. in the pound they will have £450 million more to spend. I imagine that there will be a whole queue of people saying where they want the money spent.
All these quotations—from the article I referred to concerning Mr. McLeish, the quotation from Mr. Dewar and the quotation from the constitutional convention—make it clear that they are talking about income tax. My
1212
question again—I did not receive a suitable answer at Committee stage—is why not put "income" on the face of the Bill. It is a very small amendment; very, very small indeed. It simply means that I and my fellow Scots will look at a question which says, "I agree that a Scottish Parliament should have income tax-varying powers" or "I do not agree that a Scottish Parliament should have income tax-varying powers".
I know I should not be suspicious of the party opposite but I am afraid that the habits of a lifetime cannot be set aside easily. I am suspicious. I do not see any difficulty with adding the word "income". It makes clear on the face of the Bill and on the face of the ballot paper what Mr. Dewar has said, what Mr. McLeish has said and what the Scottish Constitutional Convention has said. So why do we not have a clear question? Why is the word left out?
The suspicious part of me says that it is left out because at some time in the future this Scottish Parliament may want to vary other taxes. The Government could then go back to this ballot paper and say, "The Scottish people agreed that the Scottish Parliament should have tax-varying powers. It did not specify income tax-varying powers". They may say—we shall come to it later—that the White Paper will say "income tax-varying powers". But that is not on the face of these questions either. The Government are not committed to sticking to the White Paper. Why is the word "income" not on the face of the Bill? Why are the promises which Ministers are making and the constitutional convention made about income tax being the tax that is to be varied not on the face of the Bill?
The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will have to work very hard, unless he accepts my amendment, to convince me and, I suspect, a fair number of my fellow Scots that the wide-ranging nature of this question is so that it will be open-ended; so that it will not tie a future Scottish parliament to income tax only, so that it will be able to look at value-added tax, excise duty and perhaps airport tax, and at all kinds of other taxes that are in the power of the Exchequer.
If the noble Lord does not accept my amendment, I can only conclude that the only reason why he will not accept it is in order to give this parliament, if it comes into being, a much more open-ended arrangement on taxation. I have little doubt that, for a year or two, if it happens, income tax is what will be varied, but then they will find that 3p. in the pound does not add up to much—£450 million in expenditure of £14 billion or £15 billion. Then they will say, "But we were not committed. No, you did not sign up, oh great Scottish public, just to income tax-varying. You signed up only to tax-varying. So perhaps we shall just vary a little more. We shall vary the other taxes". I hope that the noble Lord can set my suspicious mind at rest. However, short of accepting the amendment, I have to say to him that my suspicious mind will remain. I beg to move.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I am puzzled by this amendment. If you have the general statement "tax-varying powers" then any specific tax is included. Therefore, an income tax-varying power is covered by tax-varying powers in general. As an economist I have

1213
never understood the fuss people make about income tax. Why is there this great fuss about income tax? One can raise all kinds of taxes. The income tax bogey was raised by the noble Lord's colleague in another place when he was Secretary of State for Scotland. He went on calling it a "tartan tax". For a while he was worried about raising tax. Now, the penny has dropped that the tax could be reduced. What would be wrong if an airport tax were to be varied by the Scottish Parliament? If it were the wish of the Scottish people to give the Scottish Parliament tax-varying powers, so be it. It should be for the people to decide. The people of Scotland should be given a lot of choice. They should decide whether they want tax-raising powers for the parliament and then whoever is in charge in Scotland will decide which particular tax will be used because the circumstances may vary. Therefore, the broader interpretation is better than the narrower one.
Lord Renton: My Lords, although a short amendment it is a very important one. Until we have the White Paper we have no idea what the legislative powers of a Scottish parliament may be. We have no idea what taxes it may be able to impose. They may include import taxes, excise duties, entertainment duties—all kinds of things. Surely, the main intention is that the parliament should have the power to vary income tax. If that is the main intention it should be stated in the question to be put to the people and in the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish has made out a very strong case indeed whether or not we have an idea of the content of the White Paper. Frankly, until we do know its content it is very difficult to exercise a judgment which is of sufficient interest to the Scottish people and which offers sufficient protection for them. I hope that we press the amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I intervene in this matter on the Welsh side although the amendment deals only with the Scottish side. My noble friend Lord Renton has taken the words out of my mouth. It is the problem of the vagueness on which we are being asked to try to decide. The Bill is enormously vague about what the Welsh assembly may or may not do. We hope that in the White Paper tomorrow we shall discover a little more. However, as I understand it, it may not contain what we get at the end of this legislation. The amendment illustrates exactly our situation. I live the whole time in Wales; there are many who do not. I want to know exactly what I am voting for. And the more we know that is precise, the more I will be prepared to vote for, or maybe against, a Welsh assembly.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, will get the chance to speak a second time and therefore I address him in the hope that he can clarify his position. First, can the noble Lord tell me whether his party's position is still that it opposes devolution? Secondly, if there is devolution, is it his party's view that the Scottish parliament should not have any tax-raising powers?
1214
And, thirdly, if there is to be devolution and there are to be tax-raising powers, does his party believe that those powers should be limited to income tax? In other words, the noble Lord has three positions, one following from the other. That is the only way in which I can make sense of the Opposition's position.
I remember raising this matter when we were in Opposition and the question of the tartan tax arose. If the Scots are to have their own parliament, is it not rational that they should be able to make up their minds about what to do when they have that devolved parliament? It seems to me not only logical, but a matter of Scots' pride, that if devolution goes ahead, the Scots themselves make up their own minds. That is why I am slightly lost by the noble Lord's position.
The noble Lord may well be right that if there is to be a tax the correct one for the Scottish parliament to impose is income tax. But that is not to be decided at the referendum. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, because I assume that we are discussing Wales as well, which I always forget when these issues arise. I am given to understand that the Welsh will not have tax raising powers, so we are not discussing Wales. If I were a Welshman I would probably want to have tax raising powers as well. I would be very proud if I were a Welshman. However, that is all irrelevant. Noble Lords opposite are well aware that I have no influence on any of these matters. Surely the central issue is: why not let the Scots trust themselves to do what they want? In that sense, surely this amendment is irrelevant.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the position taken by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is entirely logical because he does not believe that the Scottish people have any judgment whatever. They threw out every Tory MP and therefore they must be wrong.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, it is not a question of what people on this side of the House think should be the tax-raising power for the Scottish parliament; it is about what the Government have confirmed over and over again as their intention, which is that tax-raising or tax-lowering should be on income tax. The Government have said that and they have ruled out everything else. I say that to the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Desai. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, made the case for me as far as I am concerned because my suspicion is that the Government do not want the people of Scotland to vote for tax-raising powers. They want to scare them into thinking that the tax-raising power could be not only income tax but might be additionally VAT or a sales tax. There is a whole range of things which could be affected. People are extremely alarmed at that prospect.
The Scottish people need to know what precisely the tax raising power is to be. They will only understand it properly if it is on the ballot paper. That is a very serious point. Not everyone will study the summary of the White Paper that will be circulated; very few will study

1215
the White Paper itself. People want to know how the parliament is going to affect them before they vote in a consultative referendum.
The Minister said in Committee that we should concentrate on two simple principles; namely, whether a Scottish parliament is wanted and whether it should have tax-raising powers. It is only reasonable that people should know the form that that tax-raising power will take—income tax or all the other things. Noble Lords opposite who do not live in Scotland understandably have not followed everything the Government have said up to date. There is a wide range of options whereby the Scottish people can pay for their parliament. To make the matter simple, it should be put on the ballot paper. That is not a difficult thing for the Government to do unless they want people to vote against tax-raising powers.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I was very glad to add my name in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. I recall at Committee stage many of us tried to clarify what was meant by tax-varying powers. We were not very successful. But when one reads the report of those discussions, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, very helpfully indicated that if the tax-raising powers were three pence in the pound on income tax, that would yield £450 million. Incidentally, £450 million is a very large amount of money per head of population. It is £100 for each man, woman and child. The Scottish people should be made aware of that.
It may be that the White Paper will reveal all and that in a sense the amendment is unnecessary. We may find that the White Paper gives the clues we want. If that is not the case then I believe that the Scottish voters have the right to know just what is intended. It is all very well to say, "You must trust them in due time." They should know now what is meant.
That brings me to my second point. We need to clarify what all this is about, particularly when it comes to the tax-varying powers. Will the people realise that that may seriously endanger the economy in the sense that new businesses may well look to locate elsewhere. They may say, "If Scotland has tax-varying powers, we shall not know where we stand, so let's look elsewhere. Let's go to Wales or to England; we must be careful about coming to Scotland because we do not know its form of taxation". It would be helpful if those who want the Scottish parliament to have tax-varying powers could explain whether they are limiting those powers to income tax or whether they will affect VAT or any other tax.
I plead for postponement on this question. I know that in a sense I am making a Second Reading speech, but this is an absolutely vital matter for both Houses, for the Union and for its three constituent parts. So, if we hammer away once or twice—or perhaps three times—and repeat ourselves, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me and others for that. This issue is so important. Indeed, I cannot think of any other issue that is likely to come before us in the next Parliament which begins to compare with the possibility of the break-up of the Union by our getting this wrong as opposed to our getting it right.
1216
I come now to why I plead for postponement. We do not know how the relationship between Westminster and the Scottish parliament will come out. We know that the Scottish parliament will have an opportunity to divide the block grant, which may be as much £15 billion. That is a huge responsibility with which suddenly to be confronted. It will take a long time to work it out in practice. But that is not all. In the early stages, all of the issues of which your Lordships are well aware, such as the West Lothian question and that of the exact relationship between the two parliaments, will come to the fore. Really and truly, the Scottish parliament will be fully occupied in its first session. Therefore, I plead that we agree that there should be a "No" vote on the second question on the basis that it is open to the Scottish parliament and to Westminster, if they find that there is a need for a taxing power, to introduce it in, say, the second or third Scottish parliament. What's the hurry?
My family motto happens to be "Gang warily". Noble Lords may say that that is rather a pawky motto, but I believe that in this case postponement is what is called for. Let us wait on this vital issue because if the provisions are accepted as they stand, it will be the beginning of the break-up of the Union—of that there can be no doubt—because as we all know, the power of the purse is what counts. If we ask the people of Scotland this second question and if we get the answer "Yes", which I deeply hope that we shall not, I can see many quarrels lying ahead of us. Indeed, the English may for a time—perhaps for the first time—say, "What's all this about? We have been very successful together. Over the past 300 years we have built up an empire such as has never been seen before in the history of the world and the Scots made a huge contribution to that". Are we to put all that in danger?
As it stands, the amendment to a degree limits and makes the position more easily understood by the people of Scotland. I do not want to say that the question will be more palatable to those who might say "Yes". I hope that they will not, but I believe that our amendment is just what is needed from all angles. Even so, I plead that we do not have any tax-varying powers in the first parliament, but that we look at the question again in the future.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, the tax-varying powers which have been put forward by the Government have always been presented, as my noble friend said when moving the amendment, as relating to income tax. The burden of that—or it might be the benefit—falls primarily on the people of Scotland. Much as we may like or dislike it, it is not of major concern to us as much as might be the case if there were a variation of other taxes. If we assume that other taxes can be varied under the Bill, let us consider what might happen if the Scottish parliament were able to reduce excise duty. Lorries would troop over the Scottish border in massive numbers, as happens on boats to France. Other taxes could also be varied. The impact on other parts of the

1217
United Kingdom could be severe. It is important that the power should be confined to income tax, as my noble friend suggested.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I rise to speak briefly and hope to avoid falling into the trap of making a Second Reading speech such as we have heard during our discussion of this amendment. I say at once that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, on the position of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. What the convention has talked about is income tax. I agree with the noble Lord on the position of Donald Dewar, the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has made it clear time and time again that what the Government are talking about is income tax. I agree with the position of the junior Minister in the Scottish Office, Henry McLeish, in his article in the Financial Times that what the Government are talking about is income tax.
Where I part company with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is that when I am told something I innocently believe it. I do not have the kind of suspicious mind that the noble Lord has. My position on this is quite clear: this is not a matter for the referendum, but for the primary legislation when it comes before both Houses of Parliament following the outcome of the referendum on the one hand and following the consultation on the White Paper on the other hand.
Let me pose this question to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. My noble friend Lord Peston has already asked him three or four questions, but perhaps I may add one. Why pick out taxation to appear in a definitive form on the ballot paper at the referendum? Why not ask the people of Scotland, "Are you in favour of a Scottish parliament with 190 Members?" Why not ask the people of Scotland, "Are you in favour of a Scottish parliament elected by proportional representation?" Why not ask the people of Scotland, "Are you in favour of a Scottish parliament that does not follow slavishly the Westminster role model and where we can have pre-legislative committees?" Why pick out the one issue of taxation?
Before the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, answers those questions, I shall answer them for him because my answer will be much more accurate than his. The answer is that the scare stories were started running by Sir Bruce Pattullo, the governor of the Bank of Scotland. In this debate noble Lords opposite are deliberately attempting to set that scare running so that if they cannot frustrate a "Yes, yes" vote, they will seek to obtain a "Yes, no" vote. That is what this is all about and in his honest moments the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, will confess that that is the true position.
There is no valid reason why one issue only—in this case, taxation—should be selected for presentation to the people of Scotland in order, as is claimed from the other side of your Lordships' House, to make the question more definitive. This is clearly a matter for the principal legislation. It is not a matter for the referendum. If it were a matter for the referendum, this question should not stand alone. We should ask those
1218
other questions about 190 Members, proportional representation and pre-legislative committees. There is no good reason for selecting this issue, except that it is a good frightener, and that is what it will be used for during the whole of the referendum campaign.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am pleased to be following the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, because I want to assist the noble Lord, Lord Peston. The noble Lord pointed out that the constitutional convention, of which he was co-chairman until he resigned on whether there should be a second proposition on taxation, recommended that it should be income tax only and that it could be varied up and down by 3p in the pound.
As far as I know, the Government confirmed that. What we have heard since is that the Government intend that the varying powers should affect income tax. If that is the case, it should be written into the Bill, as my noble friend Lord Mackay suggested. He will undoubtedly reply in full to the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
There is another point. I am not making a Second Reading speech, because I did so on Second Reading. I do not deal with Sir Bruce Pattullo's points about income tax, and the problem of dealing only with 3p on income tax where dividends and so on are concerned. We are not dealing with questions; they are propositions in the Bill, unlike previous referendums in this country. From all we understand, it was the Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, who insisted that there should be a second proposition on tax varying powers in the referendum in Scotland.
Media rumours in Scotland now are that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find that restricting, because he apparently has ideas about changing the income tax bands. If he does what one thinks that he has in mind, it would mean that the amount of money raised in Scotland—if the tax varying powers meant an increase—would be less than the sum that has been spoken about. There are problems, even if the matter is restricted to income tax.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, one of the most unpleasant taxes we have ever had was the selective employment tax which we had a few years ago. Whatever taxes are agreed, they should be specified. It should be made plain to the Scots people that the Parliament at Westminster will continue to have the final say.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the Government are right to resist the amendment. What is the point of Scotland having its own parliament unless it is to be given as many powers overall as, let us say, Delaware or Rhode Island. The voters of Delaware and Rhode Island can opt for a sales tax or a tax on alcohol or tobacco which is 2 per cent. to 3 per cent. higher or, possibly, lower than those prevailing in New Jersey and Massachusetts. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai. Why should not the people of Scotland be given the same options if—it is a big if—they choose to vote for them?
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, perhaps another Englishman might be rash enough to intervene in the

1219
debate. I have just two points to make. The first, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, is that I have always understood that the prime argument for devolution in Scotland—in principle I have no difficulty with that as a proposition—has always been that it will strengthen the unity of the UK. That then is something that we must consider.
In all my public life, the one factor that has mattered and counted has been money. It was the Government's decision when in opposition to have that question on the ballot paper. It is the Government's decision and not anyone else's. It is relevant. This is not a Second Reading speech; it is very much a Committee stage speech, because I am trying to answer points that have been made. If the assurances that we have from people such as Mr. Dewar and others that this is an income tax matter—I accept that it is a matter for the devolution Bill proper when we come to it—stand, that is fine. The difficulty is that the noble Lords, Lord Peston, Lord Desai and Lord Mackie, have raised an issue which is potentially divisive to the unity of the UK if one has a large number of varied tax rates across the whole spectrum.
It is one thing to quote experiences in the USA when one is dealing with one nation which has within it separate states with populations which are far larger than that of the whole of the UK, and distances that run in thousands of miles where we are accustomed to running in hundreds, but we are dealing with a small nation state. I have no difficulty with the proposition, if the proposition is income tax. If that is what it is going to be, I do not understand why there should be any difficulty in amending the question on the ballot paper. If that is what it is going to be, it would be simple to accept the point here and now and have it. It is noble Lords opposite who have raised the suspicions of ordinary people like me that it might mean something else.
Lord Rees: My Lords, it is true that we have had some speeches that have verged on Second Reading speeches this afternoon and during the two days in Committee. The reason for that is not difficult to find. It is because the Government have approached this important piece of constitutional legislation from the wrong end. We are going to ask the residents of Scotland and Wales to approve of something which has not been carefully sifted and thought out in the UK legislature.
I appreciate that there has been a Scottish convention. However, not being a resident of Scotland I confess that I have not followed its debates as closely as perhaps I should have done. We have not had the advantage of a convention in Wales, and so perhaps the matter has not been sifted out as carefully there as it may have been in Scotland. Whether or not it has been sifted out in Scotland, some important issues appear to have escaped the Government's attention, and have not been offered to us for debate.
It is said, "Leave it to the good sense of the Scots". That is an attractive proposition to someone who had a Scots mother even though he is resident in Wales and not in Scotland. Then I paused to think. Let us consider whether the question of taxation is of supreme importance. As a general proposition, of course it is because it is the basis of so much of our legislation and so many of our debates
1220
in both Houses of Parliament. More than that, the Government have chosen to single out taxation as being a matter of supreme importance, to be approved or disapproved by the residents of Scotland, because, after all, it is in the schedule to the Bill.
If one asks, "Why not leave this to the Scots to decide if and when they have their own parliament?" the answer is that the Government say that they want a view from the residents of Scotland. We are bound to think a little bit about these matters. Unfortunately, we cannot escape doing so now, because the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, has told us that we must press forward with this matter and that the view of the residents of Scotland must be taken in September before the main devolution legislation has even been printed. Indeed, I believe that supreme pressure has been brought to bear on the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, who until today has treated our interventions with courtesy and almost with reason. He has been a little offensive, if he will allow me to say so, but I realise that he has been under intense pressure, as have his colleagues in Cabinet. He is having to defend the indefensible, which, as I found in government, is sometimes a difficult operation.
Let us return to the issue before us. Yes, we want to know the questions which will be asked of the residents of Scotland. The questions relate to taxation and the scope of the powers which may be conferred on a Scottish parliament. After all, we know nothing about the Bill which will be introduced—that is, if a Bill is to be introduced, and we must not anticipate the outcome of the referendums—and we will not see the White Paper until later this week. We will want to know the degree to which the Government will pay attention to the no doubt cogent points which will be made during the debate on the White Paper before we rise for the Summer Recess. Of course we must focus on that particular question.
The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, said that he was a trusting person. That is an admirable characteristic and we must all try to take at face value even our opponents across the Chamber. However, if all that is to be proposed in the White Paper and in any subsequent legislation relates to varying the powers to raise or to lower income tax, why not accept this simple amendment? On the other hand, the Government may wish to reserve their position to see exactly how things are taken north of the Border, or to see the problems which will no doubt be turned up by the Inland Revenue. My heart bleeds for the Chancellor of the Exchequer—it does not often do so—who must try to reconcile the propositions with the general framework of direct taxation in this country. Having once had the privilege of receiving advice while appearing in the other place on matters of taxation, I appreciate the kind of detail and well-thought-out advice which are no doubt being tendered to Treasury Ministers by the Inland Revenue.
If the matter is as simple as noble Lords opposite would have us believe and there is nothing more than marginal adjustments to income tax—although, as has emerged in the debate, the technical difficulties of that will be considerable—they should accept the amendment. If the matter is not so simple, we are right in ventilating the points today. We shall expect to consider the matter closely when we read the White Paper. We shall have to

1221
return to it on the Second Reading of the proposed legislation, and we must go back to substantive legislation if a proper devolution Bill is introduced.
Finally, this is not a matter only for our friends north of the Border. As was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Boardman and others, if we go a little further, and even if there are major adjustments to income tax north of the Border, that may have a considerable effect on residents south of the Border and in Wales. We operate in one economic entity. Our taxation system, which has been developed over a century but not always to our satisfaction, is highly complex. Once we start raking about into that structure there will be many side effects and I doubt whether the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and his colleagues have yet bothered to think them through.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, the amendment is intended to clarify the nature of the tax-varying powers of a Scottish parliament, upon which the Scottish electorate will be invited to vote at a referendum. Its purpose is to change the references to tax-varying powers so that it refers specifically to income tax. In my contribution, I shall set myself two tasks. The first is to try to deal with as many of the points—some well made—as possible. The second is slightly more difficult; it is to remove the suspicions which lurk in the deeply suspicious mind of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I do not wish to speculate upon whether that cast of mind is the product of his being a Minister for so long in the previous administration.
As regards my first task, I ask noble Lords to listen to what I say because the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and others raised the spectre of a whole series of taxes being introduced, raised or changed; for instance, excise duty and sales tax. I ask your Lordships to reflect on the fact that what has been said throughout the discussion in Scotland, the debate in the other place and the debate in this House has centred specifically and solely on income tax—
Lord Renton: My Lords, if that is so, why not state it in the Bill?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I shall come to that point later. It will be stated in the devolution Bill, but I shall come to the reason why it is not stated in this Bill. First, I wish to make it clear that we have said throughout that the powers to vary tax will relate to income tax. I do not believe that noble Lords opposite will be able to come forward with any contrary quotation from members of the Government. I am happy to repeat that and I hope that it clarifies the situation definitively.
Furthermore, that power will be to vary the basic rate of income tax set by the UK Parliament by up to 3p. That is an important constraint and an important factor. Liability for the varied tax rate will be determined by residence in Scotland. That is a second important factor. If that power were used, the resources available to the Scottish parliament would increase or decrease
1222
accordingly, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I do not believe that there has ever been any secret about that.
Noble Lords opposite propose that the fact that the tax is income tax should be reflected in the Bill and I understand some of the arguments and intentions behind the amendment. However, not only is it unnecessary, but such an amendment, while appearing to offer precision and clarity, would actually deceive. The inclusion of the words "income tax" does not explain the Government's proposals in sufficient detail. The Government's proposals are limited to varying income tax by up to 3p. That is a variation of income tax paid by people in Scotland. If that range of explanation is not in the question, the statement "varying income tax" is a complete distortion. It removes two of the fundamentally important constraints around which the power to vary income tax is based.
We have adopted an approach which was well explained by my noble friend Lord Ewing. It is based on limiting the questions to the two matters of principle: "Do you want a Scottish parliament?"; "Do you want that parliament to have tax-varying powers?". We decided to adopt that approach for the reasons which my noble friend Lord Ewing identified.
Once we move away from principle into detail, we are not presenting the electorate with a question on the ballot paper; we are presenting it with an essay. It would go on and on, spelling out the precise detail of the composition and powers of the proposed Scottish parliament. It would spell out the precise limitations and reservations on tax varying. As I said in Committee, there would be a ballot paper which looks more like the ballot paper used in elections in the United States of America which go on and on. That is not the way forward. We must have simple, clear propositions of principle.
Let us return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, that somehow lurking in the political undergrowth of Scotland or this Government—not that this Government have a political undergrowth—there is some deeply worked-out, conceived plot that at a certain time in the future we shall hold up a piece of paper which says, "Ah, the Scottish electorate voted for tax-varying powers. Okay boys, we will extend them. We will give them a whole raft of different tax-varying powers".
The way to deal with that particular question is to look at the ballot paper because the ballot paper, as contained in the schedule, refers specifically to the Government's proposals which are the proposals upon which the electorate, in the referendum, is being invited to vote. The Government's proposals in the White Paper will spell out their proposals in relation to income tax and the limitation to 3p. That is what the Government's proposals are all about. That is why it is unnecessary to have a spurious degree of detail in the question. But more important, that alleged detail will deceive and lead to imprecision and lack of clarity.
The way forward is to stick to the two propositions of principle. Assuming a positive outcome in the referendum, the details of how such a power will operate will be contained in the main devolution legislation.

1223
Details about the tax-varying powers, the 3 pence in the pound variation and how it will operate, will be embedded obviously and necessarily in the main legislation. Therefore, there is no need for spurious amendments at this stage. On reflection, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the longer the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, went on, the less I thought that my amendment was spurious. Indeed, as the debate went on, it became clear that the amendment is far from spurious.
Half way through, the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, intervened and asked me why I should select only taxation for a special position in the referendum. I have not chosen the questions for the referendum; I have not chosen a referendum; I have not even chosen that policy. That is the Government's policy and those are the Government's questions. They are not my questions at all.
I do not believe that there is a particularly compelling reason for having a second question. If the first question encompasses the whole of the White Paper, it seems to me that we do not need a second question.
The noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, knows more about the referendum issue than most of your Lordships. I was intrigued by what I thought was his attempt to rewrite history. He said that the reason for the second question is because of some scare story by Sir Bruce Pattullo, the Governor of the Bank of Scotland, about the damage in relation to varying or increasing income tax.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, just before the noble Lord winds down his misleading path, perhaps I may clarify matters. The point that I was making was in relation not to the second question at all but in relation to the noble Lord's amendment. He latched on to Bruce Pattullo's coat-tails and I was hoping to prise him off them before he goes any further down that road.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am always glad of enlightenment and an indication that my understanding was not correct. I shall read the noble Lord's speech with some interest because I was sure that he was referring to the general question. But if he says it was only about my small addition to the general question, that saves the noble Lord being reminded that the voile face on having a referendum was performed by the Labour party in June 1996 and brought about the resignation of the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, from the joint convenorship or chairmanship of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. However, I should say to the noble Lord that I did not devise my amendment with Sir Bruce Pattullo's speech in mind, but that is an added argument to my case for looking specifically at what those tax-varying powers should be.
The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, should have listened—and I hope did listen—carefully to two of his noble friends and one noble Lord on the Cross-Benches who put forward the proposition, which is sensible in its own argument, that if tax-varying powers are given to a Parliament, why should that be limited to income tax? The noble Lord, Lord Monson, from the Cross Benches
1224
pointed out correctly that in Delaware and Rhode Island it is possible to do a good deal more than that; and asked why the Scottish Parliament should be any different.
The noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Peston, both distinguished economists, put forward an argument which, if this parliament comes about, the people in it will hear from Scottish economists, although none will hope to be as distinguished as the noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Peston, especially the noble Lord, Lord Desai. He had some interesting views on the economic policy of his own party when it was in opposition and very positive views on the economic policy of the then government. However, I shall be rebuked for straying from the narrow point in relation to the questions in the referendum.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, rightly drew to the attention of the House the question as to whether this parliament should be tied down as to the kind of tax it is permitted to raise. He put forward the proposition that the broader the tax-raising base, the better. I believe that I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Desai, on that subject on a number of occasions in the UK context and I am not surprised that he made it in this context.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that I still oppose devolution. I hope that the parliament does not have tax-raising powers because I believe, like Sir Bruce Pattullo, that it would be damaging to the Scottish economy and that it would put up taxes in Scotland. Frankly, I do not believe for a moment that the parliament would ever put the taxes down because I read the Scottish press and I see a litany of the words "under-funded" this and "under-funded" that and so on. Therefore, I believe that those of us who live in Scotland will have to face an increasing tax burden.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, pointed out that the correct tax to raise may not be income tax. To some extent, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and his noble friend Lord Desai have let the cat out of the bag and are endorsing my argument that if you have a parliament with tax raising powers, there may well be an argument that that should include a lot more than the variation of income tax. Therefore, I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, was helped in that regard by the interventions of his two noble friends. Nevertheless, what they said should carry a lot of weight when it comes to the general proposition as to why that question is drawn so broadly when the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, is so determined in his contributions both today and in Committee to define it very narrowly.
In Committee he said that the only tax varying powers that the Government have in mind for a Scottish Parliament relate to income tax, and that it would be confined to 3p in the pound. He seems to be worried that the insertion of the word "income" would still make it too broadly based. Therefore, I have devised another amendment and, if the noble Lord indicates that he would accept the amendment on Third Reading, I shall happily withdraw my amendment this afternoon and bring forward a different amendment on Third Reading. The question would then read:
"I agree that a Scottish Parliament should have the power to vary the basic rate of income tax upwards or downwards by up to 3p in the pound".

1225
That is not dissimilar from the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who unfortunately cannot be here today but who indicated that had he been here, he would have been keen to discuss those issues. I grant your Lordships the fact that that amendment would add a few words, but it would not add significantly more words to the question than appear in the Welsh question, where, of course, the words are doubled because they are set out in both English and Welsh. So the Minister's argument is not a very good one. I had hoped that the noble Lord would indicate his willingness to accept that amendment on Third Reading, but, unfortunately, I see that he is not willing to do so.
I return, therefore, to my main point. I do not see why the words "income tax" should not be clear to the electorate in Scotland, myself included. It should be clear that people are voting for or against income tax being varied, and only income tax. Indeed, that could make a huge difference to the votes of people who do not pay income tax and who may be happy to vote for increasing income tax, but who would not be happy to vote for an increase in excise duty or VAT.
I am trying to be helpful to the Government in helping them honour their election pledges. They are having some difficulty in Scotland because everyone thought that there would be no tolls on Skye Bridge after the new dawn had come on 2nd May; but there are still tolls on that bridge. Moreover, no one thought that there would be any private prisons, but there are to be such prisons. I return again to the manifesto—I have almost reached the stage where I can remember it off by heart because I am so often reminded of it—which refers to law-making powers,
"including defined and limited financial powers to vary revenue".
As the question stands, I submit that it is very widely defined and that it certainly is not limited. It is not limited as to the scope of the kind of tax which may be imposed. I suggest that my word added to the question would improve the definition and the limitation of that financial power. It would, therefore, help the party opposite to fulfil their manifesto commitments. In that spirit, I should like to test the opinion of the House.
5.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 149; Not-Contents, 132.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Lindsay, E.

Anelay of St.Johns, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

Beloff, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Biddulph, L.

Marlesford, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Brentford, V.

Monson, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Northesk, E.

Carnock, L.

Palmer, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Park of Monmouth, B.

Clanwilliam, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Cox, B.

Rees, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Renton, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Savile, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Seccombe, B.

Erroll, E.

Sempill, L.

Forbes, L,

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Gray, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Harrowby, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hertford, M.

Trenchard, V.

Holderness, L.

Tugendhat, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Vivian, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Waddington, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Weatherill, L.

Lawrence, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Leigh, L.

Wharton, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Barnett, L.

Falkender, B.

Berkeley, L.

Falkland, V.

Blackstone, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B

Blease, L.

Gallacher, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Gilbert, L.

Blyth, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Borrie, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Gregson, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Grenfell, L.

Calverley, L.

Grey, E.

Carlisle, E.

Hamwee, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hanworth, V.

Carter, L.[Teller.]

Hardie, L.

Chandos, V.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Haskel, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hayman, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

David, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Hooson, L.

Desai, L.

Howell, L.

Dixon, L.

Hoyle, L.

Donoughue, L.

Hughes, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Eatwell.L.

1251

Jay of Paddington, B.

Peston, L.

Jeger, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Judd, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Kennet, L.

Rea, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Kirkwood, L.

Rochester, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Lestor of Eccles, B.

Russell, E.

Lockwood, B.

St. Davids, V.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Longford, E.

Sewel, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Shepherd, L.

McCarthy, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Strabolgi, L.

McNally, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B

Mallalieu, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Mishcon, L.

Thurso, V.

Molloy, L.

Tordoff, L.

Monkswell, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Whitty, L.

Ogmore, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Parry, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Paul, L.

Winston, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

National Lottery
5.12 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on
1228
reforming the National Lottery. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I should like to make a Statement about reforming the National Lottery. I am today publishing a White Paper, The People's Lottery. It will be available in the Vote Office when I have finished speaking.
"The White Paper takes forward the plans outlined in our election manifesto and in the details we published in The People's Money on 23rd April. Both received the endorsement of the British people on 1st May.
"I believe the package of proposals we are publishing today will mark a turning point in the fortunes of our National Lottery. It will make it even more popular and even more relevant to people's daily lives. It is less than three years since the first tickets were sold. Yet in that short time the lottery has become a tremendous success. Nine out of 10 adults play at least occasionally. There have been 180 million winning tickets—360 of them for more than £1 million.
"The lottery has already raised over £3½ billion for good causes. By the time the current licence ends, we expect it will have raised £10 billion. Thanks to the initiative and hard work of those who have been involved in developing projects, and the lottery distribution bodies, funds have already been committed to over 24,000 projects throughout the United Kingdom. But I suspect it is the smaller proposals which make the most difference to many people's lives—like the grant of some £2,000, featured in the White Paper, for a summer arts festival for children predominantly from low income families in Norfolk. I welcome this success. The proposals in the White Paper are about building on it. We will be introducing the legislation needed to give effect to aspects of these proposals later this year.
"The proposals in the White Paper fall under four headings. First, we will set up a new good cause—the New Opportunities Fund. It will support specific initiatives, additional to core programmes funded through taxation, to support our priorities of health, education and the environment. Subject to Parliament, the fund will begin its work next year with three initiatives, two helping to raise standards in schools and one promoting better health. Other initiatives will follow—for the environment as well as for health and education.
"By 2001 the fund will be supporting programmes of activity outside the school day involving at least half of all secondary schools and a quarter of all primary schools. Activities will range from extra coaching in basic literacy and numeracy to new opportunities for creative and sporting education and structured play, fun as well as learning—helping parents who work as well as raising school standards. By 2001 the fund will also have trained some half a million teachers and 10,000 public librarians to help children and adults learn throughout their lives using new technologies.

1229
"The new fund's health initiative will be a network of healthy living centres throughout the United Kingdom. They will provide a wide variety of facilities and services in different ways and to help different groups but all with the same fundamental aim of promoting good health. In designing the detail of these initiatives and delivering money to projects the new fund will work closely with bodies expert in the relevant fields in each part of the United Kingdom.
"The financial success of the lottery will enable us to set up the new fund alongside the existing good causes. In 1994 the lottery was forecast to raise £9 billion for good causes in the period up to 2001. We now expect it to raise £1 billion on top of that. It is from that extra £1 billion that we will find initial support for the New Opportunities Fund.
"We will continue to allocate the bulk of the proceeds of the lottery to the existing good causes. I pay tribute to the work the distributing bodies have already done—some fine examples are included in the White Paper—and I want them to build on their success. That is the second main theme of the White Paper.
"Excellent as the distributors' record has been, it has been limited by some aspects of the framework within which they have to operate. These constraints are at the root of the concerns expressed about lottery distribution—the lack of a clear overall strategy, the uneven geographical allocation of grants, the failure of some activities to get enough help from the lottery, and the feeling that decisions are remote and unaccountable.
"The Bill will contain measures to help us work with the distributors to tackle these constraints. I want to encourage a debate involving the distributors and everyone else with an interest in making a success of the lottery on the way distribution will work within the new framework—and on the extent to which we can make progress in the same direction before the legislation comes into force. Among the main issues on which I am consulting are how the existing distributors can provide even more support for our priorities of health, education and the environment; the contribution they can make to regeneration; how, through delegation and working together, they can meet needs better; and how they can bring decision-making closer to the grass roots.
"I now come to our third major proposal. It is a major part of our vision of a lottery for the people. We will use a part of the £ 1 billion of extra lottery money to establish NESTA—the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts. NESTA will help ensure the fruits of the outstanding talents with which our nation is blessed and benefit our own country rather than others. It will encourage the development of an environment which fosters creative talent and innovation and allows it to flourish for the benefit of the country, its economy and its people. In doing so it will support my central objective of promoting the creative industries.
1230
"NESTA will have three simple objectives: to help talented individuals to develop their full potential in the creative activities and industries, and in science and technology; to help to turn creativity and ideas into products or services which are effectively exploited with rights protected; and to contribute to the advancement of public education about, and awareness and appreciation of the areas with which NESTA is concerned.
"These objectives will be set out in the forthcoming Bill, but once established as a trust independent of Government, NESTA will determine for itself its priorities and activities. Its first task will be to map what support and provision already exists, so that its own activities complement existing publicly and privately funded programmes.
"Finally, the White Paper outlines our proposals to make the lottery itself a more efficient and transparent operation. In the White Paper we invite proposals to meet the twin objectives of maximising the return to good causes and removing unnecessary profit. Within the framework we set the licence will go to the bidder who will deliver the greatest return while running the lottery efficiently, transparently and with propriety. So that the selection of a new operator is seen to be independent and objective, we will appoint a panel to assist the director-general in his choice, including people with expertise in business, lottery distribution and the views of consumers.
"We want to ensure that the director-general has the full range of powers necessary to make sure that the operator complies with its licence. The Bill will therefore contain provision for him to fine the operator where serious licence breaches occur.
"I look forward to the widest possible consultation on our proposals, from right honourable and honourable Members, and everyone else with an interest in building on the lottery's success, in the consultation period which is now beginning. To help everyone participate, a summary of the proposals is available in a leaflet which will be distributed widely throughout the country in the coming weeks.
"A new good cause; a reform of lottery distribution; NESTA, to unlock people's potential; better operation and regulation—this White Paper sets out to enable the National Lottery to become even more successful and to become truly a people's lottery".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.21p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, from these Benches perhaps I may express my gratitude to the Minister for repeating the Statement on the reforms to the National Lottery in the White Paper.
During the week in which the National Lottery was launched, I said in my maiden speech that it was expected to provide huge additional resources for our national heritage, the arts, sports and charities, and that it could be the most important piece of legislation in the heritage field since the Second World War. Financially, it has proved exactly that.

1231
Is it not churlish of the Government now not to congratulate John Major and the previous Conservative government who set up the largest, most successful lottery in the world, played by over 30 million and raising over £3.5 billion for good causes in two years? Why do the Government want to play killjoy, stopping people winning money and having a little fun? The lottery Bill was debated at length in both Houses. The outcome was that at all costs it should be independent of government interference. What we are now witnessing is blatant contravening of the spirit of the agreement by the party opposite.
Arising from what the Secretary of State said in another place, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord whether he can assure the House that funds raised by the National Lottery will not be used as a substitute for public spending but will be additional to government expenditure? Does he accept that lottery money spent on education and health projects violates the additionality principle? I am sure he would also agree that essential services like education, health and the environment cannot be properly funded by relying on the lottery because it is inherently an unreliable source of income. Vital public services should be financed from taxation and should not be dependent on the vagaries of the lottery.
The Statement is a little unclear as to where the fine money will come from in a non-profit organisation, as mentioned in the Labour Party's manifesto. In less than three months, the words "not for profit" do not even appear. The organisation can be fined as a result of the new powers of the director-general of Oflot. Will the Government raid the charities or good causes for money? Do we really need two operators and a panel of new businessmen? Is that not just another quango? What would be the costs?
I sympathise with the Secretary of State for having his chest raided by the Treasury. Only one person is smiling today—the Chancellor. Emptying community chests and depriving local projects enable him to balance the books. The lottery was meant to be kept at arm's length from government. Will the Government intervene next to nationalise what is already the people's lottery? Perhaps they would like to turn it into premium bonds. Is this the start of new Labour's nationalisation programme?
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and receive it with mixed feelings. We appreciate some of the thinking underlying the Statement and the White Paper; they appear almost simultaneously. I have been able only to glance over the White Paper.
At first sight the Government seem to take a curious view of the National Lottery which is rather removed from reality. When the issue was debated in your Lordships' House the main objection from the Opposition was that should funds become available in the amounts predicted—indeed, they far exceeded them—the Government of the time would be tempted to use them for purposes which should be met out of
1232
taxation. The present Government are doing just that by adding to the good causes the proposals in the White Paper.
While some of us had qualms about the wisdom of a national lottery and the effect that it would have on poor people's income and spare time, there is no doubt that the lottery has been extremely successful. I agree with the noble Baroness. It has been successful because it has been efficiently run. We are anxious to hear more, as we undoubtedly shall, about how the Government will approach the running of the lottery after Camelot's contract expires. The Government seem to have reversed somewhat on the proposal after many high moral words about "not-for-profit" lotteries rather than "non-profit" lotteries—a carefully worded phrase. They seem to accept that a profit is necessary. Calling it a people's lottery is rather good jargon. It is rather like talking about a fair profit or a just profit.
I hope that my noble friends on these Benches will agree that it is extremely unwise to tamper with something that is going so well. Often in a commercial company someone comes up with an idea, and you say, "We'll give you a commission for your idea", although you do not think much of it. Then that person starts to make more out of the commission on the idea than the chief executive. The accounts department always tries to knock down the commission. Because of the extreme success of the lottery and the agreement reached—after all, Camelot takes only 1p out for every card filled in—it has made extremely large amounts of what the Government term profit. That is profit, and profit well earned. I believe the Government will agree with me that there were some unseemly pictures of Camelot executives making V-signs for victory when they heard of their increased emoluments as a result of the success of the lottery. But that was the mistake of the company's public relations. I hope that the Minister can assure me that when the matter is fully examined, the Government will ensure that the criteria established by Camelot will be at least matched by those the Government propose to put in its place. Whatever else Camelot has done, it has made the lottery extremely attractive for those who buy tickets twice a week. If it had not been so efficient, we should have seen a marked drop-off in the turnover of the lottery.
Perhaps I may mention one or two other areas of anxiety which the noble Lord may be able to answer in some measure. I refer to the idea that now certain areas of health, education and environment will be given the chance to dip into the lottery pot. How are the Government able to justify amounts going to those areas which one would normally expect to be funded out of Treasury moneys, out of central taxation?
What is the difference, for example, between a teacher being trained to be more efficient and productive in his or her profession when that is paid for out of government initiatives through taxation and what is suggested in the White Paper? Is teacher education now to be subject to the fluctuations of a gambling activity? Surely, it should be treated as an activity with a certain, rather than uncertain, end. The lottery may not be as profitable in future as it has been.

1233
There is another curious matter which we shall have the opportunity of discussing. The White Paper rightly points out the great blessings of talent in our country. No one would disagree with the conclusion that such talent exists. We are to dip into the lottery pot to make sure that what is produced and invented as a result of that talent will now be exploited and we shall be able to gather in more of the profits than we were previously required to do. As I am sure the noble Lord will agree, it has always been a cultural fact in this country that, for all our great talent, we often do not reap the rewards, from the film industry, the motor industry or whatever, because we do not apply long-term thinking in many areas. Sadly, in marketing and other areas, we are out-performed by other nations, notably the United States and Japan, closely followed by other areas of the Far East. I am therefore interested to know what impression the Minister believes taking money from the lottery fund will have on changing what is a cultural phenomenon in this country; namely, that the fruits of our many talented people are picked up and exploited by other countries, which often make the profits. We rightly begrudge them those profits, because they are based on our ideas. Is this an appropriate area in which to use these moneys?
Finally—I am sorry to be so tedious about this matter—does the Minister not agree that it would be better initially to attempt to continue with the way in which the lottery performs now and try to bring about a greater take-up of funds available in the five areas presently designated—in particular, charities, sports and the arts. Only about 25 per cent. in total of the funds available are taken up, and for all kinds of reasons. Some people are chary about applying, and in many cases there is difficulty in choosing. Mistakes have been made and always will be. How is it that the Government now propose to follow the very grandiose scheme in the White Paper when there is a sad need to make sure that the distribution of funds as already structured is more fully and completely achieved?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and to the noble Viscount for the way in which they responded to this admittedly complex Statement about what is an admittedly complex White Paper. I am happy to confirm at the outset that the noble Baroness's maiden speech at the time of the original establishment of the lottery was prophetic. She correctly anticipated the benefits that would come from the lottery. I am happy to join her in congratulating all those—it was not a party political matter—who supported and encouraged the establishment of the National Lottery and contributed to its success, acknowledged in the Statement and in the White Paper.
The noble Baroness rightly said that the principal point of the distribution of lottery funds to good causes was that it should be independent, that it should be at arm's length from government. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, made very much the same point. The noble Baroness rightly said that funds from the National Lottery should not be a substitute for public spending. I give the absolute assurance that that will not be the
1234
case. It is not our intention that funds, either from the existing distributors or from the new distributors—that is, the New Opportunities Fund and the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts—should be under the control of government. The existing distributors have always worked, just as Camelot has worked, under direction and advice from government. That was not only established by the existing Act but was continued by subsequent directions. No one ever thought it improper for government to express their views, just as nobody thought it improper for the director-general of the lottery to express his views, where appropriate, on the activities of Camelot.
When we talk about initiatives in health, education and environment as being the first activities of concentration of the New Opportunities Fund, I confirm that these are not, and never were intended to be, core expenditure items from taxation. The provision of schools and buildings, the funding of teachers and education, is the role of taxation and of the Chancellor. I do not think that the Chancellor will in any way be smiling at what is proposed today. The specific example of teacher training was raised. What is proposed is a one-off attempt to deal with the problem that something like 40 per cent. of existing teachers have never received any training in information technology other than at a very basic level. This one-off attempt is necessary to bring them up to scratch in order that all children in all schools can benefit from teachers who understand information technology.
The same is true of the health centres that are proposed. Those do not come within the ordinary remit of the National Health Service and never have done. Some have been provided by local authorities and some by private initiatives, but it has never been a priority for the National Health Service to do what is proposed in the White Paper. I repeat, with all the strength at my command, that it is not our intention to depart from the principle of additionality which says that proceeds for good causes from the lottery should be in addition to those provided by public expenditure.
The noble Baroness questioned the idea of fining the lottery company in the case of serious breaches of the rules. The legislative framework proposed will be designed to ensure that the regulator has a range of sanctions available according to the nature of the operator and according to any breach of licence conditions. It will be up to him to choose the appropriate sanction. If he operates effectively, as I am sure he will, he will make sure that any fines come from the operator's income rather than from good causes.
I was slightly puzzled by the noble Baroness's reference to a panel of new businessmen. There will of course be distributors, both for NESTA and for the New Opportunities Fund. Indeed, the arm's-length nature of NESTA will be even greater than for the other funds. The intention is that the distributors will have an amount of capital and freedom to use the income from that capital as they think fit within the guidelines set down, and the amounts they have will be dependent upon the returns from that capital.

1235
I apologise to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for the short time he has had to study the papers. It was my experience over many years that this has always been a difficulty for those in opposition. However, it has led him into error in thinking that we have succumbed to the temptation to use the National Lottery for purposes which would otherwise properly be met from taxation.
The noble Viscount is correct in saying that the National Lottery is efficient because it has been efficiently run; I certainly acknowledge that. But that does not mean that it is not possible to improve the efficiency of the National Lottery, the directions which are given to it and the way in which an operator is chosen.
Our primary concern in the choice of a new operator will be to maximise the return to good causes. We believe that the public will prefer to see that objective achieved by a not-for-profit operator; but, if we cannot have that within the primary objective of maximising income to good causes, then so be it. All we are ruling out at this stage is the two extremes, one, a state-run lottery run in effect by civil servants, which we do not think would be appropriate, and the other, a lottery with an open-ended profit commitment, which is what we have now. Camelot will, of course, be welcome to submit proposals within our guidelines to become the new operator after 2001.
I understand the thoughtful points which the noble Viscount makes about NESTA and about reaping rewards from our own skills and scientific, technical and artistic achievements. It is true that there are a number of organisations in the field, including particularly the higher education system, which already touch on the fringes of what we are trying to do with NESTA; but I believe that NESTA will be able to meet needs which other organisations cannot reach and bring together our effort in this area, as some other countries have succeeded in doing.
The final question which the noble Viscount asked was whether it would not be better to continue with the existing lottery system. I hope I have shown in my replies that what we are proposing will be an improvement which is possible because of the success of the existing lottery.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, the Statement made by my noble friend certainly impresses, but I regret that I cannot share his enthusiasm. The test of the lottery is being judged purely in financial terms.
I should like to ask my noble friend whether, in pursuit of its policies, new Labour looked at the social consequences of the lottery and questioned whether they were consistent with our general view of the nature of the society we are creating. We are creating a nation of gamblers, a culture which thinks that there is easy money and success to be gained by gambling and buying tickets, whereas I assume that the Labour Party's new philosophy is to encourage initiative and energy. Was any analysis made of the people who buy lottery tickets and of the social consequences for those who are accumulating poverty and debt as a result of the new habit of buying tickets in the hope of success?
1236
I believe that the nature of our society and the consequences of the lottery should be questioned before we embark on this widespread enthusiasm for getting money for nothing.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend's attitude towards the lottery is well known and well respected. It is a view expressed not just by him but by many sincere people who feel very profoundly that even a lottery which contributes as much as this one does to good causes is somehow immoral and an attack on the fabric of our society. I respect that view without sharing it.
My noble friend asks whether there has been research on the effect of the National Lottery upon individuals who take part in it. The cant word is "invest" but I think it right to call it gambling because that is really what it is. The answer is that research has indeed been carried on through the Office for National Statistics and on the effect on other charities in collaboration with the National Council of Voluntary Organisations. That research is continuing.
Compared to some other forms of gambling, the National Lottery is very soft gambling. In most cases it is not the kind of gambling where the return is immediate, except for the relatively minor scratch cards. The amount of expenditure on the National Lottery per household per week is of the order of £2, which is not earth-shattering when compared to something like £9 spent on cigarettes and £15 on alcohol. It is not really a destruction of the fabric of our society. On the whole, provided we keep the National Lottery to soft gambling, as it is at the moment, I do not think that my noble friend's most dramatic fears are likely to be realised.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I find the Statement made by the Minister very puzzling. If Camelot had not been a success and if the National Lottery had failed to meet the targets which the previous Conservative government had in mind for it of revenue of about £2 billion a year and perhaps £100 million or £150 million going to each of the five good causes, then there might have been good reason for change. In fact, the lottery and Camelot have exceeded all the hopes that we had when the project was started by the Conservative government four years ago. So if it ain't broke, why fix it?
My fear is that what the noble Lord has told us this afternoon is the thin end of the wedge. It is ministerial hands getting on the funds produced by the lottery in order to direct them into ideas and conceptions which are appealing to the Secretaries of State for the Environment, Health or Education. I do not blame them for that: every Secretary of State worth his salt should have his own ideas. But surely the last thing that your Lordships would wish to see is the money generated by the lottery, which was intended to go to causes such as arts, sports and heritage, which were not getting government money, being diverted into pet schemes of Ministers?
It seems to me that what we are seeing today is the first signs of the lottery being treated as another windfall tax, a means of Ministers finding additional money for

1237
their own ideas and conceptions. However good those ideas may be in themselves, they should not be funded by the lottery. I would remind the noble Lord that ministerial hands on the neck of the marvellous goose that the lottery has turned out to be could very quickly lead to the death of the goose and no more golden eggs.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, made two generic comments. Perhaps I may encapsulate his arguments into the two most important points. The first was: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. We acknowledge the success of the lottery and pay tribute to all who contributed to it. But the allocation of the licence to the operator for the first time was made in a very considerable spirit of insecurity. We did not know how successful the lottery would be. Camelot did not know, and Oflot did not know. Therefore, perhaps there was an undue degree of caution in the extent to which profits were allowed to be taken out of the lottery.
We have the advantage now. I acknowledge the justice of some of the noble Lord's comments. But we know much more about the success of the lottery. Nothing is secure in gambling, but at least we have experience of success and may be able to achieve a better bargain on the next occasion in four years' time when the licence is awarded. It would be foolish and irresponsible for the Government not to take advantage of that knowledge to secure the best deal for the taxpayer and, above all, for the good causes.
The noble Lord's second point concerned the pet schemes of Ministers. I recall that the first award made by the heritage lottery fund was an award of £13 million not for the acquisition of the Churchill papers and not even for the copyright of the Churchill papers, but for a certain degree of access to the Churchill papers. We must recognise that there is a great deal of public concern about the extent to which lottery funds, paid for by all sections of the population, have gone to elitist organisations. That was recognised by Lord Rothschild when he chaired the Royal Commission on gambling in the first instance in 1978.
We recognise that public concern and the fact that the public have an interest in more local, targeted, universal and popular causes than some—I shall not go further than that—of the causes to which money has been given in the past. We reflect public opinion as we expressed it in our manifesto, our policy document, and as it was recognised in the election.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, if I were to take a snap show of hands, I wonder how many Members of your Lordships' House would be found to buy lottery tickets. I would be among those who do not buy them. We sit in this Chamber patting one another on the back and congratulating ourselves on the success of the National Lottery. However, I join my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe in asking whether there is anything in the White Paper that will deal with the problem of addiction to gambling. Contrary to what my noble friend the Minister said, in a supermarket on Saturday morning or just before the closing time for
1238
buying tickets, one can see young couples—sometimes, just a young mother with three children—buying not £2 worth of tickets but spending £4 or £5 on tickets and sometimes buying scratch cards as well. Is my noble friend aware of the social damage that that is doing to less well-off families who can ill afford to gamble but who are seduced by the constant promise that on Saturday night by eight o'clock they will be multimillionaires—a forlorn hope?
Finally, just as the drinks industry contributes substantial sums of money to investigations into the problem of alcoholism and just as the tobacco industry contributes substantial sums to investigations into the relationship between cancer and smoking, so, I ask, why should not the gambling industry, led by the National Lottery, contribute substantial funds to investigate the social evil of gambling?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend is one of the 10 per cent. of adults who have never taken part in the National Lottery. Let me confess that I equally am an oddball in that I have not taken part. But, then, I have never done the pools, either. I have most of the vices but gambling is not one of them. In that sense, he and I are on the same side.
In answer to my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe, I hope I made the point that whatever may be the evils of gambling—I do not deny that excessive gambling in particular is very much an evil; I do not look at the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, as we had his confessions on the subject some months ago—the National Lottery, compared with some other forms of gambling, is a relatively soft form of gambling. It does not have the same immediate pay-off and the amounts of money put in from the average family in the course of a week are rather low. I cannot, however, resist the thrust of my noble friend's question about whether there should not be greater research into addiction for gambling. I shall consult on that matter and write to him.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, there is much in the Statement that I instinctively feel able to support. However, I share many of the reservations enumerated by my noble friend. Therefore, would it be possible for the Government to consider whether the House should be given an early opportunity to have a fuller debate on what is clearly a complex and large subject?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the proper answer to that question is that it is a matter for the usual channels. Personally, I would welcome such an opportunity. When the noble Viscount has had an opportunity to read the White paper he will see that its whole emphasis is on public consultation. That is why I referred to the free leaflet which will be made very widely available, with the help of Camelot, in the outlets for lottery tickets. We hope that the general public as well as Parliament will feel able to comment on the proposals in the White Paper.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement. But perhaps I may associate myself with the remarks made by my noble friend Lord

1239
Ewing of Kirkford on the problems of poorer members of our society in relation to the lottery. In that sense, I wonder whether the Minister is prepared to comment on the response from the other side of the Chamber which seemed to be that the National Lottery is a success and that nothing should be done to change it. Let us consider their criteria of success. Are they saying that it is successful to take money from poor people? Are they saying that success is when rich and powerful people have the ability to determine where the lottery proceeds are spent? Is it a criterion of success that money should go in matching funds to organisations which presumably have recourse to other funds in order to match that money? Surely part of the thrust of the Government's White Paper is intended to detract from those criteria of success and use the proceeds of the National Lottery in areas that strike a much greater resonance with the ordinary people in our society.
With regard to disbursement being judged by what I describe as relatively rich and powerful people—the great and the good in our society—would not it be a better way of determining where lottery funds are disbursed to ask local councillors to judge where the money should be spent? Also, bearing in mind that every lottery ticket bought is bought in a specific geographical area and therefore in a local council area, surely we should be able to find some way of ensuring that the money spent by people in a local area goes directly back to that area and is spent in good causes within that area.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it would be quite impertinent of me to attempt to analyse the motivation of noble Lords opposite in putting their questions. With regard to my noble friend's questions about distribution and consultation, in the White Paper there is quite extensive coverage of the requirement to ensure that the geographical distribution of lottery receipts is in accordance with need and the recognition that there should be far more people, including local people—why not councillors as well?—involved in the way in which funds are distributed. There will also be a serious attempt to make sure that the hurdles that have to be cleared before a person can put forward a lottery fund application are as low as possible.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, will the noble Lord, who is a civilised man, refrain from the too-common current practice of amending and distorting the English language by always assuming that "élitism" is a word that describes something that is unsatisfactory and to be avoided? It can simply mean excellence in the arts, culture and history and those matters which the lottery ought to be supporting.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I acknowledge the noble Lord's correct representation of dictionary definitions. He will notice that when I used the word "élitism", I was not describing my own reaction, but the public reaction to some of the awards that have been made.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, is the Minister able to acknowledge that Camelot, who set
1240
up the National Lottery, has been praised worldwide for the competent way in which it did so? Will he also acknowledge that the sums raised were far higher than expected? We on this side of the House will have every right to be angry if the contract is given to someone claiming to make no profit and at the end of the day the sums fall considerably lower than they are at the moment through sheer inefficiency. I hope that the Minister will not allow the contract to go to someone on those grounds alone. Camelot should be respected for its amazing achievements in launching the lottery.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, not only do I acknowledge the first two points made by the noble Lord, but I also acknowledged them in advance. In other words, I made those points in my speech. I acknowledged that the lottery is successful and that Camelot deserves a considerable part of the credit for that. It is an efficient operation.
That is not to say that it cannot be improved by an operator who is judged by those best qualified to judge—in this case the director general of Oflot—as being that which is most conducive to maximise the revenue for good causes. That is the fine criterion with which we shall be concerned. That may or may not mean a not-for-profit operator. The objective of maximising the return for good causes is consistent with the noble Lord's wish to have an efficient and effective lottery.

Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill
6.3 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 1.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 7, at end insert ("in accordance with proposals set out in a White Paper to be laid before Parliament before this Act is brought into force").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 15, which involves Wales, and Amendments Nos. 37 to 39, which insert certain words into both the Welsh and Scottish question.
With these amendments we return to the question of the White Paper and a pre-legislative referendum and to exactly what the relationship will be between the White Paper and the subsequent Bill: in other words, will people get what they vote for? If I decide to vote against, or, unlikely as it may be, for, the proposition in the ballot paper on 11th September, I shall do so on the basis of the White Paper. To what extent will changes be allowed? Will there be changes that take us beyond the boundary of the approval given to the White Paper so that the Government feel obliged to have a second referendum after the Bill has passed through both Houses of Parliament? The converse may also be true. Will the Government simply ignore any changes made to the Bill and say, "You have signed up to the broad detail and that is it. We are not going to ask you again"?
Amendments Nos. 5 and 15 were originally tabled by me last week in order to make sure that the White Paper was laid before Parliament before next Tuesday, when we have the Third Reading of the Bill. Those amendments are no longer needed. I understand that the White Paper is to be produced tomorrow for Wales and on Thursday for Scotland.
Having said that, and at the risk of being reprimanded by the Liberal Democrats (or even in the hope of being reprimanded by them), perhaps I may introduce today's news item. The Scotsman newspaper seems to be intent on publishing the White Paper on Wednesday. If the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is to respond, perhaps he will tell me if there is any truth in that remark. If there is, I presume that the Government will try to bring forward the publication of the White Paper to tomorrow. I would understand if they did that.
I suffered a little over 18 years, as a Minister for part of that time, from leaks. I know how difficult leaks can be for governments. I hope that the party opposite does not complain too much about leaks because it was pretty good at cultivating them and scouring the wastepaper baskets before it came to office. Perhaps it will take a little time before I overcome my reservations about using leaks and fall to the same temptations as did noble Lords opposite and their right honourable friends.
Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether the story is true and if the White Paper is indeed going to be leaked. If it is to be leaked by the Scotsman newspaper, who leaked it may be an interesting question. Is it a deliberate attempt by the Government to do a little bit of softening up? Is it like last week's little diversion in relation to where the assembly or parliament should sit? Rather than concentrating on the issues in the White Paper, we end up concentrating on the peripherals; for example, who leaked it? Is it a true leak? Find the mole, or something like that. I have little doubt that that could be quite good sport, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, may well be able to help the Government in their mole hunting. However, if it is true, have the Government done it deliberately? Perhaps I can have some advice in that regard.
I had hoped to say very little about Amendments Nos. 5 and 15. The object of including them on the Marshalled List has been achieved. But the other amendment, with its four different appearances, is a serious one. It pins the Government down, as did my last amendment, to what they are committing themselves to and what the Scottish and Welsh public are committing themselves to in the vote. Are the Government committing themselves to the detail that will be contained in the White Paper? We have been told that the White Paper will be detailed. Is that what we are committing ourselves to?
If there is variation in that detail, either because this place or another place makes amendments, or because the Government, when they study the matter in greater detail, discover that some things are not possible and will have to be changed, what will the position be at the end of the Bill's passage through both Houses? Will the
1242
approval—I presume it will be approval, otherwise the Bills will not move ahead—be taken as approval in such a general way that, even if the White Paper is amended, the Government will still pray in aid the two votes—one in Scotland and one in Wales—as giving them justification to carry on?
I hope that the noble Lord can address the issue of the detail in the White Paper and how firmly committed the Government are to sticking to it. If they or Parliament, or a combination of the two, decide to make major changes, or even minor but significant changes, how will the Government see the situation? Will they decide, as they ought to have done all along, to hold a post-legislative referendum; or will they continue, regardless of the changes and regardless of the breaches that have occurred, with the proposition? I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I listened carefully to what my noble friend said. It is important that we have further definition of the phrase that appears in the schedule,
"to consult people in Wales on the Government's proposals for a Welsh Assembly".
We need to know exactly to what proposals they are referring.
I thought that my noble friend was rather generous in his remarks about the publication, and the timing of the publication, of the White Papers. It seems to me that if it was possible for the Government to publish the White Papers for Wales and Scotland this week, it might have been courteous to Parliament to have ensured that they were published today so that they were available for the whole of the Report stage of the Bill. I understand that the Welsh White Paper is to be published tomorrow—at least the press in Wales seems to be under that impression. I hope that it will not be produced outside this House and kept from those of us who are here to debate the Report stage this afternoon. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to assure us that when we come here tomorrow copies will be available in the Printed Paper Office so that we can be as well informed about what is in the White Paper as the Scotsman appears to be already as the result of leaks. That seems to be the very least we can ask for.
I shall return to the question of what is in the White Paper on later amendments. However, two comments appearing in the South Wales press prompt me to add something to what has already been said. We are told in the press that the White Paper is to be made widely available in Wales. We are told that a cheap copy, or a cheaper than normal copy—at £3—will be available at distribution points so that it can be easily bought by the people of Wales. We are also told that there will be a telephone hotline so that people can obtain information about what is in the White Paper. With all this information being provided, I think that the Welsh people should know whether what they are voting for is only what is in the White Paper and not something that might be significantly different.
I am also prompted to carry the argument a little further by a report that appeared extensively in the Welsh press over the weekend that, when the

1243
Prime Minister visited South Wales last week, he proceeded to inform the people of Caerphilly on two separate occasions that one of the advantages of voting for the assembly in Wales would be that decisions,
"about schools, hospitals and law and order in Wales can he taken here by the people of Wales".
On another occasion he referred to control of the police. That simply may have been ignorance by the Prime Minister about what is going to appear in the White Paper which is being published this week. It is extraordinary that the Prime Minister should go to answer public questioning in Wales and not know what is in his Government's White Paper, but I suppose it may mean that there will be a sudden change in what the Government intend to do and that they will suddenly transfer responsibility for the police and law and order.
The very fact that the Prime Minister can go to Wales and make such a substantial announcement of the intent of government, even if it was incorrect on this occasion, suggests that there may be fairly good reasons for us confining the freedom of government to act in the future by a specific reference to the White Paper; so that the people of Wales when they vote will broadly know what they are voting about and that we shall not suddenly be told when we come back with the Scotland and Wales Bill, or the Wales Bill if there are to be separate Bills, that we have to vote for anything they like to put into the Bill because the people of Wales have voted for an assembly and we are not allowed to argue about the detail. We must have some definition and, at the very least, some clear statement from the noble Lord about what the Government's intentions are.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, further to everything that has already been said from these Benches, which I shall not repeat—I agree with every word of it—I would ask the noble Lord whether he would consider that in one sense—because we do not have the information—the debate is premature and we may have to come back to this matter at Third Reading. I say that because a principle of the utmost importance is involved. By no stretch of the imagination could this group of amendments be considered wrecking amendments. They are amendments which are, and are intended to be, in implementation of the principle of the Bill. It is our right—furthermore to our right, it is our duty—if insufficient time has been provided to anyone inside or outside Parliament to consider measures of great importance, even if they are briefly referred to in an election manifesto, to delay by amending as is proposed in this group of amendments.
If the noble Lord would care to look at Hansard of 19th May 1993 (cols. 1787–8 of Volume 545) he might appreciate the force of what I am seeking to ask him respectfully to consider.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, perhaps I may raise one brief question. I am disturbed to hear the news of the possible leak in the Scotsman on Wednesday of the Scottish White Paper. The Government had, to my mind very wisely, organised that the Welsh White Paper would come out two days early and that we would, as we urged
1244
in Committee, have a space in which the Welsh matters could be considered before the tumult of the Scottish debate began. If the Scotsman is to print this matter on Wednesday it will extinguish the very brief period in which the spotlight can be on Wales. If there is truth in this rumour, is there anything the Government can do to restore some primacy to Wales? If they have leaked the Scottish White Paper, perhaps they can leak the Welsh one tonight.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, when I was a small child I was always taught never to believe what I read in the newspapers. Therefore, I am not inclined to believe something that I have not read in the newspapers. I do not know what will be in the Scotsman. I have had much more amusing and interesting things to do this afternoon and this evening; namely, sitting in your Lordships' House. I do not know what is in the Welsh newspapers. I have no particular interest in what may or may not be rumours. I do know, on the steadfast authority of my noble friend Lord Parry, that in one newspaper in Wales over the weekend there was a careful and considered article about me, describing me as Lord Williams of Elvel, with a photograph of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. So they seem to have got it comprehensively wrong.
This Government do not believe in leaks. We do not act on the basis of leaks. As is well known, we propose to publish the White Paper on Wales on 22nd July and that on Scotland on 24th July. That is entirely consistent—indeed, rather more generously consistent—with the undertakings which my noble friend Lord Sewel and I have given to your Lordships on a number of occasions. We promised to deliver and we have.
The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, observed that the Welsh people and the Scottish people are entitled broadly to know what they are voting about. I respectfully agree. That is the purpose of the White Papers. There is nothing between us on that. He specifically asked about copies of the Welsh White Paper. I can assure the House that copies of the White Paper will be available to Members of both Houses in the usual way. I hope that is helpful.
I think I have been the object of an attempted seduction—although I was asleep at the time and missed it—in wanting me to say that there would be a second referendum. My Lords, no. The first referendum, as has been said ad nauseam, is intended to be advisory and for guidance. The proposals to which the question on the referendum ballot refers are quite plainly the Government's proposals. Those proposals will be set out in the White Papers. There is no benefit in inserting a specific reference to the White Papers.
In respect of Amendments Nos. 5 and 15, they are technically incompetent because they imply that part of the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Act would have to come into effect and have effect before the Act itself came into force.
Obviously these are going to be important matters. The White Papers will be available. The electorate in both Wales and Scotland will come to their own

1245
conclusion, not entirely on the White Papers; but those are the broad thrust of the Government's proposals. I imagine that the electorate will listen to contributions from your Lordships' House, from the "Yes" and the "No" campaigns or sub-variants of each campaign. We want the public to come to their own conclusion. This is a device which is not common in our country's constitutional regime, but we believe it to be an important one. On that basis I believe that we are going the right way about it.
Answering hypothetical questions is arid enough at the best of times. We are putting forward our proposals for the judgment of the people of Wales and Scotland respectively. Their judgment will be advisory and is intended to guide the Government. Having listened to the voice of the people in both Scotland and Wales we shall bring forward our proposals for full scrutiny in both Houses of Parliament. On that basis I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who took part in this short debate. I am not in the least surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said that the Government do not operate on leaks. No government does that, but his party was pretty good at operating on leaks when it was in opposition. So when the position in your Lordships' House and down the corridor changes, one's view on leaks changes. I fully accept that the Government will not be very happy if there is a leak in the Scotsman, unless it is deliberate. Those are not unknown. I can see the merit in one such deliberate leak on Wednesday, but we shall wait to see. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will either be able to tell me that I should not believe what I read in the newspapers next week—I was going to say that I should not believe what I read in the Scotsman, but I might never appear in it again if I said that—or alternatively I may be able to say to the noble Lord, "Occasionally, you should believe what you read in the newspapers".
However, the point really is whether or not somehow we should tie the Government down as to how the legislation will relate to the White Paper and how closely they must follow it. I said that they should follow it, but I have no doubt that the Government will attempt to do so as best they can. But I do not believe that with a subject as complex as this issues will not arise which will mean that the Government will change their view. They will find that there are different ways to do what they want and perhaps sometimes that there are even better ways. They will want to take these matters on board, and that is the whole purpose of legislation. I am simply putting the question as to what extent the Government are going to be tied by the White Paper or to what extent they will be able to move from that. If that move is significant, however one defines "significant", should we then have a second referendum, or what?
The noble Lord said that he did not like answering hypothetical questions. If he is to be a government Minister he will have to learn that he will have to answer such questions. I shall send him some summer reading
1246
on some of the Bills of the past few Sessions where hypothetical questions from some of his noble friends formed a fair portion of the questioning of government Ministers both at Committee and Report stages. One of the problems of legislation is that one has to try to work out how it will affect people in different circumstances, and that is what we are attempting to do here.
I am grateful for at least one point of clarification. The noble Lord has not made any attempt to say otherwise, but it is interesting to have it on record that the Government's proposals, as spelt out in the preamble, are the ones in the White Paper, so that everything else that we read that comes from the Government, even their manifesto, will be subsumed by the proposals in the White Paper. As I have been invited continually to wait for the White Paper before I make up my mind one way or the other, I must now start the wait. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 6:
Page I, line 13, after ("government") insert ("or parliamentary").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is something more than a probing amendment. Your Lordships will recall that we had a long debate at Committee stage about who votes in the referendum. Put simply, we can read the electoral register in the post office, the library or at our party offices. It contains two main divisions. One relates to those who are entitled to vote at parliamentary elections and the other relates to those who are entitled to vote at local government elections. The parliamentary election list, like the local government list, includes the vast majority of people who reside in Scotland and Wales. But in the parliamentary list there is added to the end of each register a number of people who are overseas and who, before they went overseas, were electors in that ward. They have applied to be considered as overseas electors. They are allowed to vote in parliamentary elections but not in local government elections. I believe I am right in saying that they are not entitled to vote in elections to the European Parliament because it is assumed that if they live in Europe they will have a vote in the country in which they reside.
The local government register has two other groups added to it. Your Lordships will be particularly interested in one group. It consists of those of your Lordships who are resident in Scotland and Wales. Therefore, I am allowed, as are a number of your Lordships, to vote in local government elections in Scotland, but I am not allowed to vote in parliamentary elections. The other group, which is allowed to vote in local government elections but not parliamentary elections, comprises citizens of the European Union—other than those of the Republic of Ireland whose citizens are allowed to vote in all our elections—who have been resident in our country for six months and who have decided that they wish to apply to vote.
The Government's proposals, as they appear in the Bill, state that we should pick the local government list. I put forward an amendment at Committee stage that we

1247
should pick the parliamentary list. My argument was a simple one. I thought that those of us, including the overseas electors, who were trusted enough to vote on 1st May ought to be the ones trusted to vote in the referendum. I also suggested that perhaps that might be a reflection of people who have a deep and long-abiding interest in Scotland.
However, a robust defence was made of the right to vote, not so much of your Lordships, but of European citizens. There seemed to be a pretty single-minded determination on the part of the Government that the 12,000 EU nationals in Scotland—I do not know how many in Wales because the Government do not seem to have told us that—ought to be allowed to vote along with everyone else in Scotland and Wales and with the resident Peers. In a spirit of consensus, and approaching these matters in the spirit of wishing to find an agreed position, I accept that if the 12,000 EU nationals and the 123 resident Peers in Scotland are allowed to vote in local government elections it is perfectly right and proper that they should vote at this referendum.
I hope that in the same spirit the Government will tonight accept my amendment, which proposes that overseas voters should also be allowed to vote. There are not many of them. I doubt whether the result of the referendum will be so close in Scotland (it may be in Wales) that it will make much difference to the eventual result. I am told that in Scotland there are 1,500 overseas electors. Some of them will not vote, but I suggest that if they have gone to the trouble of putting their names on the overseas register, which is not, an easy task, they are probably interested enough in the affairs of their homeland to vote in this important referendum.
So I have brought forward here an amendment which adds to "local government" the words "or parliamentary" so that all people who are currently on the electoral register, both parliamentary and local government, will be allowed to vote. That will allow those of your Lordships who live in Wales and Scotland to take part in this momentous decision. It will allow 12,000 EU nationals in Scotland and perhaps 7,000 or so in Wales—perhaps the noble Lord can tell us the figure—to vote on the future of Scotland and Wales. It will also allow to vote that much smaller number of overseas voters who left Scotland and Wales within the past 20 years, but who have retained an interest and ensured that their names remain on the electoral register.
Perhaps my amendment is in some way defective in its drafting. I would always defer to the parliamentary draftsmen in these matters and if the amendment is defective, I should be happy for the Government to introduce an amendment which encapsulates the point that I am making. However, the Government should take on board the simple proposition that the people who are entitled to vote in parliamentary elections ought also to be entitled to vote in this referendum, just as I am taking on board the Government's point that people who are allowed to vote in local government elections, including EU nationals, should be allowed to vote in the referendum. In that spirit of consensus and so on, I very much hope to hear the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, use the immortal words, "I think I can accept the noble Lord's amendment". I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I support the amendment and I hope that we shall not be told that there will be any kind of administrative problem or delay. Not all noble Lords would remember it, but in 1945 there was an interval of three weeks between polling day and the declaration of the poll in each constituency so that service votes could be brought in from all over the world. It worked perfectly smoothly. This is a minute administrative effort compared with that. Indeed, the procedure happens anyway in parliamentary elections. I hope that the Government will realise that we owe it to those men who are serving perhaps overseas or, indeed, in this country in our Armed Forces. They should have the right to determine what is to happen.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, with all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I believe that the final thrust of his remarks relates to subsequent amendments, not the present one. The noble Lord has been dealing with the armed services, but that is not the purpose of our present amendment. The noble Lord will therefore acquit me of discourtesy if I do not deal with that particular aspect—
Lord Renton: My Lords, I apologise and I thank the noble Lord for his courtesy.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, not at all; there are so many amendments that it is often difficult to distinguish one from the other.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, that I think that I can accept the noble Lord's assurance of "consensus and all that", which was the phrase that he used. Even the noble Lord could not continue beyond "consensus and all that".
The difference here is one of approach in principle. We believe—we have made this clear beyond doubt—that the clear criterion for deciding who should vote on the proposals should be residency in the country concerned. It is right in principle; it is workable in practice; and we have chosen the local government franchise because it most closely accords with the residency test. We do not believe that it is appropriate for an overseas elector—that is, someone who is not resident in the United Kingdom—to be entitled to a vote on a referendum concerning the arrangements for devolution to Wales and to Scotland. If overseas electors were to be included, it would mean, as my noble friend Lord Sewel pointed out on an earlier occasion, that if a Scotsman lived in Benidorm and a Scotswoman lived in Blackpool, the Scotsman living in Benidorm would be able to vote on devolution whereas the Scotswoman living in Blackpool would not. I suggest that that is not entirely intellectually consistent or coherent.
suppose that this difference of approach is not capable of being reconciled. We do not believe that overseas electors ought to be able to vote in a referendum on the constitutional arrangements for Welsh or Scottish devolution. I know that the noble

1249
Lord will not think that I am being discourteous, but I believe that the difference between us is as simple and as short as that.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He is making his position clear. May I ask him whether he envisages that overseas voters would be allowed to vote in the elections for the Scottish assembly, if it comes about?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is not the point that we are dealing with at the moment. The noble Lord has great experience of being able to answer hypothetical questions, but I am much too young to have fallen into his bad ways.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sure that some of your Lordships will realise the truth of what I am about to say because if I had tried to give such an answer during our long hours on many social security Bills, "uproar" might have been a mild description of what would have happened in your Lordships' House. Indeed, "histrionics" might have been nearer the mark for the Opposition spokesperson if I had failed to answer the kind of question that I have just posed to the noble Lord.
I am disappointed because I had thought that I had found a way to accommodate the desires of the party of government to allow EU citizens (and some of your Lordships) to vote, while accepting that people appear on the parliamentary register for the perfectly good reason that they may be working overseas for our country. Of course, some of those people on the register will have retired abroad and others will be working in other operations. It seems to me that if we have allowed those people to appear on our parliamentary register, it is illogical not to allow them a vote in the referendum.
As I pointed out at Second Reading and in Committee, I have a particular interest in this because my daughter is an overseas elector in Northern Italy. She will not be able to vote in a referendum affecting the future of her country and yet an Italian waiter working in the famous icecream parlour, Nardini's in Largs, who has been resident in this country for a little while will be able to have a vote. Interestingly enough, there is such a person, although not from Bosisio Perini, where my daughter lives.
I find that arrangement fundamentally unfair, and despite, as always, the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I do not think that he has come any way towards meeting me, although I have come quite a long way to meet him by tabling this amendment which I believed would bridge the gap. I am sorry that the gap cannot be bridged, but I feel so strongly about this that I shall seek your Lordships' opinion.
6.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.6) shall be agreed to?
their Lordships divided: Contends, 66; Not-Contents, 119.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 7:
Page I. line 13, at end insert ("and members of the United Kingdom armed forces born in Scotland and their spouses who would he entitled to vote in a general election in any electoral area of the United Kingdom").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I might invite the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, to submit an opinion—I believe that that is what it is called in legal terms—that I can show to my daughter as a result of the latest vote.
I shall speak also to Amendment No. 18. The amendment is one that we proposed in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, expressed some sympathy with the arguments being put forward. He said that the best that he could do was to give careful consideration with his colleagues to everything that had been said. I have put down the amendment to allow him to tell us what conclusion he has come to, and, if that conclusion is unfavourable, to try to persuade us why we should accept the situation.
If we have servicemen who are Scots or Welsh who are currently based in England, they may or may not have a vote in Scotland or Wales. It all depends upon whether they made a declaration on or about 10th October last as to whether they wanted to vote where they were based—somewhere in England—or in Scotland or Wales where they had last voted or last had a residence, or at their parents' house or whatever. I gather that the position is reasonably generous so far as allowing servicemen or servicewomen to decide to vote in Scotland and Wales when they live in England.
That is fine as far as it goes. However last October none of those servicemen in England realised the consequences of their election. Many of them probably have their wives and children with them at the base from which they operate in England. For example, the Royal Scots are based at Colchester. That I understand is their home base, and so I suspect that a fair number of them have decided, over the past two or three years, to register their vote and that of their families in Colchester where they stay for the moment as they are attached to the Royal Scots and have been sent there. If the Royal Scots were in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Fort George, or wherever, they would be registered there. They would be sent there. The same is true for the Navy and Air Force. Those people do not have much say over where they are sent. They can end up in England or Scotland. If they end up in Scotland, they will not have a problem. If they end up in England, they do have a problem.
The position of the Welsh regiments is more difficult because, as I have no doubt my noble friend Lord Crickhowell will explain in greater detail and with greater knowledge, two of the Welsh regiments are based permanently on the wrong side of the border, if I may call it that. The same problem has occurred with them for many years. Many of them probably decided to register their vote where they were based. That does not make them any less Welsh and does not take away from the fact that if they had joined the other Welsh regiment which is based in Wales they would have no problem. They would probably have registered in Wales or at their previous home, their parents' home, or wherever. A problem exists for the servicemen and servicewomen who are currently resident in England because they are acting under the instructions of the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy or the Army.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Will he give an example of any serviceman, Army, Navy or Air Force, who on 10th October 1996 knew where he would be based on 11th or 18th September 1997? That is a simple question.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, servicemen do not know where they will be based in a year's time, but if they are with the Royal Scots, for example, the chances are that they will still be based at Colchester because that is their home base. If they are sent abroad there is a method by which they can vote back at home. I do not believe that the noble Lord's intervention has answered my point. I doubt whether last October any of them were aware of the consequence of where they registered their vote. They would not realise that if they did not elect to register at home in Scotland or Wales they would lose out on the vote in the referendum.
It is a difficult proposition. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, accepted that. I understand that there may be complexities about delivering a vote in the timescale envisaged; that is, beginning now and ending on 11th September. However, that is not a timescale of my making and therefore I am not impressed by the

1253
argument that there is no time to organise a vote for the service voters who are based in and have their votes in England. The Government ought to have given that matter some thought. After all, presumably they thought about it before the election. It is all very well being sympathetic, but we want that sympathy to be translated.
I hope that, unlike the previous amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will come forward with a positive proposal. I shall leave the matter there, but I have no doubt that the Welsh point of view will be put forward. Even more Welsh servicemen will be based outside Wales than there will be Scottish servicemen based outside Scotland, and I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Crickhowell will wish to speak about the matter. I hope that during the two weeks since the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has asked his colleagues to come forward with a solution. If it means delaying the referendum for a week or two, I would be happy to accept an amendment on Third Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I do not intend to add a great deal to what I said in Committee, but the situation is worse in Wales than my noble friend indicated. All three Welsh regiments, the Royal Welch Fusiliers, the Royal Regiment of Wales and the Welsh Guards, are stationed permanently outside Wales. They do not have a home base in Wales.
In Committee, the issue received support from all sides of the House. My noble friend and I deliberately used that phrase, although technically it may be incorrect. My noble friend and old political opponent Lord Parry and I found ourselves in agreement on the issue. He confirmed what was the situation when he and I were doing battle politically in Pembrokeshire—that often the forces stationed there registered there rather than at their home elsewhere. It happens that last October the Royal Welch Fusiliers were in Northern Ireland, having moved there after a gallant and noteworthy tour of Bosnia. The Royal Regiment of Wales is currently carrying out public duties in London and is stationed at Hounslow.
All three Welsh regiments face the same situation. It happens that the permanent base of the Royal Welch Fusiliers is Chepstow. It is separated from Wales only by the width of the River Wye. Therefore, its members are in the extraordinary situation of having their families in accommodation on a promontory between the River Severn and the River Wye and are separated from the Principality by a few hundred yards. Therefore, they clearly make the point that we sought to make in Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, gave a helpful and sympathetic response, but I understand from the gesticulations on the Front Bench that on this occasion he is handing over the responsibility to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Sewel. I hope that that is not an indication that the message to be conveyed is bad news
1254
but that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will take the credit for the helpful announcement which I am sure we are about to receive from the Government.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I rise only to mention that the point I made prematurely in respect of the previous amendment has been strengthened by the facts given by my noble friend in respect of this amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively. There is a feeling among those who appreciate the situation—and many do not—that a sharp injustice is built into the Bill. That may have occurred unwittingly, but it exists. I hope that it will be possible to remedy the problem, otherwise some people will have a strong feeling of dissatisfaction.
Lord Forbes: My Lords, I support the amendment. I cannot see why some Scottish members of our Armed Forces who are prepared to fight for Monarch and country may be denied a vote in the referendum, when other Scots who do far less for their country will have a vote. Surely, Her Majesty's Government should hold our Armed Forces in slightly higher esteem.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, gave an unduly mild answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ewing. Perhaps that is not something of which he has often been accused. Most soldiers know where they will be based next year. Perhaps the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, was: although they may not know where they will be posted next year, although they may have been posted to Northern Ireland or Bosnia for three months, they will remain based in their headquarters in Colchester or in Chepstow (which is on my doorstep). Surely they know where they are based and surely they remain based there.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the amendment because our Armed Forces can be sent anywhere at short notice. In that respect, I believe that they deserve to be a special case.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, the amendments seek to allow Scottish and Welsh-born servicemen and the spouses of servicemen to vote in referendums regardless of where they are registered to vote in the United Kingdom. As noble Lords will recollect, in Committee we undertook to give the matter thought, to reflect upon it and to consider our approach to service voters. We have done so, but we remain convinced that our original position was correct. I understand that that will come as a disappointment to some noble Lords opposite and therefore I consider it necessary to explain the reasons behind our judgment.
Our general approach to the business of voting in the referendums is that it should be based on the principle of residency in the country concerned. The amendment opens up our two old friends, residency and nationality. They reappear under a slightly different guise. In principle, members of the forces should be treated in the same way as any other potential voters. Accordingly, a

1255
member of the Armed Forces entitled to vote at a local government election in Scotland or Wales will be entitled to vote in the appropriate referendum.
The special circumstances of service personnel are reflected already in the provisions of the Representation of the People Act in relation to registration of voters who are members of the Armed Forces. They have a special place and that should be recognised. Members of the Armed Forces can retain, through a service declaration, their right to vote in Scotland or Wales even if they are on service elsewhere. It makes absolutely no difference whether a member of a Welsh regiment is serving in Cardiff, across the Severn or in Bosnia. If he has made his service declaration showing residence at a Welsh address, he will have a vote. No member of the Armed Forces will lose his right to vote simply because he is on duty elsewhere. Let us make that absolutely crystal clear.
There are some difficulties about the wording of the amendment. Let us look at that. The amendment refers to members of the Armed Forces "born" in Scotland or Wales. It is perfectly possible to have been born in Scotland or Wales, to have moved away at a very early age; to have been brought up in England and to have joined an English regiment; and to have no intention of returning to the country of birth. Yet, according to the amendment, that person would have a vote in the referendum. That is the important point because that person has no residential link with Scotland or Wales. The service declaration keeps open and is based on the concept of a residential link, albeit attenuated by the fact that the person is serving abroad. If we rely purely on birth, we are not maintaining that vital residential link.
As regards the problem of spouses, according to the amendment there could be a Scottish soldier born in Scotland who has a wife—for the sake of illustration—born in Japan. They may have met in Colchester. The wife has never lived in Scotland and perhaps has no intention of doing so. But the amendment would confer on that wife a right to vote in a referendum on the future Government of Scotland.
7 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if we were to begin to divide up the electorate for elections, leaving aside the referendum, on the basis of this kind of amendment and on the basis of the ethnicity or place of birth of one section of the electorate, that would give rise to real problems under Article 3 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights read with Article 14 of the convention? That is because it would give rise to racial discrimination or discrimination on the basis of ethnicity in the choice of legislature. Is the Minister aware that for the same reason, it may give rise to problems under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for that point. Noble Lords will be aware that throughout our discussions and debates on the Bill,
1256
I have stressed the need for residency and have rejected any claim on the basis of ethnicity or nationality. That is the sensible way forward.
It is not right to suggest that the referendum produces any new questions in relation to residence. For ordinary elections, it does matter where a person is registered. We have a constituency basis. It may be claimed that in a referendum, we move away from that. But it is my contention that if a serviceman has decided quite deliberately to register on the electoral register of the home where he is based rather than the one on which he would claim to be from, that is a deliberate act which has meaning. We are debasing that decision if somehow we say that it does not have meaning. He has decided in a very real sense that that is the place with which he identifies. It is not for us to second guess that decision.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that there is a difference here? If you register for a parliamentary or local government election, that is because you believe that the result of that election may affect taxation, local and central, and many other issues where you are living at that time. But the quite separate issue here will affect the government of the country which you believe to be yours for generations to come. There is a fundamental difference. It is quite natural that people should register in the homes in which they are living currently because they are affected by what goes on locally. But we are now dealing with a totally different situation.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I cannot accept the point which the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, makes. A serviceman who comes from Scotland or Wales and is posted somewhere else—for example, Colchester—and then makes a decision about whether to exercise the vote in Scotland, Wales or Colchester, faced, in a general election, with campaigns from the parties affecting the whole of the country, he makes the decision in relation to the place with which he identifies. That must be respected and, as I said, I do not think we should second guess that.
To suggest that service voters are somehow put at a disadvantage because they did not realise last October that there would be a referendum would always be wrong. We must recognise that people take decisions and that they are meaningful to them. We accept that service personnel are a special case, so we make possible the service declaration which they exercise. If that declaration produces a vote in Scotland or Wales, then that is absolutely reasonable and fair. Nobody would seek to deny a voter on that basis. But if they have decided deliberately to identify with some other part of the country, equally we must accept that decision. I hope that on that basis it will be possible for the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I regret to say that that was just about as thin an argument as that used in Committee. I do not believe that servicemen make a decision in the way in which the noble Lord suggests. If the serviceman had not been posted to Colchester or wherever else and had been posted instead

1257
to Scotland or Wales, there would be no problem. Therefore, he is disadvantaged because of a posting that he has had from his military superiors. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, would like to intervene and say whether that contravenes one of those conventions in which the noble Lord is so interested. It seems to me that it is difficult for that serviceman to say that he has been treated fairly because he has been posted out of the area where he would have been able to vote in the referendum, whichever way he had decided to exercise his declaration.
The noble Lord's argument would be conclusive, and I would withdraw the amendment, if we were talking about a separate register being drawn up specifically for the referendum so that every serviceman knew what would be the result of his declaration. The fact is that when the serviceman makes that declaration, by and large, he makes it for parliamentary elections. He knows that wherever he is in the UK, there will be a parliamentary election on the same day and he will be able to vote for the same group of parties. I accept that there may be nationalists in Wales and Scotland who make some difference to that but, by and large, he will be able to vote for the same group of parties. Therefore, whether he is in Colchester, Glasgow, Chepstow or Cardiff does not make nearly as much difference as it does in relation to this referendum.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for courteously giving way. Can he tell the House what electoral register there is in the United Kingdom which has the place where one is born?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall come to that point in a moment, although I do not believe that it is relevant to the point I am trying to make. The argument of the Government Front Bench about the referendum would be valid if a register was being created deliberately with a view to the referendum or if the register created on 10th October last had stated quite clearly:
"Whether you decide to register your vote, either at your base in Chepstow or Colchester, or to use the election to register your vote in Scotland, will decide whether or not you can vote in the referendum".
In that case, the noble Lord would have a reasonable argument against me. However, he has not. The only argument he has is to say that you can hardly say just, "Born in Scotland".
If the noble Lord does not like those words, I could make a few more suggestions to him. After all, he represents the Government, with all the power of the Civil Service and the draftsmen at his disposal. What about the phrase, "Had joined the forces from a Scottish address"? Alternatively, what about, "Had been registered at any time on a Scottish register"? That would take away the obsession that the noble Lord and his friend have about not wanting to consider where a person is born. If that is the only objection, I think that I can easily withdraw the amendment on the assurance that the Government will come forward with another one written along the lines of, "Joining from a Scottish
1258
address". Indeed, the latter seems to me to be a very good phrase, because chances are the person may have been resident in Scotland for his or her lifetime.
Lord Parry: My Lords, given my general sympathy for at least two-thirds of the argument put forward, which I expressed on the last occasion, will the noble Lord accept that there is another difficulty with the amendment; namely, that a great number—and a very welcome number—in the Welsh regiments are in fact Englishmen who have never lived in either Wales or Scotland, or, indeed, registered themselves there? Therefore, the total number involved is nothing like the number about which we seem to be concerning ourselves.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I accept that point. Indeed, some members of the Scottish and Welsh regiments will not have been born in Scotland or Wales and will not in fact have joined from a Scottish or Welsh address and, therefore, will not have been registered at any time on a Scottish or Welsh register—my three options. I am not bothered about them; they are obviously not my concern. I am concerned with people who, if they had not been in the forces or had not been transferred by the military to a base in England, would be in Scotland and allowed to vote. That is a self-evident proposition.
It may not be exactly what my amendment says, but I am an open-minded person. I have already indicated that if the Government wish to come forward with an alternative to my amendment which actually does what I and other noble Lords want, I would be happy to withdraw it. However, I have learned from fairly hitter experience during the course of the Bill's proceedings that there is not much point to that. Unless you are offering the Government something really good in return—like, for example, a week longer in the Recess—you have absolutely no chance of getting your argument or your amendment accepted.
I understand the point that the Government Front Bench are making about being born in Scotland. Indeed, a person could have been born in Scotland, left the next day and joined a Scottish regiment after some time. However, I think that "Joining from a Scottish address" is a fairly simple proposition. The military will have all these records. I know many young men and women who joined from their Scottish addresses. Alternatively, if they want to say that such people must have registered at some time, we could have, "Registered on a Scottish register", though I would he less happy about that because some people could join at such an early age that they would never have the opportunity to be registered at their original home address in Scotland or Wales. We could get round the problem if there was a particular determination on the part of Her Majesty's Government to do so, but I distinctly get the impression that they do not understand or sympathise with the argument.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the noble Lord invited me earlier to intervene. There is an aspect to his argument which puzzles me. Can he say whether he accepts that it is objectionable, as the amendment

1259
stands, to seek to draw a distinction between those who are born in Scotland and those who are not? Does he accept that that is objectionable because it is based upon place of birth or ethnicity and that, if one were to differentiate on that basis, it might well involve discrimination in breach of basic British principles, as well as those of international human rights law?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I have heard the noble Lord speak on a number of occasions about international human rights issues, on which I know he is an acknowledged expert. However, sometimes a little dribble of common sense has to come into such matters. I am not talking about ethnicity; indeed, a person can be born somewhere and not actually be the ethnic of where he or she was born. I am attempting to address an issue which involves servicemen. It is possible that I am wrong about the "born" aspect, because someone could have left the next day. I am not too worried about whether the wording would offend some of the courts in which the noble Lord appears. Indeed, it is much more important to get the matter right so far as concerns people in this country who think that they ought to be able to vote.
I have in mind young men and women who, if they had been posted in Scotland, would perhaps have made a decision to be registered at their home base in Scotland or Wales or indeed may have decided to go back to their old home to be registered. However, when given that choice in England, those young people did not realise the serious significance of what they were doing and what would happen to them this September; namely, that they would find that their colleagues still based in Scotland and Wales would have a vote in the referendum but that they, because they decided to register in Colchester or Chepstow (where they reckoned they would be stationed for some little time) instead of registering in Scotland and Wales, would not.
I must be honest and consistent as I divided your Lordships' House on the question of the overseas voters. Frankly, the Government's case as regards the overseas voters is only marginally better than it is for the servicemen. By and large, the overseas voters have made the decision to go overseas, whereas, although the servicemen made a decision to join up, they made no decision about where they would be based in the UK; indeed, that was decided for them. Therefore, I should like to test the opinion of the House.
7.16 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 67; Not-Contents, 99.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Biddulph, L.

Cadman, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L

Brentford, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Burnham, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

1260

Colwyn, L.

Mersey, V.

Cox, B.

Milverton, L.

Cranborne, V.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Monson, L.

Cross, V.

Montgomery of Alamein, V

Cumberlege, B.

Mountevans, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Northesk, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Palmer, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Forbes, L.

Pender, L.

Gray, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rees, L.

Greenway, L.

Renton, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Rotherwick, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Hooper, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Kenilworth, L.

Seccombe, B.

Lawrence, L.

Sharples, B

Leigh, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Lindsay, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Stewartby, L.

Lucas, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Luke, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Lyell, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Vivian, L.

Marlesford, L.

Weatherill, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Weir, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Wharton, B.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hoyle, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hughes, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Barnett, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Berkeley, L.

Jeger, B.

Blackstone, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Blease, L.

Judd, L.

Blyth, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Borrie, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Lestor of Eccles, B.

Carlisle, E.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carter, L. [Teller]

McCarthy, L.

Chandos, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McNally, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

David, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Mishcon, L.

Desai, L.

Molloy, L.

Dixon, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Donoughue, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ogmore, L.

Eatwell, L.

Parry, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gallacher, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gilbert, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rea, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Gregson, L.

Rochester, L.

Grenfell, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Grey, E.

Russell, E.

Hamwee, B.

Sewel, L.

Hardie, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Haskel, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hayman, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hilton of Eggardon. B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hooson, L.

1261

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Whitty, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Thurso, V.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Tordoff, L.

Winston, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Young of Dartington, L.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

7.25 p.m.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert
("But an alteration in a register of electors under section 11(1) or (2) or 57 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (correction of registers and registration appeals) shall not have effect for the purposes of the referendum unless it is made before the start of the period of eleven days ending with the date of the referendum.").
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 1, line 17, leave out ("local government area") and insert ("parliamentary constituency").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a topic that we missed at Committee stage. We can address it quickly. Essentially the counts after the referendums in Scotland and Wales are to be based on local government areas. My amendment seeks to change that to parliamentary constituencies in Scotland, and in Wales to change the criterion from county or county borough to parliamentary constituencies. I propose that in Scotland and Wales the counts should be based on parliamentary constituencies.
I understand that in 1975 the original idea as regards the European Union referendum was to have a central count. The reason for that was that the then governing party was a little frightened that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland might deliver different verdicts to England which could be embarrassing. Constituency counts might be even more embarrassing to individual Members of Parliament whose views turned out to be contrary to those of their constituents. Eventually it was decided to base the count on local government areas.
In 1979 the referendums were again based on local government areas in the regions and islands of Scotland and in the counties and county boroughs of Wales. Now the Government propose that the forthcoming referendums should be based on local government areas. It is interesting that the Commission on the Conduct of Referendums stated,
"If the practice in general elections is applied to referendums, counting should be organised on a constituency basis. The machinery is well known and there are people already available who have experience of electoral procedure".
However, it also states—I mention this in case the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is about to quote it—
"On the other hand, the precedents of the 1975 and 1979 county-based counting suggest that for political reasons a constituency count may be inappropriate in a nationwide referendum".
I do not believe that a constituency count can ever be inappropriate. After all, we decide parliamentary elections in this country on a constituency count.
1262
I suspect that may change at the next elections to the European Parliament where the proportional representation system will probably remove the constituency base. Frankly, I am not a supporter of that move, but it looks as if the Government wish to move in that direction. No doubt, given their majority in another place, they will succeed in persuading their colleagues to vote for that.
I understand the reasons for the precedents of 1975 and 1979. As I said, the 1975 precedent sought to achieve a kind of balance between holding a countrywide count and avoiding the embarrassment of constituency MPs knowing that their constituents' views differed from their own. I have no desire to shield Members of the other place from embarrassment in these matters; indeed, I wish actively to encourage such embarrassment. For that reason I believe that a count based on parliamentary constituencies would be an excellent idea.
In the 1979 referendum some parts of the country which clearly voted "No" caused great embarrassment to their sitting Members. That embarrassment will arise at least in certain parts of Scotland—I do not know about Wales—where some of the council areas are small enough to be contained in one constituency. However, at present, thinking on my feet, I can think of few of those. The majority of counts will be across more than one constituency. Constituency representation has served this country well over many decades, indeed centuries. It is the sensible way to do the count. People who operate counts are used to doing so on a constituency basis. I commend my amendment to the Government. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 12 with which Amendment No. 9 is grouped. I believe that Amendment No. 12 is more important than Amendment No. 9.
Judging by what happened 18 years ago, the Orcadians and the Shetlanders had no wish to be governed directly by Edinburgh; and the people of the Borders had no wish to be governed indirectly by Glasgow. It is important for the stability of any semi self-governing Scotland, if one comes about, that we know whether the people living at either extremity of Scotland are of a like mind today. Unless Amendment No. 12, or something like it, is accepted, that will not be possible.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, when the Minister replies, perhaps he will clarify a point. If my memory serves me right, last time, in Wales certainly, if the count was not by constituency it was by areas. I remember exactly to what extent Gwynedd voted against the assembly. If I am right, why has the provision been changed?
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, surely a referendum is a measure of the opinion of the entire group, namely the nation. The opinion of the constituent

1263
power of the group does not matter in so far as it contributes towards the totality. The amendment is surely frivolous.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I would not have spoken on the amendment, but I am provoked by the last intervention. It is a matter of extreme importance and considerable significance, in particular in a country like Wales where 1.75 million of the population of 2.5 million live in a concentrated area of south-east Wales, to know how the individual constituencies of mid-Wales, west Wales and north Wales voted last time. It was so important that during debate at Committee stage of the Bill a number of noble Lords on the same side of the House as the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, spent a good deal of time commenting on the embarrassment that they felt when their constituents so clearly differed from them on the issue. A number of noble Lords commented that they had voted yes in the campaign and discovered that they did so with no support from their constituents.
We are dealing with parliamentary democracy. On this occasion we are dealing not with a post-legislative but pre-legislative referendum. When a Bill comes before this House with the proposals for government, it is of extraordinary importance to know how different parts of the country voted, their views, and the balance of opinion. It is important that Members of Parliament who will vote on the Bill should know the views of constituents.
Any Member of Parliament is entitled to form a judgment and to vote against the views and wishes of his constituents. However, most Members of Parliament are careful to consider their options if they discover—as occurred last time in Wales—that a majority of four or five to one in their constituency is against them. The Secretary of State of the day was forced to recognise on that occasion that if an elephant appeared in one's back garden one could not fail to recognise it. It is extremely important that if an elephant were to appear in any hack garden on this occasion it should be clearly recognised, and that Members of Parliament in another place should understand how powerful that elephant is and what it is likely to do in trampling the undergrowth if they go against its wishes. I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, the noble Lord may be an elephant trampling over a back garden. He has done it often in his career here. But the other side of the House has consistently confused parliamentary elections and traditions with a referendum, which is quite different. The amendment is frivolous. It was most ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, with his normal wit and frivolity.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I wonder whether I can introduce a calming note. I believe that I can give an answer to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, which will meet his legitimate interest. I shall be as brief as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. The purpose is to alter the basis of counting from local government areas to parliamentary constituencies. We have debated at some
1264
length the Government's reasons for choosing the local government register of electors. That is why we believe respectfully that it makes more sense to do the counting in the way we suggest.
However, I can say this. We expect that the returning officers for the referendums will be the same people who are returning officers for parliamentary elections. If the count is done by local government area, the process is actually made simpler; otherwise a returning officer could have to cover several separate counts.
Amendments Nos. 12 and 23 were the objects of questions from the noble Lords, Lord Monson and Lord Stanley of Alderley, and of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. The amendments require that the local results be publicly certified by the chief counting officer at the end of each local count. This is in addition to the national results that he is already required to certify and in addition to the duty on local counting officers to certify the results for their area. We have no intention of suppressing publication of the certificates of the individual counting officers or to prevent them from making a public announcement of the results. The draft Orders in Council clearly envisage local announcements being made.
The results have a limited meaning in isolation—but they have a meaning. I respectfully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. Taken together, they will make up the national result which is ultimately the only decision which determines whether we have a Scottish parliament and a Welsh assembly. There will be understandable local and probable national interest, I agree, in individual local results. We have no intention of preventing that disclosure.
There is no need to require the chief counting officer to certify the local results as well as the national results. There is no practical utility in the effect. The local results will be certified and announced by the local counting officers. To require the same results to be certified again by the chief counting officer is unnecessary and probably inappropriate because he will not have been present at those counts. We would expect that the chief counting officer will publicly report the local results as they become available before announcing and certifying the grand totals. These are to be major events in our constitutional life. We believe that public announcement of local and national results is a part of the process upon which we are embarked.
I hope, therefore, that I have been able to satisfy the concerns, which I readily understand, expressed by the noble Lord. Lord Crickhowell. I hope that my assurances about our thinking and the way in which we imagine things will continue have been satisfactory.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for confirming and putting on the record that the returning officer responsible for each individual local count will make a public announcement at the end of that count of the result of the referendum in his or her area. That is good and I am delighted about it. I did not think that the Government would propose

1265
otherwise, but it is nice to have it on the record—in case my suspicious mind of earlier today reasserts itself.
I thought that there was an interesting contrast between the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, and my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, admired seeing his country estate on television over the past four days in most magnificent weather.
Lord Howie of Troon: I was there in person.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: If the noble Lord was there in person, even better. He suggests that the referendum is the opinion of the whole nation. His argument would have held more water if this were a post-legislative referendum, if the referendum were mandatory and made the decision of the whole of Scotland and Wales.
There has been much debate about the nature of the referendum and what the result signifies. I suspect that that question will arise again shortly. Time and again we have been told that this is an advisory referendum. Whom will it advise? It will advise Parliament. Do Members of Parliament want the advice to be on the basis of, let us say, Glasgow Members knowing only how the whole of Glasgow voted, whereas the Member for Orkney and Shetland will know exactly how his constituency voted. He will therefore have received direct advice about how his electorate feel and also about how the whole population feel. If the referendum is to be advisory, surely it is an important piece of advice for Members of another place, who have then to decide when and to what extent they will proceed with the Bill.
This is an important point. I am sorry that the Government will not take it further. There will be a great deal of speculation about the result in each constituency, drawn from the result in each area. In some areas it will be fairly easy to reach a decision. Last time, the views of voters in two or three areas of Scotland represented at the time by fervent Liberals, deeply in favour of the referendum, turned out to be totally at variance with the views of their Members of Parliament, much to the embarrassment of those Members. As I said, I am not in the business of stopping Members being embarrassed, and I am sorry that the Government will not accept this modest amendment in order to take the count by parliamentary constituency. However, I accept that the Government have kept their troops here in considerable numbers in order to prevent my winning any further Divisions. Safe in that knowledge, I beg leave to withdraw this one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sewel moved Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 1, line 20, after ("with") insert ("paragraph 11 of Schedule (Conduct of the referendums, &c.) and").
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 4, at end insert ("and
(c) the proportion of the total eligible electorate represented by the total votes cast for each proposition.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 11 and 22 in my name are to a considerable extent paving amendments for the amendment in the names of my noble friends Lord Stanley of Alderley and Lord Renton.
These amendments return briefly to the question related to the point I have just made about the referendum being advisory; namely, how one interprets the results. I said at Second Reading and in Committee—though I do not think the Government believed me so I shall say it again—that, looking at referendums in general and those that are to be held over the next four years and nine months, we ought to address the proposition: how do we judge the result? At the risk of repeating myself, I pose the question only because I have never received a satisfactory answer. If the level of turnout is down to that for a local election on a wet day—30 per cent. to 35 per cent. —even if the proposition wins by a vote or two, is that sufficient? I have never received an answer. I fully accept that in higher (general election) turnouts a simple majority is more than acceptable. In the amendment I put forward I proposed a cut-off point of 60 per cent. As the turnout goes down, we do have to ask how valid the referendum then is as an instrument for changing the constitution or whatever has been the subject of the question.
One of the reasons for my two amendments is that I want the returning officer, at the end of the count, in addition to doing all the things just discussed, to announce what was the proportion of the total electorate who voted in favour of each proposition. That allows my noble friends to move their amendment, which I shall not intrude upon other than to say that, although the amendment may well take a broad-brush approach, I hope that they will argue that the Government ought to address this issue.
I know that the Government will tell the House that, so far as this referendum goes, they are confident of a large turnout in Scotland. I rather gather that some journalists are beginning to doubt that confidence and say that the Scottish Office is beginning to worry about the turnout. I am sure that the same must be true in Wales, where, according to opinion polls, enthusiasm is markedly less than it is in Scotland. We recall the result in Wales at the last election.
It is not just a matter of this referendum. I hope that the Minister in replying will go a little beyond that. If a referendum is held on a mayor for London, on PR or a number of other difficult issues, and if we begin, as I believe we inevitably shall, to have referendums on issues that are more about morality than constitutional matters and in which party politics does not play the same part, the question will have to he addressed as to what constitutes a reasonable majority. That becomes very important in relation to a post-legislative referendum; it is equally important with a pre-legislative referendum.
I therefore hope that the Government will give some more philosophical thought to the result of referendums in general without feeling that they are in some way weakening their position in relation to the referendum in September over which they appear to be so concerned. I beg to move.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, invites us to consider the matter on principle. In states which have a written constitution such as Australia or New Zealand, there are provisions within that written constitution for a certain proportion to count when a referendum is held. In Australia, for the constitution to be changed, 50 per cent. of the votes are required in a majority of states. In New Zealand it is 60 per cent. of the votes cast to change the written constitution.
In this country, I should have thought that noble Lords who sit on the official Opposition Benches are supporters of the unwritten constitution. The advantages of the unwritten constitution are said to lie in its flexibility. When one examines the way in which the constitution has operated over the years where referendums are concerned, one looks for precedent. The important precedent, the one that effected the greatest constitutional change in this century, was the 1975 EC referendum, when a simple majority sufficed. That is the precedent upon which referenda in this country should be based until we have a written constitution where matters can be formally set out.
The percentages that were written into the Wales and Scotland Bills in 1979 for the purposes of that referendum were not based on principle. They were included not as a matter of government policy but halfway through consideration of the Bill, in order to get it through the Houses considering the Bills at that time. It was not a matter of principle. If we are to retain our belief in a flexible constitution, then we should go by the precedent of the 1975 referendum—namely, a simple majority: one vote is enough.
Lord Rees: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene in this debate, but I have been provoked by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I vividly remember the 1975 referendum. I took a minor role in it myself as a then Member of Parliament. That was a post-legislative referendum. Indeed, it took place about two or three years after a prolonged analysis during the passage of the Bill which led to this country's accession to the European Community.
This referendum is pre-legislative. We are told that it is advisory. In other words, the Government are rather making things up as they go along. I do not believe there is any respectable precedent for this. In this instance the House should therefore not attach any weight to a linkage between this referendum and that undertaken in 1975.
I am led on by the powerful intervention from this Front Bench. I asked a question of the noble Lord speaking for the Government at Committee stage, to which I received no answer. Is the House to understand
1268
that, whatever the size of the majority—if there is a majority—whatever the number of people who turn out to vote, the Government will proceed with a legislative measure to introduce devolution in Scotland and Wales? I am not asking the noble Lord speaking for the Government to say precisely what the figure is; I have altered the question slightly: are we to understand that, whatever the size of the majority, whatever the turnout, the Government will still wish to proceed with their legislation to introduce devolution in Scotland and Wales?
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, as my noble friend said, my Amendment No. 35 is grouped with this amendment and is possibly the substantive one that the noble Lord will wish to destroy when he comes to reply.
The purpose of my amendment is to explain and clarify to the electorate what they will be voting for in the referendum. They may think that when I cast my vote I am voting for or against a Welsh assembly—I trust that your Lordships will forgive me if I refer particularly to Wales as I have little knowledge of Scotland—and that if there is a simple majority for either "Yes" or "No" that is the end of the matter.
As I read the Government's replies in Committee and the replies and remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, on Amendment No. 5 this afternoon, nothing could be further from the truth. In the end—I am sure that the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—it will be Parliament that makes the final decision. In fact, it will not be Parliament at all which decides but the elective dictatorship that appears not to listen to Parliament. I see no reason to believe that that dictatorship will necessarily listen to the electorate—until, of course, nearer the next election.
Be that as it may, I hope to persuade the Government that my amendment is helpful, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers used to say when we were last in Opposition. The Government Front Bench have the advantage of youth and may not remember that sad but short lived period.
As I said at Second Reading, it would have been much wiser, and certainly more honest, if the Government had chosen to explain the full details of what an assembly might or might not do by holding the referendum after the passing of the Bill. My amendment goes a small way towards warning the electorate that their opinion may possibly not count.
The two amendments are designed to protect the electorate from being misled and deceived; not only that, they will encourage the electorate to vote, contrary to what the noble Lord said. Under subsection (a) of my amendment, if less than 35 per cent. of the electorate vote, regardless of the majority, the vote will be decided in the negative; but under subsection (b) of my amendment, if more than 35 per cent. and less than 50 per cent. of the electorate vote, the matter will be undecided. I have to admit that in the latter case I would have proposed a further referendum after the passing of the devolution Bill, when the full details of the duties of the assembly would have been spelled out. But that was outside the scope of the Long Title. Suffice it to say that

1269
I am sure that the Government would wish to consider the matter carefully and perhaps considerably amend the White Paper should less than 50 per cent. of the electorate vote.
I accept that the Government may not wish to accept my 35 per cent. and 50 per cent. figures, in which case I should like to know what figures they suggest. After all, they are the Government now and must have a minimum figure in mind which they should declare to the electorate. A determination to go ahead with an assembly if less than 35 per cent. of the electorate vote would show a total disregard for the 65 per cent. that are content with the present situation.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Parry, is going to get upset, but perhaps I may finish so that he can get more upset.
The Government are determined to push through this legislation to their party's political advantage, in that any Welsh assembly will always be dominated by South Wales, a Labour Party stronghold. Pity poor North Wales and Plaid Cymru.
I accept that my amendment does not overrule the Labour Party's promise to decide on a simple majority. However, let me put two extreme cases. If only 10 per cent. of the electorate voted, with 51 per cent. in favour, would the Government really go ahead with a Welsh assembly? If 90 per cent. of the electorate voted, with 51 per cent. in favour, I presume that the Government would consider—as indeed I would—that vote sufficient to proceed with an assembly? There must be a middle, sensible figure which, if they are to be seen to be responsible, the Government should spell out to the electorate before we go to the polls.
In passing, I would have thought that my amendment would appeal to the Liberal Democrat Party, who I understand believe a referendum to be totally unnecessary. Maybe I have misunderstood them.
The fact that I am personally extremely doubtful about a lot of chattering councillors in Cardiff deciding on my future in North Wales is incidental to the amendment. I hope that the Government will give me and the electorate a helpful answer and not say that my amendment is otiose—a horrible word—or that it poses a hypothetical question. Everyone must accept that it is essential to prepare and declare a contingency plan in case something such as I have described happens.
Lord Parry: My Lords, having lived in Wales all my life and never lived anywhere else, I share some of the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. I think though that he has gone far into the realms of conjecturing about situations that will never arise.
Those of us who took part in the earlier referendum in respect of an assembly for Wales were massively disappointed with the result. But it was nothing like my personal disappointment with the campaign on which it was based, because it was virtually non-existent. On this occasion we have a well organised campaign already springing up in Wales, even for the "No" vote. The campaign is already under way. It will be well co-ordinated and well staffed, and I am certain that the
1270
result will be a very good turn-out, probably as high as any turn-out in a general election. I see no reason to go into these difficulties. Having been born in south-west Wales, I certainly do not think the noble Lord need be afraid of the citizens to the south.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, mentioned that the Liberal Democrats did not regard a referendum on this issue as being necessary. He is absolutely right. However, the Government have undertaken to have one. The reason why I very much doubt the value of referendums is that they are usually the sign of a weak government. This is not a weak government; they had a large vote and have a very large majority. Nevertheless, they had a minority of the vote in the country—44 per cent. of the popular vote, I think. Yet throughout our history one has been sufficient for a majority, as the late Lord Wilson said, and I have never known a Conservative to disagree with that.
The truth is that we take the most vital decisions on the result of an election in which often the majority of the people are against the Government. That has never been an impediment to government in this country. But when there is an issue such as this, thresholds are required. Why? There is not a case for it. If people are not inclined to vote because they are indifferent and do not care, why should they be counted as negative votes? That is the effect of the threshold, however it is dressed up.
It seems to me that there is little justification for that argument. Indeed, I believe that referendums altogether, save in quite exceptional circumstances, are a very bad thing. They are bad for democracy. Anyone who knows the history of the Weimar Republic before Hitler came to power knows how that weak government eventually was slaughtered as a result of their own referendums. Hitler, indeed, used them after he came into power to demonstrate that he had popular support.
However, as we are to have a referendum, I should like to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, said. He does not need to fear domination by South Wales. As a boy I was brought up in North Wales. I remember very few students—I knew one—who went to Cardiff to study at the university. Cardiff was regarded as a coal centre in Wales. From the moment that it became a capital city, to a large extent it meant that Wales was transformed. From all parts of Wales the percentage of students who now go to the university at Cardiff and the number of schoolchildren who visit the folk museum there and so on are increasing all the time. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, frowns. But no government have spent sufficiently on communications in Wales. There is a capital in the south and it is time that there was a serious attempt to improve the communications.
That apart, we are not living 40 or 50 years ago but in the modern age. The younger generation are much more in favour of local control over local affairs. This will be the first democratically-elected assembly in Wales in history and that means a great deal.
8 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am sorry to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, whom I have known for many years. I like referendums. I was vaguely under the impression that the Greek city states were governed by a series of referenda, as they called them in those days. It seemed to work quite well. I know that the electorate was very limited, but that is not the point.
I shall make three points extremely briefly because I do not wish to disturb my noble friends on the Front Bench who do not want to be kept up all night. First, I can give a certain amount of comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. The whole of this debate has indicated that he is right to say that there ought to be a general law on referendums. It cannot be achieved in time for this set of referendums but I feel that the Government should put their mind to working out a set of arrangements for referendums in the future, of which I sincerely hope we have a great many. I am happy to say that I agree with the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench, although he probably wants fewer than I do.
My other two points are very simple. There has been a great deal of discussion in our general debates about pre-legislative referendums, as though we had never had a referendum before. There was a referendum on the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, which had nothing whatever to do with legislation and which had entirely to do with opinion. It seems to me that the referendums now proposed have to do with opinion related to self-government or home rule of some kind, however limited it might be. I leave the matter there.
I have raised my last point before in this House and it was mentioned also by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson; namely, the proportion of votes. There is no way in which an abstentionist should be counted. If he abstains, he has resigned from the competition. He is not in it. He has totally abstained—he is TT, so to speak. He does not count at all. He has taken himself out of the argument and therefore has resigned. Since he has resigned, he can and ought to be forgotten. There is no point in trifling. One can only count those who have voted.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is speaking on behalf of the Scots. I do not feel that he understands the Welsh character.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I have never heard of a Welsh total abstentionist.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I shall deal first with Amendments Nos. 11 and 22 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I admit that when I first saw the amendments I had to start thinking about their purpose. I came to the conclusion that it was exactly the purpose explained to us by the noble Lord; that is to say, they are Trojan horses. They are just there to let through the threshold amendment that follows. I should have realised that such a distinguished mathematician as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, did not
1272
need to have the counting officer use his own calculator to come up with the figures on turn-out and that it was not some kind of academic treatise for which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, wanted the data. It was, in fact—let us be generous—a slightly more Machiavellian purpose that he had in mind.
But the amendments highlight one issue: the importance of distinguishing between turn-out and the eligible electorate. Turn-out is generally taken to be those voting as a proportion of those on the electoral register, which is a familiar concept. The eligible electorate is a little different, which, if we pause and reflect for a moment, becomes absolutely clear. On the register there are names of people who have died, people who have not reached voting age by the time the event takes place and some people who are registered twice but only have the right to vote once. Also, in this context and particularly in parts of Scotland, it is important to remember that there are those whose religious beliefs prevent them from voting. So, the eligible electorate is a slightly difficult animal to define. If we use proportions in terms of the eligible electorate, we get into very deep and complicated waters, if deep waters can be complicated.
Amendment No. 35 takes me back to Committee stage and the debate on thresholds, when we heard about the tartan sliding scale of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. I forget how many arbitrary cut-off points the scale had but there were quite a number. The argument was advanced that it was a sophisticated, fair and reasonable way forward. But it was not fair, reasonable and a way forward that appealed to us; nor would it appeal to the people of Scotland and Wales. Now the noble Lords, Lord Stanley of Alderley and Lord Renton, have produced their own thresholds. The dark ages have dawned again. Rather than making progress in the sophistication of thresholds, there is a very crude approach which states that there has to be a 50 per cent. vote before the measure is passed; and if between 35 per cent. and 50 per cent. of the eligible electorate vote, the matter should be undecided. That is a novel idea in itself. If under 35 per cent. of the eligible electorate—however defined—vote, it falls.
Let us pause for a moment and think what the proposition was that was put before the people in the general election. The manifesto upon which the Government secured their majority; the manifesto that secured an overwhelming majority in both Scotland and Wales, put the simple proposition that the people endorsed as follows:
"A simple majority of those voting in each referendum will he the majority required".
That is absolutely plain; absolutely straightforward; it is understandable, simple and democratic. That is the way we should proceed. We put our proposals to the people in Scotland and Wales. We invite them to make a judgment. We count the votes. If there is a majority in favour, then the proposition is carried. If there is not a

1273
majority of those voting in favour, then the proposition is defeated. We are not going to have this matter settled by those who remain on their backsides.
Lord Rees: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, he may recall that I posed this same question both during Committee stage and this evening. With his habitual courtesy I have no doubt that he will wish to answer it. Will he say simply that whatever the size of the majority, whatever the size of the turnout in Scotland and Wales, if there is a "yes" vote the Government will proceed with devolution legislation?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I thought I had made the Government's position clear by reading out the passage from the manifesto where it says,
"A simple majority of those voting".
Indeed, in this case, in terms of the Government's position, one is enough.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, to sum it up, the Government do not care what the turn-out is. It is not something that bothers them one way or the other. I am sorry that we have not been able to tempt government Ministers away from their narrow briefs into a wider consideration of the question I posed. Not only in relation to this referendum—I accept what is in the Government's manifesto, I have heard it often enough—but also in relation to other referendums, it would be interesting to hear what noble Lords felt about the general proposition in regard to turn-outs and majorities.
I was happy to hear the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, recruited to my view that we need a generic referendum Bill. That is one of the questions which may or may not be addressed in a generic referendum Bill.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, but not tonight.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that I have no intention of even beginning it tonight.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, asked why fresh rules were required. I commend him to the Marshalled List and to the amendments tabled by the Government. He will there see detailed rules, and they are required because a referendum is quite a new animal. It does not have any legislative provision. It therefore has to ride piggyback, so to speak, on the Representation of the People Act, which is designed for parliamentary and local elections.
If the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, does not see that there is a huge difference between a referendum, which is a one-off question with a one-off answer, and a parliamentary or local government election, where people are electing a government or a local authority to deal across a whole range of issues, then nothing I can say tonight will ever manage to persuade him of that difference. It is self-evident to me that there is a huge difference.
1274
However, that is not the proposition, though it is related to it. It is because it is different that we ought to address the problem. I am sorry that government Ministers have not even begun to turn their attention to the wider question: if we are to have lots of referendums, what are we going to do—if anything—about turn-out and majority? I have said to the Government before that, if we have lots of referendums and we come to one where there is a low turn-out and only a bare majority of a couple of people, should the Government then say, "We are going to ignore it because people do not feel strongly about it", they will have real trouble from the people who thought that they had won. I remind the noble Lord of all the people who thought that they had won in 1979. They have borne it girning in their souls ever since; ad nauseam, despite the fact that they made the rules. They were the people who told the people of Scotland, "If you want to vote no, you do not have to bother turning out". I gave them an answer to that in my formula. If a formula had been accepted rather than a table, we would have got rid of the cliff edges.
Clearly we are not going to make progress on this matter. I am sorry that the attempts of my noble friends Lord Stanley and Lord Rees failed to persuade the Government to address this proposition in general terms. Does any old turn-out count? Clearly, any old turn-out counts. If only 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. of the people of Wales turn out, the Government will be happy with that.
I will only say that those of us who want a resounding "No" for Scotland and Wales will redouble our efforts to make sure that people realise the significance of their votes and what damage may be done to both our countries. We are not going to make any more progress on this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 5. at end insert—
("() An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument.").
Clause 2 [Referendum in Wales]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 6, leave out ("Her Majesty may by Order in Council") and insert ("the Secretary of State may by order").
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.

The Homeless: Health Care
8.18 p.m.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaffrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to ensure that there is an appropriate level of health care for the homeless.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, since there will be no right of reply after the Minister has spoken. I should like to take this opportunity to thank all those who have put their names down to speak. The range of their interests represented means that we shall have a profitable review of the subject.
I am sure that your Lordships look forward to hearing my noble friend Lady Emerton making her maiden speech. We have been professional colleagues in nursing over many years and her experience now as chairman of the Brighton Health Care NHS Trust and as a chief officer of St. John Ambulance equip her to speak with authority on the topic we have before us this evening.
I also look forward to hearing the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. I believe that this could be the last time in which he will take part in the proceedings of the House, though we are delighted that he will be with us for the whole of this week reading prayers. I can think of no one more suited to contribute to our proceedings this evening. He has been a prophet to the Church in his defence of the poor and disadvantaged. He has never allowed us to forget our obligation to show a "bias to the poor" and we look forward to hearing him.
The links between homelessness and health are complex. A report from the South Manchester Health Authority in 1993 stated:
"The causes of homelessness are largely rooted in public housing, employment and income policies. The main route for improving the health of homeless people lies therefore in improving their prospects for housing, work and adequate benefits".
The BMA has stated:
"Tackling homelessness should be a major priority for social policy on health grounds".
In a Written Answer to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in 1995 about the poor diet of the homeless, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, indicated that five government departments, including the Department of Health, were involved in the future of the rough sleepers initiative. It is a complex area.
The present Government have expressed their determination to reform social policies and this Unstarred Question seeks to probe their intention to provide and to integrate health care policies and social policies for homeless people. The Help the Aged and Crisis report, Homeless Truths, published this year, stated:
"There is no single definition of homelessness. It is defined in different ways by policy makers, service providers, academic researchers, the media and the public and this produces varying estimates of the scale of the problem".
The Royal College of Physicians, in its report, Homelessness and Ill Health, identified three categories of homeless people. The King's Fund report, Health and Homelessness in London, revised these categories to
1276
reflect the pattern of homelessness in London. The categories it used were, first, statutorily homeless people, defined under the Housing Act 1985; secondly, non-statutorily homeless people, staying in hostels, night shelters and so on; and thirdly, people sleeping rough. Other people use a wider definition: the lack of decent, secure, safe and affordable housing. This includes those whose homelessness is hidden from view. In some authorities teams of nurses are actively engaged in case finding for the homeless. It seems fitting to ask Her Majesty's Government what categories of homeless they intend to recognise in their policies and plans for care.
Lack of an adequate quality of accommodation, exposure to severe weather conditions, poor nutrition and limited access to hygiene facilities predispose to poor health. Specific medical disorders are commonly associated with homelessness; for example, respiratory disorders. Many experience chest and breathing problems, including bronchitis and lung cancer. There is a particular concern over the incidence of tuberculosis, especially drug resistant strains. One study found that homeless men are 50 times more likely to suffer from tuberculosis than the rest of the population. And now there is the relationship between HIV and tuberculosis.
Other types of morbidity commonly found include musculoskeletal disorders, foot problems—few of the homeless lie down to sleep—with chronic oedema, damage to the skin, infection and ulceration. Standing and walking for long periods in ill fitting shoes, alcoholism and poor nutrition lead to peripheral neuropathy, and sleeping in wet footwear leads to "trench foot". Then there are the dermatological disorders and infestations which are increased by lack of access to sanitary facilities. Mental health problems can be the cause and the result of homelessness. I am delighted to know that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, will be dealing with that subject. I leave it in her capable hands.
There is very little information on the dental health of the homeless in the UK. I was delighted to receive a paper from Daly, which brings together four surveys undertaken in the UK. They indicate that homeless people had almost twice as many missing teeth as the general population and three to five times as many decayed teeth. Old, broken and ill fitting dentures were common and 22 per cent. in one survey reported difficulties with chewing and biting and 16 per cent. reported themselves as in pain at the time they were interviewed.
Homelessness places a significant cost on the health system. Shelter estimates that in two London district health authorities acute admissions of homeless people cost £3 million per year. It has been estimated by the Standing Conference on Public Health that cold housing alone costs the health service £800 million every year. Poor housing is estimated to cost the NHS around £2 billion a year more per annum.
During the early 1990s the previous government took a number of initiatives in making provision for the homeless. They launched the rough sleepers initiative and in 1990 the then government and the Mental Health

1277
Foundation launched the mentally ill initiative, with £20 million being made available for accommodation and outreach teams. In addition, some 35 primary care schemes for the homeless were centrally funded.
I would ask the Minister to what extent Her Majesty's Government intend to maintain and extend these initiatives and whether they have any new initiatives in mind; for instance, for the young homeless and elderly homeless. Would they be in favour of the policy, which I am told happens in Paris, of sweeping up the homeless, particularly at night?
The provision of health care services is essential. I know that other noble Lords will speak on this topic and so I shall leave it to them. Perhaps I may just touch on the need for dental care and the work going on in Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham. A full clinical service is maintained at St. Giles and there is a combination of outreach work to hostels and day centres. It is an excellent model. Different models of care—an integrationist model, in which health care is integrated into mainstream health services; specialised schemes to improve access; and separate dedicated services—all have their role.
I have found a tremendous interest in the subject of homelessness. The Churches, the voluntary sector and statutory services seem to work together. There is no want of innovation and creativity. A great deal is being done. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government intend to maintain, shape and fund the necessary services for this vulnerable group in society.
8.27 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I believe this evening is an historic occasion in that it is the first time in which three nurses will have spoken in your Lordships' House. I am therefore very happy to thank the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, for making this possible and for doing so in the context of a debate on such an important issue which she has introduced so comprehensively.
It is no surprise perhaps that this topic has been chosen for her maiden speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton. It reflects her professional commitment to advocacy on behalf of those who are among the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in our society. That choice is entirely consistent with the great contribution the noble Baroness has made to nursing and to healthcare throughout her professional career. I am sure that we all greatly look forward to hearing her speech.
I shall focus on the needs of those people who suffer from mental health problems and whose predicament is exacerbated by homelessness. Organisations working with and for the mentally ill who are suffering from homelessness, such as the National Schizophrenic Fellowship—NSF—and Mind, indicate and identify a number of interrelated issues which require urgent attention. These are substantiated by several research studies which show strong links between homelessness and mental health problems. For example, various research reports estimate that between 30 and 60 per cent. of homeless people in London have a severe mental illness, such as schizophrenia, manic
1278
depression or major depression, and similar, although slightly lower, figures have been recorded for the rest of England and Wales. Problems facing people suffering mental illness have been exacerbated by the closure of hospital beds for the mentally ill without adequate alternatives being made available in the community.
Appropriate housing is the most important element in care plans for people with mental illness. A stable home greatly helps social, psychological and physical well-being. Homelessness by contrast is linked to loneliness, isolation, non-compliance with medication, deterioration in physical health, decreased chances of employment and financial insecurity—in fact, a dismal cycle of multiple deprivation. And very disturbingly, as the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, indicated, increasing numbers of younger people are found among the homeless. They have difficulty accessing services in the community and cannot be hospitalised when they need care because of bed-blocking caused by shortages. For example, according to the NSF, acute beds in London are now oversubscribed by a terrifying figure of 200 per cent.
Problems are also experienced by patients being discharged from hospitals, including some of the most dependent and vulnerable patients, who may have been in hospital for many years. For them, the hospital may have become their home, indeed their world, their only constellation of personal relationships. The community to which they are discharged can be a very lonely place.
Other problems confront hospitals which are trying to discharge patients who are potentially a danger to themselves and to others and who need a safe, secure environment at least until treatment enables them to face the risks of living a less structured and supervised way of life. The extreme shortage of secure and medium-secure units for those trying to arrange discharges from hospital for these patients is causing a real crisis, especially for those patients for whom section orders expire and who must be found secure or medium-secure accommodation. There is not sufficient accommodation of this type available.
Time permits reference only to one research study: all these issues are underpinned by research. The study to which I refer is the Homeless (Mentally Ill) Initiative undertaken by Craig and colleagues whose findings were published in 1995. They reported on the work of five specialist teams in three of the former regional health authority areas of London. They confirmed between 30 and 50 per cent. prevalence of severe mental illness among users of night shelters, with schizophrenia as the most common diagnosis. They highlighted a number of issues of which I shall indicate just a few. The first was a need for much more psychiatric support for these vulnerable people.
The findings revealed that about one-third of those covered by the survey had lost their accommodation on account of mental illness, usually after they had been admitted to hospital. In two-thirds of resettlement so-called "failures", there had been a deterioration in a person's mental health which had not been identified and treated quickly enough. Therefore, among many recommendations was the need for joint commissioning and planning by health, social and housing agencies.

1279
I conclude by asking the Minister four questions. I shall fully understand if it is not possible to answer all of them tonight, but I would like to make them available for consideration. First, will the Government fulfil their pre-election promise of a moratorium on psychiatric bed closures at least until adequate and appropriate quality accommodation and support are ensured for those to be discharged? Secondly, will the Minister give an undertaking to promote policies designed to enhance co-ordination and communication between health and social services, the voluntary sector, the police and—very important indeed—the informal carers; and to improve speed of access to services, appropriate referrals, measures to protect vulnerable people from falling through the safety net of care and, in that context, support for those informal carers who play such a crucial role and who are often not recognised and identified with sufficient support?
Thirdly, will the Government consider sympathetically a range of options for different kinds of care for people with mental illness discharged from psychiatric hospitals? For example, will the option of village community-type care, so well established and well proven in this country and in other countries in terms of care effectiveness and cost effectiveness, be included impartially as one possible choice for those being discharged from hospital?
My last question is this. Homelessness is an outcome of the failure of community care in general. NSF believes that £500 million in revenue spending a year would be required to provide appropriate care and support for people with severe mental illness and their carers. Can the Minister give any assurance that appropriate resources will be available for the necessary care of these very vulnerable people?
It has been well said that the extent to which a society is civilised can be judged by the care it provides for its most vulnerable members. The same can be said of governments. One of the challenges facing the Government today is the problem of homelessness in general and of those who are mentally ill in particular, whose problems are exacerbated by homelessness. This debate provides a valuable opportunity for the Government to show how they will rise to these challenges and, if they can, give hope to those who are now suffering from inadequate provisions and encouragement to those who are currently trying to provide that care for the mentally ill with dedication but too often without the resources to do so as effectively as they would wish and as the mentally ill need.
8.36 p.m.
Baroness Emerton: My Lords, it is an honour to be able to address your Lordships' House. I ask for your Lordships' indulgence as I deliver my maiden speech. I first declare an interest in that I am a chairman of a health care trust and a chief officer of St. John Ambulance.
The Patient's Charter states that every individual has a right to receive health care on the basis of their clinical need, not on their ability to pay, their lifestyle or any other factor.
1280
The various categories of homeless people described by the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, frequently experience problems in obtaining appropriate health care due to prejudice against the homeless by health professionals and in particular by many general practitioners who refuse to register the homeless. This leads to a reluctance by the homeless to seek health care until diseases become debilitating or there is a suffering of severe pain. In addition, the homeless tend to be a mobile population and therefore continuity of care presents a problem, especially for those suffering a mental illness, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, mentioned.
The health status of people sleeping rough is far worse than that of the general population and research has shown that the average life expectancy of people who sleep rough is only to their mid-forties.
In 1981, Sir Donald Acheson, the Chief Medical Officer at the Department of Health, highlighted the imbalance between the generous provision of acute hospitals and the poor overall quality of primary and community health care, the consequences being that many patients ended up being treated in hospital. As far as the homeless are concerned, 16 years later there is evidence that A&E departments are being used inappropriately. A study published last year into the use of a London teaching hospital A&E department demonstrated that, if all the patients who had inappropriately attended the department had attended a more appropriate general practitioner surgery, a saving of £60,000 would have been achieved. If that was applied across all A&E departments, a substantial saving to the National Health Service could be made.
Frequently, those presenting at an A&E department have an overriding problem of alcohol or substance abuse or mental illness and can be very consuming of staff time in their management. Evidence from a research project in Brighton in 1995 demonstrates clearly an inappropriate use of the department in particular by the street homeless.
Accessibility to appropriate health care provision is, therefore, a paramount need for this group of people. The previous government, following a favourable evaluation of two pilot schemes, part-funded 35 schemes across the country. Health authorities were then asked to consider improving access by homeless people to primary health care. In Sussex, 1.1 per cent. of the total population is homeless—that is, 3,453—and of these 1,792 are in Brighton and Hove. This is approximately 50 per cent. of the Sussex homeless population. In the 1991 census, there were 66 people sleeping rough, giving Brighton the highest rate of street homeless per capita in the UK.
I visited one of the pilot schemes situated in Brighton, called First Base, where approximately 160 homeless attend daily for a range of services, including health care. This is a well integrated scheme which meets the needs of both street homeless and those in bed and breakfast accommodation, many suffering from physical or mental illness. The health care provision is made by a nurse practitioner and a nurse who attend the centre on a regular sessional basis. It is quite evident that the relationship between the homeless and the nurses, while

1281
professional, is very informal and demonstrates mutual trust. There is also a general practitioner attached to the centre who attends on a sessional basis, but it is the nurse to whom the majority of homeless relate. It is, therefore, the role of the nurse practitioner which has proved to be very useful in filling the gap for homeless people who are not registered with a general practitioner.
An evaluation showed very high levels of patient satisfaction where nurse consultation for minor injuries were introduced: 86 per cent. of patients required no doctor contact at all. With the proper education for nurse practitioners, providing knowledge, skill base and competences to the appropriate standard, there is no reason why evidence-based practice cannot be delivered to a very high standard. The United Kingdom central council has through its policy scope of practice facilitated the development of extended roles and this has been supported by the Royal College of Nursing in programmes of preparation among many other colleges across the country. An increase in nurse practitioners would be a cost-effective route to the provision of appropriate health care for the homeless—and I would ask the Minister to consider this.
The centre I visited recently could, I believe, deliver a more cost-effective and efficient service to the homeless if the nurse prescribing legislation had been such as to allow the nurse practitioner prescribing rights. A review chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and the subsequent publication of the report Neighbourhood Nursing—A Focus for Care in 1986, recommended that community nurses be permitted to prescribe from a specified nursing formulary. This was followed by a Private Member's Bill which received Royal Assent in 1992. The statutory instruments allow district nurses and health visitors in specific pilot projects to prescribe from a limited formulary. There is now a nurse prescribing pilot scheme in each English NHS region and two in Scotland. The previous Government's White Paper, Primary Care: Delivering the Future, published in December 1996 announced that nurse prescribing would be extended throughout the country from May 1998.
It is evident that with the rapid growth of practice innovations, highly trained nurses who are specialists in a variety of areas are equipped to know and deliver the most appropriate and clinically effective treatment for their patients. This is particularly true of nurse practitioners treating homeless people. They could well benefit by inclusion in the nurse prescribing group. The Royal College of Nursing is pressing for legislation which would be sufficiently flexible to allow nurses who hold specialist qualifications and have appropriate skills and competences to be considered eligible for prescribing rights. Safeguards, checks and balances would be easy to implement as registered nurses now have to comply with the United Kingdom central council post-registration education project requirements for regular updating.
The formulary is currently restricted to a range of products based around the provision of nursing care involving treatment of wounds, minor injuries and some
1282
fungal infections. These alone would allow nurses to give appropriate care effectively to the homeless without the involvement of a doctor.
There is an obvious need for education of health professionals to break down the barriers of prejudice and marginalisation of homeless people and, where possible, to include homeless people in contributing to the planning of the provision of services most appropriate to them. This is not easy and in my experience of involving people with learning difficulties in the planning of services for themselves, it requires patience and understanding—but in the long term it is very worth while. Likewise, homeless people know the type of service they would respond to and can provide a useful contribution to its planning.
In planning services, one must not forget the importance of inter-agency working, and this should include the voluntary sector, which currently provides many services for the homeless. In particular, in my role in St. John Ambulance, I have been involved with the recent launch of a mobile unit pilot scheme in Manchester which provides first aid and primary health care during the evenings for the homeless. Volunteer nurses and volunteers specially trained provide these services. It is hoped to expand the project to two further centres this year. The volunteers provide a non-bureaucratic, easily accessible service, but they have the knowledge and skill to be able to refer clients to appropriate agencies if necessary. Funding of these schemes is, however, difficult for voluntary organisations and development is limited by the availability of funds.
The health care needs of the homeless is an area of need which requires government guidance and support to ensure that homeless people receive health care on the basis of their clinical need as stated in the Patient's Charter.
8.46 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, it is a great honour to follow the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, and thus to have the privilege of congratulating her and of welcoming her on behalf of the whole House. Her long and distinguished career in St. John Ambulance where, among her other executive duties she leads that great organisation's excellent care in the community programme, together with her experience in regional health care, make her unusually qualified to participate in this debate this evening, as we have heard. I understand that the noble Baroness's career began early when she achieved the distinction of being awarded the Grand Prior certificate before she was 16 when she was a cadet. I feel sure that all noble Lords who have heard her this evening will agree that she has achieved a similar success with her maiden speech and that they will join me in hoping that we shall hear her speak again very soon.
I propose to concentrate my own few words tonight on the concern that a growing number of mentally handicapped people may be becoming homeless. I use the

1283
words "mentally handicapped" instead of the more usual expression "people with learning disabilities" because I wish to distinguish between mental handicap and mental illness, which has been so admirably dealt with by my noble friend Lady Cox.
I would submit that a mentally handicapped person who is homeless is most unlikely to enjoy an adequate level of health care. Before I go any further, I should declare an interest as the father of a mentally handicapped daughter, and as Honorary President of the National Society for Mentally Handicapped People in Residential Care, known for short as RESCARE.
Perhaps the most disturbing evidence that increasing numbers of mentally handicapped people may be becoming homeless came from the Department of Health itself last year. In its evaluation report on residential care provision, it admitted that there is already a shortfall of some 25,000 residential places for people with a mental handicap, and it predicted increased demand over the next two decades. This is not surprising because many of the parents who are still looking after their mentally handicapped children are not getting any younger and are now very worried about what will happen to those children when they die. There is therefore a growing shortage of residential provision, and community care is, alas, increasingly unable to cope.
There are other worrying developments: one of these is that when people are discharged from long-stay hospitals into community care, their former friends and contacts in their hospital are often being encouraged not to stay in touch with them. I gather the theory is that this will spare them from carrying with them into community care what their social workers and others imagine may be the stigma of having been in a hospital. But of course it means that those who used to care for them and know about them may lose touch with them completely. The fear is that some of them, perhaps many of them, may now be ending up homeless.
Another disturbing report appeared in The Times on 23rd June this year, to the effect that some GPs may be dropping people with a mental handicap from their lists. If this is happening, it would seem to lend support for the retention of centralised hospital services with the kind of village communities which RESCARE favours. In those circumstances, many of us were very encouraged by the pre-election indications from the Labour Party that it would impose a moratorium on further closures of long-stay hospitals for people with a mental handicap and on the sale of the sites in question. But now that the Minister's party is in government, I am not quite sure what its new policy may be. Perhaps its mind is not yet made up.
The Minister may be aware that my noble friends Lady Cox and Lord Renton and I did our best over several years to persuade the previous government to halt these closures until it was really safe to proceed with them, and we failed. We failed also to get the previous government to encourage residential and village communities for mentally handicapped people as one of the choices which should be available to them and to their families. Indeed, a number of long-stay
1284
hospitals would be eminently suitable for conversion into residential communities, but such evolution appears to be resisted in the Department of Health and by local services, although there is a huge demand for the lifestyle and care which they provide.
To be specific, I can give the examples of St. Ebba's Hospital, Epsom, and Offerton House, Stockport, where reputable public companies have offered to finance, develop and run such communities. Those projects are strongly supported locally and by the relevant parents' and relatives' organisations, and yet they are being resisted by the local health authorities. If pursued, those projects must also provide invaluable pilot studies of how old style long-stay hospitals can be converted into something modern and useful. So I very much hope that the new Government will take a fresh look at the case for village communities for mentally handicapped people—my noble friend Lady Cox mentioned mentally ill people. That case was succinctly set out by my noble friend in her publication Made to Care in April 1995, the conclusions of which, as far as I know, have never been seriously challenged. Briefly, these are that village communities can provide a much richer and more fulfilling life for some people with a mental handicap, with better on-site medical care than can sometimes be provided under community care. And of course well run village communities remove the danger of homelessness entirely. RESCARE's national survey continues to show that at least half the families of mentally handicapped people want village communities as an option for their relatives. And, finally, although we were not supposed to say so under the previous government, our communities provide all this very much more cheaply than can community care.
This does not mean that our support for village communities is driven largely by considerations of cost. But, as my noble friend Lady Cox repeatedly asked the previous government, if village communities are care effective, and they are, if many of the people concerned desperately want them, and they do, and if they are also cost-effective, why do we not encourage them? Why instead do we resist their development? At the very least, we would hope that the new Government might end the ambiguity pursued by the previous government and put village communities firmly and clearly back on the list of provision which local authorities are encouraged by the Government to support. No one is asking for a monopoly, but the evidence is now overwhelming that village communities should be part of that provision.
If I may, after this debate I shall present the Minister with a free copy of Made to Care. It has an excellent one-page summary on the back, and I very much hope that she may find time to read at least that. Perhaps she, or her appropriate colleague in government, might also find time to meet my noble friends and I, so that we can dispel any doubts she may have about the common sense and compassion of what we propose.
8.55 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, for raising this Question on behalf of those who have little or no voice or clout themselves. I thank her also for the kind remarks she made about me. It has been a great privilege to play a part in your Lordships' House over some 17 years. I have a disappointment that it is natural to express at this moment. In my maiden speech I remember expressing my hope that if the nation wanted the Church to be represented in Parliament that that should be on an ecumenical basis and not just one Church. I am saddened that with all the other progress we have made in the Churches, that has not yet come about.
I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, on her maiden speech, made out of detailed and wide knowledge, and with a deep concern for homeless people as people who are worth something.
The Standing Conference on Public Health Working Group report of 1994 identified two most important reasons as to why homeless people may not have good access to health care: first, the mobility of homeless people, which has been spoken about, not necessarily of their own choice; secondly, unsympathetic and occasionally hostile reactions from the providers of health care. The rough sleepers' initiative made money available to address the health needs of homeless people; £20 million from the Department of Health to set up a major project in London concerned with mental illness among homeless people. That included multi-disciplinary teams to find people who were not in touch with statutory services. Money was also put into providing primary health care on a drop-in basis in hospitals or day centres. For example, in Liverpool, the Whitechapel Day Centre offers consultations with GPs, chiropody and eye tests, and has the services of a community psychiatric nurse. It is obvious that we need to go to find people rather than to expect that they will always turn up for appointments.
Churches have substantial involvement in offering services to homeless people. Nationally, the Church Urban Fund has made grants of £2.6 million to projects addressing homelessness and nearly £800,000 for projects concerning health in the community. London churches in particular are involved in many projects for homeless people. The London Churches Group, on behalf of all Churches, published a report last year From Sympathy to Solidarity, picking up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, about drawing people in to share in some of the thinking and decision making. It identified a large number of projects run by churches in London: 85 hostels or night shelters; 19 housing associations; 45 day centres and drop-in lunches; nine assistance advice centres and 31 soup runs. It estimated that 44 per cent. of users had serious problems with alcohol, drugs or mental health. It is crucial that closer links are made with health services for referrals or regular on-site sessions.
It would be misleading to assume that problems of homelessness are, as I used to believe until recently, confined to major cities. In our diocese of Liverpool, we
1286
are currently negotiating with the Church Army for the possible full-time appointment of a housing and homelessness officer. A survey by our Diocesan Board for Social Responsibility 1995–96 showed that no fewer than 3,687 households were accepted as homeless by the eight local authorities in the diocese. More than two thirds of them were outside Liverpool: Warrington, with a large number of travellers; Wigan, for example, has a homelessness problem fast approaching that of Liverpool. Of those nearly 3,700 households, the local authorities were able to house 2,200 only. They conclude that the problem of homelessness is getting worse.
Dr. John Balazs is a full-time GP in Stockwell, in south London. Reference has been made to two teams providing services in Lewisham, Southwark and Lambeth. He says that there are financial disincentives for GPs to register homeless patients. Most GPs will not register people who are expected to stay for only a few weeks. Temporary registration means a one-off payment, but no fee, for example, for immunisation, no targets, no health checks and no health promotional activities because there is no incentive.
Dr. Balazs concludes that the current NHS system fails homeless women in particular. For example, a high speed smear service is needed rather than the ordinary service. He says that having female carers available is very important for homeless women. He also says:
"My conclusion was that although prevention is sometimes a low priority for homeless women. it must he a high priority for their carers".
I shall make three further points. First, the delivery of health care to homeless people requires flexibility. That is plain from all that has been said. A good practice will sometimes accept self referral and will offer accessibility without appointment. Outreach workers and health advocates can make vital connections for people who are fearful of health agencies or who are perhaps unable to speak English. The report of the Standing Conference on Public Health, from which I quoted at the beginning of my speech, encourages such flexibility, particularly in meeting its first point about clients' mobility.
Its second point about unsympathetic and occasionally hostile reactions from the providers of healthcare led it to encourage training on how to work sensitively and effectively with homeless people. Sometimes a natural fear is involved in the process which may lie underneath unsympathetic attitudes. Perhaps I may share what your Lordships will understand has been a painful experience. The vicarage door is another place where homeless people go. In particular in urban priority areas, clergy and their families are sometimes the only professional people who live in the parish and are available at weekends and after 5 p.m. Following the tragedy of the killing of one of our clergy last summer outside his vicarage door, naturally there have been fears and an acceptance of the need for training in coping with such doorstep visitors. Staff at Ashworth Hospital have provided extremely helpful training days attended by a high proportion of our clergy

1287
and their spouses. I believe that such training may take away some fears and with them some of the hostility of health workers, too.
Thirdly, the London Churches' report highlighted attitudes of providers in its title, From Sympathy to Solidarity. That was echoed in the fine statement made last winter by the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales, The Common Good. It stated:
"The poor are not a problem: they are our brothers and sisters".
There needs to be respect for homeless people as people.
9.3 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the plight of homeless people is raised frequently in this House, but normally only in regard to finding them accommodation, suitable or otherwise. It is important that the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, has raised the question of the health of homeless people. It is so often neglected. Furthermore, I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, chose to use this Unstarred Question to make her maiden speech. I, too, hope that we shall hear her frequently; she is well worth listening to.
In 1991, 4,430 disabled people were accepted as homeless. That was 3 per cent. of the homeless total. By 1996 the number had risen to 6,380, or 5.5 per cent. of the total. Can the Minister advise the House whether that trend continues? She may not have the answer at her fingertips, but perhaps she could advise me later.
In 1996, 5,570 older people were homeless, which was 5.5 per cent. of the total homeless, and 8,330, or 7 per cent., had a mental illness. Therefore, in 1996, more than 17 per cent. of the households accepted as homeless had within them a person who was disabled, elderly or mentally ill.
I understand that many of the people who are homeless and sleeping rough, or who live in direct access hostels, are not considered to be homeless by the local authority, often because they themselves do not seek help or may not know where to find help. It is estimated that of these people one-third have a severe mental illness and half have a physical condition such as bronchitis, pneumonia, arthritis or a visual impairment.
Homeless people in priority need, including disabled people, are put into temporary accommodation. This type of accommodation can of itself be detrimental to health. In 1994, the Standing Conference on Public Health found that such accommodation is liable to be more overcrowded than any other type of tenure. A study last year for the King's Fund found that a cramped environment hinders the development of walking and co-ordination in children, which could lead to problems later in life. Overcrowding also encourages the spread of disease, in particular among children.
Many homeless people, who often have to move frequently, have difficulty in registering with a general medical practitioner, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton. Consequently, they make use of hospital casualty departments. Can the Minister confirm that the cost of an inappropriate visit to a casualty department is about £44, or three times the cost of a visit to a general practitioner, which is about £15?
1288
The inability to register with a GP is a serious problem for some disabled people, as they may have a condition which requires a particular knowledge from the GP and an understanding of the person's history. What do the Government propose to do to improve that situation'?
Local authorities place homeless people in temporary accommodation. That brings great difficulties for people with disabilities. The accommodation is often not accessible nor are the facilities within it and due to the short-term nature of the tenure, it is impractical to make adaptations. Temporary accommodation may well be damp and cold, which also brings serious problems for disabled people. Such accommodation may also be unsafe for people who are blind or who have a visual impairment. They must reorientate themselves in a new environment every time they move. That could well lead to accidents.
When considering sight, it is worth mentioning that homeless people and those in temporary accommodation are not as likely as others to have their sight tested regularly, if at all. Regular sight tests are an integral part of health checks. A sight test can detect treatable eye conditions at an early stage. I am told that a number of homeless people may well have developed advanced conditions such as glaucoma and diabetes retinopathy which could have been treated earlier. What are the Government doing to advise homeless people on benefit that they are exempt from charges for eye tests and that they can be given help towards the costs of glasses or contact lenses?
9.10 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, first, I warmly thank the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane of Llandaff, for introducing a very necessary debate. Secondly, equally warmly, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, on her distinguished, thoughtful and experienced maiden speech. My only regret is that she used many lines that I had been hoping to use but I cannot think any worse of her judgment for that.
I thank also the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, who first drew my attention to this subject back in 1989 when she asked a Question about the operation of the GP capitation scheme in relation to the registration of the homeless. I first realised the importance of the subject when I saw her difficulty in getting the Minister to face up to the precise content of the Question. But now both the present Minister and the present shadow Minister have faced up to the content of that, and I hope that we may hear some answers this evening.
I should also like to tell the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool a story which comes from perhaps rather longer ago than I wish to remember. One of my university contemporaries, subsequently my best man, had submitted an academic paper to the regius professor. His chances of employment depended wholly on the regius professor's opinion of the paper. But when he arrived on the regius professor's doorstep, he found him stamping about in a frenzy of impatience saying, "Sheppard is batting. Come on", and once he observed that sight, he thought that the regius professor's judgment was entirely justified.

1289
This evening, we have again seen Sheppard batting. It is done with the same grace and distinction on the same foundation of hard work and technical skill in one place as it was in the other. I find it very difficult to imagine this House without him.
When we talk about the homeless, we usually think about two different sorts of homeless: not only the street homeless but also those in bed and breakfast accommodation. There is a considerable health problem in both cases. I remember very vividly a debate in this House on 6th July 1992 on a Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, recommending a boarder premium for those in bed and breakfast and on income support. That was put to a Division and carried. Nothing has yet happened as a result of that Motion. It was based on the problem of people living in large bed and breakfast buildings where there are, for example, three gas rings between 39 couples; people with a toddler cooking three floors below where they live; and babies pulling saucepans off stoves. One of the local GPs reported a considerable problem with scalds. All of them report problems with diarrhoea. All of them report low rates of immunisation. Those matters need attention.
But the bulk of what I want to say is based, as were the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, on the Shelter report, Go Home and Rest?, the study of the casualty department at University College Hospital. In the sample there, only 30 per cent. have a GP, as against 97 per cent. of the population as a whole. However, even that 30 per cent. probably underestimated the problem, because it may very often have been a GP at the person's old address before he or she became homeless. Indeed, 57 per cent. of the visits were found to be inappropriate. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, have quoted the figures in that respect, so I shall not repeat them.
The problem with the capitation fees, perhaps the most urgent matter needing attention, is that if a patient registers permanently and then moves on within a quarter of a year, the GP receives no capitation fee at all. However, if the person registers temporarily, the GP gets no financial reimbursement for vaccinations, so health suffers either way. I hope that the problem can be addressed.
In most categories of homeless illness we find a lower threshold of hospital admission. In the sample to which I have referred, pregnancy was twice as likely to lead to hospital admission in the homeless as in the housed. I do not think that I need to explain to the House why. Moreover, among people suffering from injury, 16 per cent. of the homeless were admitted to hospital and only 8 per cent. of the housed. The biggest problem was infected wounds. I do not believe that I need to explain why it is difficult to treat infected wounds while sleeping on the pavement in the Strand.
Among depressives, the study found that 42 per cent. of the homeless were admitted to hospital as compared with 32 per cent. of the housed. I do not know whether that means that depression is worse among the homeless or that they are more easily admitted because they are
1290
less able to cope with it. Either way, there is a real cost to be paid for homelessness; and costs, like water, must go somewhere.
There is also the considerable problem about illness caused by homelessness. Indeed, expectation of life is 42 or 47 years, depending upon which study you are reading, compared with 74 for men and 79 for women among the housed. In the study, TB was 25 times the national average among the homeless. In the study quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, it was 50 times and, in an earlier study from Crisis, it was 200 times. They are all small samples, and I do not wish to speculate on which is right; but sometimes it is a good idea to put oneself in a position where one does not have to find out. The rate of asthma among people in the study was double in the homeless what it was in the housed. Again, if one thinks of the diesel particulates along the pavements in the Strand, I believe one can understand why. It was also found that injuries were four times as likely to be the result of assault, and that is something of which the whole country should be ashamed.
Mental health was found to be the second commonest cause of admission for the homeless compared with one tenth among the housed. Again, I do not know whether it is mental health problems which make people homeless or whether it is the homelessness which gives people the mental health problems; alternatively, in some of the cases that I know best, perhaps it is a vicious circle between the two. Either way it needs attention. I strongly agree with—indeed, I strongly support—what the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, said about the closure of mental hospital beds. We need better facilities for the homeless and we need fewer homeless people. Without one, we will not get the other, and, without the other, we will not get the one.
9.17 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, for initiating tonight's debate. Indeed, it is a subject which needs a very honest and forthright hearing, and I believe we have had just that tonight. I noticed that the noble Baroness, quite rightly, had some problems in citing definitions of homelessness. However, I am grateful to her for exploring that and also for her thoughtful exploration of the whole subject. Perhaps I may also thank the noble Baroness for her tribute to the previous government.
We also heard a remarkably authoritative contribution from our maiden speaker; but then the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton (of Tunbridge Wells and Clerkenwell), is no stranger to authority. I am not sure how many of your Lordships have seen the noble Baroness in her uniform of St. John, but I can certainly say that she is just terrifying when she is wearing it. Of course, there is a softer side to the noble Baroness; for example, I know that she has a penchant for teddy bears. If she is very diligent, I think she might find one or two even among your Lordships.

1291
However, we have also seen a further aspect of the noble Baroness this evening. I should like to pay tribute to her for her knowledge, her wisdom and her understanding not only of nursing, of which of course she is one of this country's outstanding leaders, but also of this complex and difficult subject that we are discussing tonight. We have heard from her of some of the imaginative initiatives being undertaken in Brighton, an acute trust which I know from personal experience she chairs with great distinction.
I also know Brighton quite well. It is a town which over many years has worked hard to establish itself as a smart conference and commercial centre, and indeed it has succeeded. But there is a darker side to this seaside resort and it has pockets of terrible deprivation. Even now its character is not entirely removed from Graham Greene's novel Brighton Rock. A few years ago it was said that Brighton had a murder a month. I am not sure whether that is true today, but it has its quota of homeless and unhappy people who, quite properly, are cared for by the social services, the local health authority and trusts and voluntary organisations, of which there are many of a high quality. However, these organisations find it difficult and challenging to support the numbers of homeless people within Brighton.
In a field study undertaken by Maureen Crane, a nurse researcher who won an award for her work, 159 men and 66 women, all aged over 55, were interviewed in London, Sheffield, Leeds and Manchester. Nearly two-thirds of those interviewed had been homeless for more than five years and half of these have been homeless for over 20 years. The interesting point to note is that before becoming homeless 40 per cent. had been owner occupiers or tenants—a much larger proportion than I would have anticipated—a fifth had been living with their parents and the rest had been in private lodgings, barracks, ships, prisons, mental hospitals, children's homes or living with relatives or cohabitees.
Her fieldwork revealed a number of common themes as to why these people had become homeless. Nearly 60 per cent. reported broken or disturbed homes, sometimes during their childhood or teenage years. Some had become homeless as a result of marital or other relationships breaking down. This often occurred quite late in life. A significant number had been in the Armed Forces or Merchant Navy, many of whom had never been able to establish or maintain a stable relationship or family life.
Maureen Crane found that two-thirds reported or exhibited some form of mental health problem, although—this has been mentioned tonight—only a tenth said that they were receiving any form of treatment. Not surprisingly, in common with the results of other studies, most also had physical problems which were untreated. These included respiratory conditions, hypertension, arthritis, oedema and peripheral vascular disease, gastro-intestinal complaints, alcohol related problems and trauma. I mention all this because I want to put what can be an overwhelming problem into some sort of context.
1292
The noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, mentioned Brighton's First Base day centre which is a welcoming and well run place and which looks after these types of people suffering from these sorts of conditions. I share the admiration of the noble Baroness for the centre and the people who work in it. They show great humanity, much skill and sometimes considerable courage. As she said, and studies show—this was further endorsed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell—these are the people who are most reluctant to register with a GP. Not surprisingly there are many GPs who are reluctant to have them on their books. However, a nurse is less threatening, especially when he or she is working in an environment the homeless person knows well and finds comfortable and non-threatening. Once accepted a skilled nurse practitioner is valued, used and consulted without fear. However, there is a rub. Despite having a diploma—and the vast majority of nurses now do, and in the future all will—and despite many of them having degrees, a nurse practitioner with all that knowledge, commitment and expertise does not have the authority to prescribe the most simple medicines or therapeutic aids.
I am aware that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, may well be growing weary of my persistence on this subject. Although I do not have the skills to mount what I can describe only as a Countess of Mar campaign—which, incidentally, I greatly admire—I wish tonight to issue a government health warning. I shall be persistent and deeply boring on this subject. I shall be persistent because I have seen at first hand the benefits and advantages which nurse prescribing brings: benefits to patients, doctors and the nursing profession. They are benefits which are far reaching in terms of time saving: time saved in reducing the suffering and discomfort of patients; time saved by doctors and nurses in getting a prescription signed.
Is it not ridiculous that middle-aged, professional women should have to wait outside a GP's door for the doctor to end his consultation in order to get a piece of paper signed? The recent study by the RCN showed that the GP's signature simply endorsed the decision made by the specialist nurse. I have even heard one doctor say that he would sign a prescription for a Chieftain tank if that was what the nurse wanted.
But is it not ridiculous that here we have a nurse practitioner equipped with a broad range of skills, some diagnostic, who through her nurse practitioner course has acquired pharmacological and prescribing knowledge and who is able to deliver the most comprehensive primary care possible to homeless people but as yet is not able legally to prescribe the most modest and limited medication? A homeless man with a chesty cough should not have to be admitted to an expensive hospital bed, as was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Swinfen, when he could be treated with a simple antibiotic. A woman with mild thrush should not have to suffer the pain and discomfort of a lesion for the want of a simple anti-fungal agent.
The Minister will be aware of the eight nurse-prescribing pilot sites which have now been running successfully for two to three years. The sites were evaluated, but not all the results were crystal clear. They varied. Some showed a reduction in prescribing

1293
costs, some a modest increase, but when closely examined the increase was sometimes because prescribing had started from a very low base in that practice and sometimes because one or two "expensive" patients had come into the area and required relatively expensive drugs. Whatever the reasons, in none of the eight sites was there an increase above the national average increase for drugs overall.
In all the evaluations there were no worries expressed by the patients. On the contrary, they could not understand why this was considered to be an innovation. They thought that it was common sense that the nurse should be allowed to prescribe from an agreed formulary of simple agents and nursing aids.
I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, will tell me that she is waiting for the results of the Bolton Trust, which until April of this year was the only district to have rolled out nurse prescribing throughout the whole of its area. I have no doubt that the trust will produce some interesting information. But the purpose of the scheme was not for more research but as a means of phasing in the programme, as was the initiative to set up a nurse-prescribing trust in every region, all of which are now under way.
What is the Government's commitment to nurse prescribing? When do they intend to roll it out? The noble Baroness will know that the previous Government gave an undertaking to do so, as was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton.
Lastly, in the light of the Crown Committee's deliberations, will the Minister please say what the link will be between those possible recommendations and the Primary Care Directorate? As I understand it, in future no nurse will be on that directorate. I should like to know where the link comes, especially in the context of nurse prescribing.
9.28 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane of Llandaff, for introducing this important debate; and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, on what I believe we all agree was a wise and powerful maiden speech. I look forward, as I am sure do all noble Lords, to many further contributions in a similar vein. I am sad that we have heard the swan song of the right reverend Prelate in your Lordships' House. I feel that I can perhaps refer to it as his "final innings", as I was a schoolgirl fan at about the same time as the anecdote of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. In any case, I am sure that we shall all hear his voice of insight and compassion through other channels if not any longer, sadly, in your Lordships' House.
At the beginning of my reply to the debate, I wish to restate emphatically the Government's commitment to reducing the numbers of homeless people in our society. We have to attack the root causes of homelessness. For too long the homeless population have represented the growing divide, the inexcusable inequality, in this country. Their plight has defaced our city streets.
It is, no doubt, a very complex problem, as the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, said in her introduction. The noble Baroness drew attention to a wide range of
1294
illnesses associated with homelessness, as did the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. The noble Baroness rightly emphasised the need to approach the problem as part of a general social agenda.
The Government have already taken action to improve the housing situation. Legislation has been introduced for the phased release of capital receipts for council house sales to increase the stock of housing for rent. Specific measures in this area are being taken in relation to the homeless. Last Thursday, 17th July, new regulations on the allocation of housing were debated in another place; and this Friday, 25th July, my noble friend Lady Hayman will introduce them in this House.
As the law now stands, a local authority can provide accommodation only for a household which it accepts as homeless for two years. The authority cannot generally rehouse that household directly into long-term housing, even though a secure home may be just what the household needs to overcome its many problems.
The new regulations will alter Part VI of the 1996 Housing Act so that local authorities' duties to homeless households must ensure that homeless families, and indeed vulnerable individuals, have the priority that they deserve in social housing queues. We hope that that may ease the practical problem of finding somewhere to live.
On a wider front, my right honourable and honourable friends, as well as my colleagues in this House in every government department, are particularly concerned about youth homelessness in all its forms. The Welfare to Work scheme, announced in last month's Budget and now being implemented by the Department for Education and Employment, is the start of a systematic programme of investing in young people to give those who may now be living on the street the realistic hope of a job and a different start in life.
Homelessness is an affront to a civilised society. We must not simply accept that it is an immovable social problem. Although we rightly discuss health provisions for the homeless, as in the terms of this debate, we should not believe that ameliorating activity is anything more than a sticking-plaster on a social wound that we must find fundamental ways of healing.
The Government are extremely concerned about the links between poverty and ill health—an issue largely ignored by the previous administration. The first Minister for Public Health, my honourable friend Tessa Jowell, has already set out the broad lines of a policy which embraces the impact on health of social factors such as homelessness, bad housing, unemployment and pollution. Those will be developed in a White Paper later in this parliamentary Session. Last week, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health, met representatives of Shelter to discuss the particular health concerns of homeless people. Much of the discussion focused on their needs for primary care and the problems that they often encounter because they are not registered with GPs. It is a matter to which several speakers quite rightly drew attention in their contributions this evening. Several noble Lords referred to the disturbing report, Go Home and Rest?, which examines the use of accident and emergency services by homeless people—the inappropriate use of services, as the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, described it.

1295
There is often legitimate concern that homeless people simply are not entitled to access to a GP because they have no permanent address under which to register. However, I want to make it absolutely clear that a permanent address is not necessary for registration with a GP, and all health authorities and GPs should be aware of that.
Both the Government and the Royal College of General Practitioners would prefer that homeless people should be permanently registered wherever possible so that they may be integrated into all the health service and promotion activity within a GP practice. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, drew attention to the complications brought about when that does not occur.
Where the homeless do not stay in any one area, they may still have access to GP services as temporary residents on what is termed an immediately necessary basis. How do you find a GP, though, if you are homeless? I suspect that there may be a need for the wider distribution of information. It is a matter that I shall certainly look into.
Health authorities can provide a list of GPs in an area; to register, patients should approach the GP of their choice who is willing to accept them. They may then be required to hand in a medical card or to complete a simple form. It remains a decision for GPs as to whether or not they will accept a patient as a permanent registration and some may choose, for the reasons that the noble Earl suggested, to offer the services only under the temporary residence provision. But there is no question of the NHS abandoning any person who is entitled to NHS general medical services, whether they live in permanent or temporary accommodation.
In addition, the Government are anxious to reinforce the guidance issued by the General Medical Council which makes it clear to general practitioners that it is unacceptable to discriminate against patients on grounds of age, sex, sexual orientation, religious belief, perceived economic worth or the amount of work that they are likely to generate by virtue of their clinical condition. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for drawing attention to this need not to discriminate in general practice.
The Government are also providing funding of over £0.5 million in the current financial year for the provision of GP sessions which provide medical services in places where homeless people congregate. The GP, who is often supported by other professionals, will visit places such as day centres, night shelters or hostels and seek where possible to get the homeless person on to the list of a local doctor. In some cases it has been possible to persuade people first meeting a doctor at a day care centre session subsequently to attend that doctor's surgery. That is, of course, precisely the kind of place where such things as eye tests, to which the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, referred, should be carried out and where better information on such matters should be more widely distributed.
Funding for these peripatetic GP sessions will continue to be available for the whole of the current financial year and for 1998–99.
1296
We hope to be able to take further initiatives under the primary care Act pilots which will come into force next April. The House will be interested to know that the Government have received a number of expressions of interest in pilots under the primary care Act aimed specifically at improving the provision of personal medical services to people who have difficulty registering with GPs for the reasons which noble Lords have identified and I have just described.
The new contractual arrangements in these pilots will, for example, allow salaried GPs to be employed by trusts. This option could lead to medical services at the primary care level being better tailored for groups such as the homeless. For example, as several noble Lords have mentioned, homeless people often present themselves at A&E departments rather than at a GP's surgery, and I can confirm that that is certainly a more expensive way of giving care. But the new contractual arrangements currently to be piloted under the primary care Act may facilitate joint working between GPs and A&E departments and we shall look very carefully at the details of these proposals when they come to us later in the year.
The noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, will recall the unsuccessful attempts that she and I made during the passage of the primary care Act at the end of the last Parliament to have nurses included as leaders and organisers of such pilots. Had such provisions been part of the Act, there is no doubt that they would have usefully extended the scope of additional services in the community.
Nevertheless I join the noble Baroness and the noble Baronesses, Lady Emerton, Lady Cox and Lady Cumberlege, in underlining the importance of nurse-led initiatives both in London and, as was described, in Brighton which do exist under the present arrangements. They bring primary health care and health promotion to homeless people.
I know, in addition, that the nursing profession believe that its work in this field and perhaps in many others could be improved if nurse-prescribing were rolled out nationally, and I understand the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, with regard to that matter. I am keen to see the existing scheme for nurse-prescribing implemented nationally as quickly as is feasible. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said, the current pilots in each NHS region will show us how best to do this. I am, however, reluctant to take any lectures from the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, about the speed with which we are doing this, as we have so far been in power for less than 18 weeks compared to the 18 years of the previous administration.
Some of the most crucial work that nurses are doing with homeless people is as part of multi-disciplinary teams trying to combat the particularly difficult problems of those who are both homeless and mentally ill. As has been described by several of your Lordships, this has become a vicious cycle. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, developed very vividly the matters which arise when one is talking about people who have neither a home nor the satisfaction of proper mental stability.

1297
I hope that the noble Baroness and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, will forgive me if tonight I do not go into a detailed response to their specific questions about different types of community care. I hope they will both accept that the Government are taking a fresh look at the interface between social care and health care. I hesitate to use the word "review", since the Government are constantly criticised at the moment for trying to reassess problems of this kind. My honourable friend Mr. Paul Boateng, the Minister responsible for this area, is at the moment conducting a series of consultations and meetings in different parts of the country designed to look at the variety of different solutions about the interface between social and health care. Of course, that will be a central subject and an important topic for the Government's Royal Commission on long-term care, for which we shall be announcing the format quite shortly.
Perhaps I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that some initiatives are going forward in trying to meet the health care needs of the mentally ill and homeless. The Government are providing funds in the current year for the homeless mentally-ill initiative. Its aim is to reintroduce this group of people to mainstream services by encouraging them into temporary accommodation, where they can be offered suitable care and assistance before, it is to be hoped, they move into more secure homes.
So far, some of these measures have been successful and additional funding is being provided to the initiative. New services are being developed in the central London area as well as expanding to other towns and cities where there is a significant rough sleeping
1298
population combined with mental illness. The expansion of this initiative is happening in partnership with the expansion of the rough sleeping initiative of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, to which the Government gave an additional £20 million in June.
The rough sleepers programme is an excellent example of the partnership approach between statutory agencies and the voluntary sector. It is the type of approach that we welcome. I should like to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, about that also. But we should like to reach a situation in which we could ensure that there was no need for anyone to sleep rough.
Tackling the health of the homeless and the problem of the homeless is part of the Government's broad social agenda to tackle discrimination and disadvantage on a very broad front and to give people a decent quality of life in every aspect of their lives. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane of Llandaff, for drawing your Lordships' attention to a significant aspect of that agenda. I look forward to further consideration in detail as our programmes develop.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, may I confirm that her Government are unable to match the last government's commitment to roll out nurse prescribing next year?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I can merely repeat what I said. The current pilots in each NHS region on this question will show us the best way to do this. I am keen to see the existing scheme implemented nationally as quickly as is feasible.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before ten o'clock.

  Government Reviews
  Government Reviews
  Devolution Referendums: Guidance to Civil Servants
  Devolution Referendums: Guidance to Civil Servants
  Interest Rate Increase
  Interest Rate Increase
  Government Expenditure per Capita
  Government Expenditure per Capita
  Jobseeker's Allowance: Income-based Disentitlement
  Jobseeker's Allowance: Income-based Disentitlement
  State Pension: Reduced Rate Recipients
  State Pension: Reduced Rate Recipients
  Family Credit: Childcare Disregard
  Family Credit: Childcare Disregard
  Asylum Policy
  Asylum Policy
  Scarman Trust
  Scarman Trust
  Immigration, etc. Applications: Management
  Immigration, etc. Applications: Management
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate: New Caseworking System
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate: New Caseworking System
  Conventional Arms Export Licensing Criteria
  Conventional Arms Export Licensing Criteria
  Heathrow Express Check-in Facilities: Security
  Heathrow Express Check-in Facilities: Security
  London Bus Services
  London Bus Services
  Common Fisheries Policy: Consultation
  Common Fisheries Policy: Consultation
  Forestry Commission Land Sales
  Forestry Commission Land Sales
  Woodland Acreages: Increase
  Woodland Acreages: Increase
  Woodland Planting Grants
  Woodland Planting Grants
  Woodland Grant Scheme: Planting Density
  Woodland Grant Scheme: Planting Density
  Birch Varieties for Commercial Planting
  Birch Varieties for Commercial Planting
  Armed Forces: Overseas Service
  Armed Forces: Overseas Service
  Joint Services Command and Staff College
  Joint Services Command and Staff College
  Plutonium
  Plutonium
  Meat Product Imports from EU: Controls
  Meat Product Imports from EU: Controls
  Foodstuffs: Chemical Contamination
  Foodstuffs: Chemical Contamination
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy