Sitting of 29 July 1997

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Read the Third time, and passed.

  LEVER PARK BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Tuesday 28 October.

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

    Mobile Homes
    Mr. Dawson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the Mobile Homes Act 1983. [9346]
    The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): My Department is currently considering a number of concerns raised by mobile home residents relating to mobile home legislation. It is too early to say what will be the outcome of those considerations.
    Mr. Dawson: I am delighted to hear that the matter is under active consideration. Does my hon. Friend agree that, although park home living can be a comfortable, peaceful and safe way of life for elderly people in their retirement, there are significant difficulties with the legislation due to severe loopholes within which poverty and exploitation can exist? I am pleased that my right hon. Friend is considering the legislation. Will she also examine the role of local authorities in the inspection and registration of park home sites? Does she agree that the way forward is through a clear partnership between the sensible and able parts of the industry, park home owners, local authorities and a reforming Labour Government?
    Ms Armstrong: I agree with my hon. Friend. I have been learning a great deal about park homes as they are now called, or mobile homes as most of us know them. I look forward to meeting the all-party group later in the year to consider some of the issues that he has raised.
    Mr. Viggers: If the hon. Lady reviews the law relating to mobile homes, will she take care not to diminish
    130
    excessively the rights of site owners to control the sites, because in areas such as my constituency, where Kingfisher park has a central location, a site could deteriorate rapidly if site owners did not have their current powers to control the site and maintain high standards?
    Ms Armstrong: Of course we are concerned to support the overwhelming number of reputable site owners. However, we are also concerned about a number of disreputable site owners. We want to achieve the correct balance so that site owners and those living on the sites feel safe, secure and able to work together for the betterment of all.

    Regional Development Strategy
    Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to involve a comprehensive range of expertise in developing his proposals for a regional development strategy. [9347]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): We are conducting wide-ranging consultation with all the main stakeholders nationally and in the regions on our proposals for regional development agencies involving stakeholders.
    Mr. Sheerman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend. I know of his long interest and campaigning zeal for regional development since the early 1980s. Will he take great care to make sure that all the stakeholders are involved? If the regional development strategy seems to be in the ownership of local authorities, we shall lose enormous expertise from the private sector, co-operatives and—very importantly—the universities. I hope that all the stakeholders will be at the forefront of implementing the policy and making sure that it works.
    Mr. Prescott: I very much agree with my hon. Friend about those matters, which we are discussing with all the parties that he has mentioned. We would need public-private partnership operations to be reflected in the development associations and agencies, as they have been in Scotland and Wales—another successful innovation of a previous Labour Government.
    Mr. Dafis: Will the Secretary of State tell us something about the Government's proposals in relation to integrating environmental policy into regional development policy? Does he have proposals, for example, at regional level to build on local Agenda 21s so that we have regional sustainable development strategies? How does he envisage that linking with the development of regional government in England?
    Mr. Prescott: We very much support what the hon. Gentleman has said. Indeed, it is reflected in today's announcement of proposals for the Greater London authority, which see a strategic role for the environment in London as much as in any other region. It is important that sustainable development means that economic and environmental considerations are taken together, which is often to the benefit of the prosperity of the regions involved.
    Mr. Blizzard: May I say how much businesses and local authorities in East Anglia are looking forward to the

    131
    establishment of a regional development agency? When my right hon. Friend considers the siting of the agency's headquarters, will he consider the economic impact that it could have, and consider siting it in the less prosperous parts of the region rather than in parts which always seem to be used by the Government for offices?
    Mr. Prescott: I have never had any doubt that every region wanted a development agency. The tours in which my hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning has been involved have convinced us all the more of that. I recall that, before the previous Government came to power, they proposed in their manifesto to abolish the Welsh and Scottish agencies. They chose not to do so as soon as they saw the very valuable work done by the agencies.
    With regard to the second point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), we must be very careful, in the name of decentralisation, not to centralise in the regions themselves. That applies as much to the development agency as it does to political accountability. We are very sensitive to that.
    Sir Norman Fowler: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the welcome for regional development agencies about which the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) talked is not remotely shared around the country? Is it not a fact that the new regional development agencies will not only have exceptionally wide powers, from acquisition of land to financing of business, but that every member of the boards of the RDAs will be appointed by the Secretary of State? Rather than reducing the power of quangos, as he often claims, is he not in the process of creating one of the most powerful new quangos that the country has ever seen?
    Mr. Prescott: It is a bit of a cheek for any Opposition Member to talk about the role of quangos, since they created many thousands of them—involving billions of pounds—which were not accountable to the ordinary electorate. We intend to make our agencies accountable. Today's statement on London showed that. When we have completed the consultation and the White Paper is published, the right hon. Gentleman will see—if he waits—the conclusions of those discussions. He belonged to a Government who did not believe in a directly elected mayor. I see that they have changed their position in opposition. Perhaps he will change with the consultation.

    Recycling
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to encourage recycling for environmental reasons. [9350]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): We are looking carefully at both existing measures and at possible further measures to increase recycling. Recycling makes sense only if it represents the best practicable environmental option for a particular waste stream.
    Mr. Canavan: As the foundry industry is a recycling industry, will my hon. Friend support its strong case that
    132
    the greensand that it uses should be treated as inactive waste and therefore subject only to the lower rate of landfill tax of £2 per tonne rather than the higher rate of £7 per tonne? Now that the Environment Agency has commissioned a special study into the matter, will the Department make appropriate representations at the appropriate time to ensure a fair outcome for the foundry industry and those employed in it?
    Angela Eagle: As my hon. Friend will know, the landfill tax has been in existence for less than a year. We plan to look at how it operates this autumn, and I shall ensure that his comments are passed on to the people responsible for doing that. We shall see whether we can ensure that greensand has been properly classified for the purposes of landfill charge.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Have the Government accepted, and are they implementing, the strategy set by the previous Government, aimed at recycling one quarter of all household waste by 2000 AD?
    Angela Eagle: We certainly hope to achieve the targets set by the previous Government, and perhaps even to improve on them. However, the mechanisms that they put in place for achieving the recycling targets are totally inadequate. As yet, only 6.5 per cent. of material is recycled and 12.5 per cent. recovered. The previous Government were good at setting the target but not so good at examining ways to achieve it. We shall consider issues such as recovery, waste minimisation, recycling, and the effects of the way in which the landfill tax works, so that we can introduce better incentives for reaching the targets that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: I welcome the progress made towards increasing the recycling of glass, but will my hon. Friend examine ways of encouraging manufacturers to recycle bottles, which is common in other countries, as a means of making further energy savings?
    Angela Eagle: As my hon. Friend will know, the markets for recycled material are only just beginning to be established, and because of the large fluctuations in prices for such materials, they are not yet stable. My hon. Friend will be aware of the waste packaging regulations that have just been introduced, and we are assessing how those work. The Government are not only examining ways of encouraging the creation of markets for recyclable materials, but thinking about what we can do to encourage a more stable atmosphere, in which people can recycle.
    There is overwhelming evidence that individuals wish to recycle. In response to a Gallup poll, 95 per cent. said that they wanted to do so. We want to create stable conditions in which it is easy for people to recycle, so that the streams of recyclable materials now being produced can be put to proper use, rather than ending up wonderfully separated but back in the landfill.
    Mr. Bob Russell: On the basis that Governments should lead by example, is the ministerial team happy with the record that it inherited, especially with regard to Government Departments? What steps do Ministers plan to take to improve on the previous Government's record?

    133
    If the Minister would like an example, may I direct her attention to the excellent record of Colchester borough council?
    Angela Eagle: We are more than anxious to examine best practice at local authority level and in other areas. The Government can learn a good deal from some of the innovative schemes that local authorities have put in place. However, only 8 per cent. of local authorities are approaching even the targets that the previous Government set. Clearly, we must look to our own behaviour, which is why I recently hosted a conference on green procurement.

    Decentralisation
    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will ensure that the English regions are not excluded from forthcoming decentralisation legislation. [9351]
    The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): A Bill to provide for regional development agencies was announced in the Queen's Speech and will be introduced in the autumn. That will be a first step towards decentralising decision taking in the British regions.
    Mr. MacShane: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Is he aware of the welcome in the country for Labour's moves towards handing some power back to the people, after the years of corrupt Tory rule during which the Conservative party treated the state as its private property, ruled from London? As a fellow South Yorkshire Member of Parliament, is the Minister aware that, in a year or two, when we have a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh Assembly and a mayor in London, the 7 million people of Yorkshire might say, "What about us?" What plans does he have to continue the process of ensuring that the voice of the British regions is heard, and that they have more accountability and more control over the decisions that affect their daily lives?
    Mr. Caborn: I thank my hon. Friend for the due modesty that he always shows in asking supplementaries. I assure him that we fought the election and won it handsomely on a major constitutional change; we shall follow that through. As I said in my answer, the first step is to get regional development agencies into being and then to encourage the formation of chambers. We shall then move towards elective regional assemblies when that has been determined by the people in the regions.
    Opposition Members are obviously living in the past. I can assure them that the Confederation of British Industry, the chambers of commerce, the Trades Union Congress, local authorities and academia, through the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom, all support the move towards regional development agencies. I suggest that the Opposition should come into the 20th century, let alone the 21st century.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I recognise the importance of local government and I am personally sad that many duties and responsibilities were removed from local government in recent times. I speak as somebody who
    134
    served in local government, and that is why I am so supportive of it. It is, however, important that government functions be taken as close to the people as possible because what affects people is government functions and responsibilities. Is it not right, in decentralising and moving in the way that the Minister has suggested, to tell people how much the change will cost and what existing local authority levels or authorities are likely to be reduced or abolished in the movement towards what the Minister described as regional agencies and regional assemblies?
    Mr. Caborn: The hon. Gentleman has asked an interesting supplementary. We are dealing here with regional development agencies. I know that the hon. Gentleman is extremely interested in manufacturing.
    Mr. Paice: That is not an answer.
    Mr. Caborn: There are three parts to the question which I have answered already, as the hon. Gentleman would know if he had listened.
    The regional development agencies are intended to address the weaknesses in the competitive base of this nation. I know that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) understands that as well as I do in terms of the northern region. We shall bring the local authorities together—we have made that clear commitment in our manifesto—but we shall move to regional assemblies only when that change has been determined by a referendum in each of the English regions. Those referendums may take place at different times. That is the commitment we gave in our manifesto, and that is what we were elected on.
    Mrs. Ellman: Will the Minister consider giving official recognition to regional chambers that already exist through voluntary means? In the north-west five years ago, for example, the public, private and voluntary sectors came together to form the North-West Regional Association and the North-West Partnership, which have brought public, private and voluntary sectors together to develop strategies for the region. Will my hon. Friend consider giving official recognition to such bodies pending the setting up of new ones?
    Mr. Caborn: We shall look carefully at the consultation document. As my hon. Friend knows, it went out a few weeks ago and it will conclude on 5 September. We shall reflect on all the 10 English regions in response to the document and we shall then give a considered reply. I hear what my hon. Friend said, and her point will be taken into consideration when we review the position.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I say to the Minister, the Secretary of State and their team that the Liberal Democrats greatly welcome the honouring of the manifesto commitment to produce a Green Paper on London government. We look forward to others for the other regions of England.
    Will Ministers make two points clear? First, will they ensure that the policies and finances of regional government are made much more important than the personalities? In other words, we should not get into personality politics, but should concentrate on the policies. Secondly, Ministers should make it clear that the Government have an honestly open mind in terms of

    135
    ensuring that we have electoral systems for the regions that make sure that, once we establish them, no Government who are against them can take them away.
    Mr. Caborn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. It is a bit rich for Opposition Members to protest when we are honouring manifesto commitments, but I know that they have great difficulty in understanding that we are doing so.
    Finance is one of the matters considered in the discussion document, and we shall reflect on that point after 5 September. The electoral system will be discussed when we decide to have a referendum, which will be some time down the road before we move to regional assemblies. The electoral system will be a point of discussion before we enter that debate.

    Devolution (London and the Regions)
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his consultations on devolution in London and the regions of England. [9352]
    The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): As my right hon. and hon. Friends said, we have consulted on our proposals for setting up regional development agencies in England. Comments are invited by 5 September. As regards London, my right hon. Friend has today laid before the House copies of the Green Paper "New Leadership for London; the Government's proposals for a Greater London Authority". We shall consult on those proposals between now and 24 October.
    Mr. Morgan: I welcome progress on this issue, because it shows that the contagion of devolutionary democracy has spread from the banks of the Taff to the banks of the Thames, and even to the Tyne.
    Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for welcoming the Government's response to the clear and legitimate wish of the people of England for effective action on more devolution and a more effective say over their local economies. We are interested in delivering for the people of London and the regions of England.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that that extra layer of unwanted and unwarranted bureaucracy, which will work alongside county councils, district councils, town councils and parish councils, will inevitably reopen the debate on unitary authorities?
    Mr. Raynsford: As the hon. Gentleman will no doubt be aware, in our proposals for London we are sweeping away a large number of unaccountable quangos that were set up by the previous Government, and in their place we are creating a streamlined, slimline authority. That has been warmly welcomed by those people who understand the needs of London government.
    Mr. Gunnell: In his announcement today, my hon. Friend proposed a new strategic authority for London with an elected mayor. That may be welcomed by the people in London who were distressed at the abolition of the
    136
    Greater London council. When we discuss the regions, we shall consider the proposals for a new strategic authority. Will an elected person act as spokesperson for the entire region or will my hon. Friend recommend that English cities in the regions consider the possibility of an elected mayor? If so, how will that fit into the current system of unitary authorities?
    Mr. Raynsford: As my hon. Friend will know, the framework that we propose for London includes a directly elected mayor working with a directly elected assembly. It is interesting to note that the Conservative party, having previously opposed that concept, has recently begun a somersault. In our proposals for the regions, we shall be keen to encourage democratic innovation. A Bill will be introduced in the other place to allow innovation in local government arrangements, including the possibility of directly elected mayors in English councils. The framework that we propose for regional development agencies will allow a good measure of discretion locally on how those arrangements can best work.
    Sir Norman Fowler: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, under his proposals, London will have not only a mayor, but a new Greater London authority with 32 members and a London regional development agency? Does that not create an unnecessary and expensive bureaucracy? Will he tell the House what new charges the Government are considering in order to finance that bureaucracy?
    Mr. Raynsford: In today's Evening Standard, Simon Jenkins said that there is a clear need for the new mayor of London to be subject to a framework of democratic accountability. The Government are providing that in the form of the mayor and the assembly. We are streamlining the administration of London government and establishing a framework that will ensure that Londoners will be able to get better and most cost-effective services. There is no substance whatsoever in the allegation that charges will be substantial increased to pay for that. It will be a streamlined authority that will be cost-effective and will deliver value for money for Londoners.

    Devolution (The North)
    Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions whether it remains the policy of the Government to work towards the objective of a democratically elected regional government for the north; and through what stages they intend to reach that objective. [9353]
    Mr. Caborn: It remains our aim that the people should be able to decide, region by region, whether they want directly elected regional government, but that is a long-term goal. In the meantime, we are committed to supporting regional chambers established by local authorities.
    Mr. Cousins: Does my hon. Friend agree that many of us in the north want to set a course towards democratic regional government and regard the proposed regional development agency as very welcome but only the first step? Does he further agree that there must be a regional representative body to accompany the agency and that

    137
    when the Lord Chancellor said at the weekend that there was no evidence of demand in the north for regional government, he was not speaking for the Government as a whole?
    Mr. Caborn: Our position on democratic accountability is laid out clearly in the manifesto and we have made it clear that regional chambers, based around local authorities, will be the first step towards that long-term objective. To the best of my knowledge, the Lord Chancellor was not speaking on behalf of the Government when he expressed his personal opinions in a wide-ranging article in the Observer. The manifesto commits us to regional chambers and, in the long term, to elected regional assemblies.
    Mr. Forth: As well as considering devolution within England, have the Government given any thought to devolution to England? Is it not time that thought was given to an English Parliament or Assembly to follow the precedent that the Government are setting for Scotland and Wales? When will the people of England have a proper voice in the matter?
    Mr. Caborn: The right hon. Gentleman is the last person who should lecture us on democracy. We have to dismantle the wholly undemocratic quangoland that he and his Government set up. We shall address the longer-term issues when we have sorted out all that lot.

    North-west England (Environmental Audit)
    Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will conduct an environmental audit for the north-west of England; and if he will make a statement. [9354]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): A number of such audits have already been undertaken locally, including those conducted by Lancashire, Cumbria and Cheshire county councils, and the quality of life and sustainability audit recently completed by the north-west region of the Association of Local Authorities.
    Mr. Jack: I thank the Minister for that answer. Will he consider again the question of an audit? If he were to carry one out, he would find that, in early July, there was a release to atmosphere of an extremely noxious substance that came in the direction of Fylde and caused great upset to many of my constituents, 300 of whom rang Transco to complain about what they thought was a major gas leak; it turned out that there was a sulphurous release from an oil and gas development operating in Liverpool bay. Will the Minister make early investigations into the matter? What specifically does he intend to do to prevent such noxious substances from reaching the atmosphere again?
    Mr. Meacher: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to a release from Broken Hill Proprietary—BHP—and I am certainly concerned about that; we are following it up and considering what action we can take, including prosecution.
    I am also concerned about a further incident last Saturday—I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman was also referring to it—and both the Health
    138
    and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency have made extensive inquiries of Transco and all the chemical and petrochemical companies along the Mersey estuary, but we have still not been able to discover the cause of the leak. It may have been caused by an offshore facility—we are checking that option—or by a leak from a road tanker, but the police and the HSE have received no official report to that effect.
    I am seriously concerned about such incidents, not least because the HSE already has in place a rigorous programme of proactive inspections of gas transporters such as Transco, precisely to ensure that there is compliance with the law and such incidents do not take place.
    Mr. Kaufman: In considering any environmental audit in the north-west, will my right hon. Friend pay special attention to the land known as Kingswater park, which is the only open countryside that my constituents can reach on foot? Will he note that, at a public meeting at Fairfield golf club on Friday evening, hundreds of local residents expressed their total and angry opposition to any attempt by North West Water to ruin the land with its greedy and vandalising fingers?
    Mr. Meacher: I am very concerned about North West Water on a number of counts—not least because the north-west has a far worse record than any other part of the country in adhering to the bathing water directive. I am also concerned about the issue raised by my right hon. Friend; if he would care to give me details, I will take the matter up personally with North West Water and, indeed, call the company in.
    Mr. Yeo: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the process of environmental audit could usefully be extended to enable consideration of how the target of building 60 per cent. of new homes on previously developed land can be achieved? Or do the reported threats of the Minister for London and Construction to cover green-field sites with concrete mean that the Government have abandoned planning policies that protect the countryside and the green belt—notably, in such places as Uxbridge?
    Mr. Meacher: The Green Paper to which the hon. Gentleman refers, which was issued by the former Secretary of State in the last Government—or perhaps I should call it the not-so-green paper—proposed that, initially, 50 per cent. of all houses should be built on green-field or countryside sites. The proposal was subsequently changed to a 60:40 split. That split comes from the last Government; it certainly does not come from us.
    We are still considering the responses to the Green Paper and assessing the degree to which housing can be built on previously developed land. That is still the main intention. We are still very concerned about protecting green-field and countryside sites. I certainly will not take any lessons from Conservative Members, because it was they who put us in this position in the first place.

    London Underground
    Mr. Ottaway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he intends to take to increase investment in London Underground. [9375]
    Mr. Prescott: We are urgently looking at various options for public-private partnerships to increase

    139
    investment in the underground, and we recently appointed Price Waterhouse to examine the financial implications of a range of options. The aim is to achieve our manifesto commitment
    "to improve the Underground, safeguard its commitment to the public interest and guarantee value for money for taxpayers and passengers".
    Mr. Ottaway: Given the now glaringly obvious success of railway privatisation, and given Labour's willingness to change its mind about projects such as the Birmingham northern relief road, will the right hon. Gentleman now take up one of the options that he left lying around in a "Panorama" studio and admit that privatisation of London Underground is the best way forward?
    Mr. Prescott: I must make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that we have inherited an underground system whose investment programme was slashed by the last Administration, along with the overrun of the Jubilee line extension project. Already, there is a shortfall of more than £700 million. The answer to the long-term investment problems of the underground is to appoint the financial advisers whom we have appointed to examine public-private partnerships. We entirely reject the outright privatisation solution of the Conservative Government.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Anyone using public transport in London will welcome my right hon. Friend's views, but I hope—in fact, I am sure—that he will look carefully at the real costs to the taxpayer of privatisation before there is any suggestion that too much private company money is put in. Does my right hon. Friend agree that—as the privatisation of the railways shows—privatisation is a way of making money for the companies, but certainly not a way of improving services for the consumer?
    Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend makes a very important point about some of the previous contracts on privatisation. I have been appalled on seeing some of the previous contracts arrived at between the private sector and the Department. We are looking carefully at some of those deals to avoid the mistake of giving over completely to the private sector, at the direct expense of the public sector and a poorer-quality service.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: If I were to tell the Deputy Prime Minister that my Liberal Democrat colleagues, on questioning hundreds of commuters who use the three underground stations serving the people of Uxbridge, found that they were overwhelmingly of the view that London Underground should remain, in the majority, in public ownership, what would he say to them, and will he give an undertaking today that will happen?
    Mr. Prescott: We would obviously say, "Vote Labour," and I hope that people will do so in large numbers to get an underground system that meets their needs and requirements. We are looking at all those options, as we have spelt out in a previous reply to a question in the House.

    Bull Bars
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to ban bull bars on vehicles used on public roads. [9376]
    The Minister of Transport (Dr. Gavin Strang): Unfortunately, progress on the European initiative to control bull bars has been slow and we are therefore reviewing other available options to tackle the bull bar issue effectively. My noble Friend the Minister for Roads will be making an announcement on how we intend to take this forward.
    Mr. Flynn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the major improvements in road safety in recent decades has been the redesign of vehicles, resulting in vehicles that absorb and reduce the shock of collisions by crumpling objects or by deflecting the objects or people that are hit? Bull bars reverse that trend and concentrate and multiply the force of a collision, often at the level of a child's head or vital organs. Was it not a disgrace that the previous Parliament and the former Minister for Transport in London talked out a Bill to reform and to ban bull bars, despite support for the Bill from 250 hon. Members on both sides of the House? When will this Government do better?
    Dr. Strang: I agree with my hon. Friend that the redesign of vehicles has certainly enhanced driver and passenger safety. Furthermore, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's determined campaign on this issue. We intend to ensure that it reaches a satisfactory conclusion—if we cannot get European action, we will take national action.
    Miss McIntosh: On that point, is the Minister prepared to consult with the European Commission? Does he accept that unilateral action to ban bull bars in this country will be strictly illegal under the terms of the European treaty and our membership of the European Union?
    Dr. Strang: No, I do not accept that. Of course we will maintain a dialogue with the European Commission. The hon. Lady will be aware that the previous Government had a rather long dialogue, not only with the European Commission but with other members of the Council. We are determined that action will be taken. Of course European action would be better and more effective, but if we cannot get it, we believe that there is scope for national action.

    Crossrail
    Mr. Gapes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to revive the crossrail project. [9377]
    The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): We are awaiting Railtrack's views on crossrail. We shall consider the project in the light of those views, once received, and of our own examination of transport priorities for London.
    Mr. Gapes: Will my hon. Friend give urgent further consideration to the Montagu report on crossrail,

    141
    which concluded that crossrail was economically important and viable, and to the views of London Pride that an east-west rail link across London is the first priority needed to improve transport links?
    Ms Jackson: I am aware of both the report and the representations made by London Pride on this issue. It is vital that we prioritise London's transport needs strategically. I am sure that my hon. Friend and the organisations he mentioned will welcome the publication today of our Green Paper on an assembly for London, which will include strategic responsibility for transport and traffic in London.
    Mr. Pickles: Even given the Green Paper, crossrail will need, at a reasonable estimate, a guarantee of some £3.5 billion. How can the Minister square that with the idea that a London assembly will not have special fund-raising powers? Is she saying that, despite its needing £3.5 billion, crossrail will receive a high priority in an integrated transport policy?
    Ms Jackson: How could the hon. Gentleman sit quietly by while the previous Government spent £150 million of taxpayers' money on a feasibility study for crossrail, £126 million of which was paid to consultants on a daily rate of pay for three and a half to four years? It is a little late for him to express concern about the overall cost of crossrail when the previous Government did nothing to bring it about.
    Mr. Chope: Who would have the ultimate political responsibility for priority decisions on crossrail—the elected mayor, the assembly, or the Government? Or would it be a mixture of all three, which is exactly the same chaos that we have now?
    Ms Jackson: The ultimate political responsibility rests with the people of London and whomever they vote for.

    Birmingham Northern Relief Road
    Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his Department's proposals for the Birmingham northern relief road. [9378]
    Dr. Strang: Before replying to my hon. Friend, may I refer to yesterday's written answer on this subject? It had been my clear intention that the material would be made available to hon. Members at 3.30 pm. Unfortunately, the arrangements failed and the material was late. I apologise to you, Madam Speaker, and to the House.
    May I now respond to my hon. Friend's question? As she will know from the announcement that I made yesterday, we have decided to accept the recommendation of the public inquiry inspector to authorise the Birmingham northern relief road.
    Dr. Jones: As my right hon. Friend will know, I do not agree with his decision. Can we at least agree that the relief road will not solve the traffic problems in the area and that that can be done only by reducing the number of vehicle movements on the road? How does my right hon. Friend plan to do that?
    Dr. Strang: I agree with my hon. Friend that one private toll road in isolation will not solve the transport
    142
    problems of the west midlands. We need a properly integrated transport strategy so that the people of the west midlands have choice. The new strategic through route that will be provided by the BNRR, along with a refurbished west coast main line, and local authority transport packages, will help us to provide an enhanced transport system in the west midlands. In particular, the BNRR will provide access to a new rail freight terminal at Hams Hall. Furthermore, with the policies that will be set out in our new White Paper next year, we shall move forward to a more effective transport system and better policies for the west midlands.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: I never thought that I would hear myself say this, but I congratulate the Government and the Minister on their courageous and important decision, which will greatly benefit the north-west, the west midlands and the country. Many Conservative Members will back the Minister to the hilt in seeing the BNRR scheme through. It is about the most important thing that the Government could do in transport—well done.
    Dr. Strang rose—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Time is passing and this matter is very important. The Minister may be terribly embarrassed, but he should try to reply.
    Dr. Strang: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I too believe that the importance of that strategic through route goes beyond the west midlands. It is important not only for the west midlands but for the north-west of England and Scotland.
    Dr. Tony Wright: I understand the difficulty that my right hon. Friend experienced in coming to his decision in this case. Even those who are in favour of the road are incensed by the previous Government's behaviour in pulling the plug on the previously publicly funded road. The road would now be open and operating if that had not happened.
    When I asked a question a few weeks ago about the penalty clauses if it was decided not to proceed with the road, I was told that the risk lay with the concessionaire. What kind of risk is it if a private concessionaire can get a road, if it is developed, or get £30 million in compensation, if it is not developed? Is it not a disgrace to the planning process if roads are approved not on their merits but because of the cost involved in not approving them?
    Dr. Strang: I understand—[Interruption.] I am not sure how Opposition Members want to play it. This is an important matter, and I can tell that it is important to my hon. Friend. I understand the stand that he has taken, and he has identified a particularly important point. Obviously, the decision to go ahead with the road was based on strategic transport considerations, but my hon. Friend points out a failure on the part of the previous Administration. Risk was involved. Had the Government

    143
    rejected the inspector's report, we could have been legally liable for substantial costs incurred by the private company.
    Mrs. Spelman: Will the Minister tell us whether the Government accept the principle of road tolling?
    Dr. Strang: That is an important issue. We will almost certainly want to consider it in the context of our important White Paper on an integrated transport strategy, which we shall publish next year.
    Mr. Burden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if it were possible for us to start with a blank sheet of paper, many Labour Members would not have come up with the proposed scheme for the road or the method of financing it? I agree that the importance of the Birmingham northern relief road goes well beyond the west midlands. Ninety per cent. of exports from the north-west travel through the west midlands. Although extra road capacity is not the complete solution to the problem, does my right hon. Friend agree that we need extra road capacity in that part of Birmingham in the west midlands?
    Dr. Strang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I believe the House understands, it is our policy to encourage the movement of more freight by rail, but the reality is that at present less than 10 per cent. of all freight in this country moves by rail; it is moved on the road.

    BAA
    Dr. Cable: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he proposes to review the regulatory regime for BAA with particular reference to the formula for landing charges. [9379]
    Ms Glenda Jackson: The Civil Aviation Authority, as the airports regulator, determines the regulatory regime for the three London airports of BAA plc and last autumn fixed the price cap to apply to charges on airlines using these airports for the five years through to 2002.
    Dr. Cable: I thank the Minister for her factual reply and suggest to her that the system of regulating the privatised utilities that she inherited is deeply flawed. Is it not outrageous that world airlines should land at one of the busiest and most congested airports, pay nothing to the taxpayer for the right to land and pay landing charges that are way below the economic and environmental cost that they cause?
    Ms Jackson: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the issue of airport charges is linked not only to international agreement but to the arm's-length regulation of the CAA. It is not correct to say that the charges at Heathrow are artificially low; in effect, they are higher than the charges at Gatwick and Stansted.
    Mr. MacShane: Is my hon. Friend aware that planes are now landing as early as 4.30 am, adding hundreds, if not thousands, of early-morning landings to the number contributing to noise pollution levels? Will she consider
    144
    increasing landing charges before 7 am, so that the people of London, from Pimlico to the west, can get a night's sleep?
    Ms Jackson: The setting of airport charges is the responsibility of the regulator—the Civil Aviation Authority. Neither it nor my Department has any powers to review the existing levels until 2002.

    Bridges
    Mr. Quinn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress towards ensuring that all bridges within the United Kingdom meet maximum axle loading requirements for freight transported by road. [9380]
    Ms Glenda Jackson: We are confident that all bridges in England carrying trunk roads will be capable of bearing the heaviest lorries that will be permitted from 1 January 1999. The Government do not believe that it is necessary for all bridges on local roads to be able to carry such traffic. Local authorities are concentrating on ensuring that bridges on roads of greatest importance to such lorries are able to bear them.
    Mr. Quinn: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I have spent most of my professional life building bridges. Does my hon. Friend agree that bridges are an important part of transportation and that the forthcoming review of transportation and the move towards an integrated transport system should take account of the needs of both freight and passenger traffic? Does she agree that all bridge authorities throughout the country should be allowed to participate fully in that debate?
    Ms Jackson: My hon. Friend will be aware that it is the Government's overriding priority to see more freight moved by rail. That is why we hope to improve the freight grant scheme in order to ensure that the annual budget is fully spent. As part of the integration of the Departments of the Environment and of Transport, we hope that the planning regime will prevent the sale of land that could be used for freight terminal facilities.
    Mr. Sayeed: Will the hon. Lady confirm whether the Government will pay all local authority costs for assessing both these road bridges and those owned by Railtrack?
    Ms Jackson: As to bridges owned by Railtrack, that is an issue for local authorities and Railtrack to negotiate between them. Local authorities will have to make bids regarding the costs to them, as they did under the previous Administration.
    Mr. Stevenson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the introduction of the 44-tonne juggernaut in a few years will not only possibly have a detrimental effect on bridges but certainly have a detrimental effect on principal roads and other roads that are used for transporting goods to customers? Will she take account of that point when assessing that very complicated and important issue?
    Ms Jackson: My hon. Friend may be aware that it is the opinion of several that 44-tonne lorries will not cause greater damage to roads and bridges by virtue of the

    145
    additional axles and the reduced weight of those individual axles. I repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) earlier: it is of primary importance to the Government that we see a real shift to alternative modes of freight transport, not least to our railways.

    Road Passenger Transport Services
    Sir Sydney Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he proposes to encourage more people to use road passenger transport services. [9381]
    Dr. Strang: Encouraging greater use of public transport is a key objective in developing an integrated transport policy. Our White Paper, which will be published next year, will help to identify how best we can achieve that.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I agree with the Minister's comments, but does he not think that his aspirations sit somewhat oddly with those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, earlier this month, imposed a swingeing 9.3 per cent. increase in diesel tax? As the Minister has been singularly unsuccessful in persuading the Treasury to the Department's point of view and policy objective, will he ask his right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime
    146
    Minister to use his influence to ensure that the Chancellor does not achieve his declared aim of increasing the tax on diesel fuel by 6 per cent. in real terms in every subsequent Budget?
    Dr. Strang: As the hon. Gentleman knows, increasing fuel duty is not unique to this Government—on the contrary, the previous Administration raised that duty each year. I assure the hon. Gentleman that bus travel is very important—he hints at that in his question—and we are examining how best to encourage greater use of buses. That means making bus services as economical as possible. We want people to choose to travel by bus and to leave their cars at home because buses provide such a good service.
    Mr. Barnes: Is there not a large, mainly untapped, market for bus passenger transport for disabled people, who have difficulty in getting on buses and in being able to travel? If passenger authorities in various areas were encouraged to face up to that problem, they could make money out of that market. That would benefit everyone.
    Dr. Strang: My hon. Friend raises a very important point. That is one reason why we want the fastest possible introduction of low-level buses: it will be much easier for disabled people to get on to a bus. Undoubtedly, throughout this country, there is great scope for increasing the use of buses by disabled people and by people who are not disabled.

Companies (Millennium Computer Compliance)
3.30 pm
Mr. David Atkinson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require companies to conduct an assessment of the capability of their computer systems to deal with calender dates after 31st December 1999; and to report both on those assessments and on the actions their directors propose to take in consequence.
This is my second attempt to introduce such a Bill. The first, which the House gave me leave to introduce last December, was given an unopposed Second Reading, was amended in Committee, but had not completed its Report stage when Parliament was dissolved for the general election.
The Bill's aim is to avoid much of the widespread chaos and confusion that are being increasingly predicted to occur throughout the world at the turn of the century—in just over 29 months' time. I am grateful to those hon. Members from all parties who have again been so willing to sponsor the Bill.
The cause of the doomsday predictions is the inability of the majority of computer systems to recognise the year 2000. They use, as we all do, two digits for the year of the date instead of four. Thus, today's date is written 29/07/97 rather than 29/07/1997. Unless they are properly reprogrammed, computer systems will recognise the year 2000 as 1900, or simply reset to some other date. That will mean that they will no longer deliver what they are programmed to deliver. Because so much of Government business and daily life has come to rely on information systems, the result will be, to use a tabloid word, "catastrophe", which must be a matter of urgent concern to the House.
When the matter was first raised on the Floor of the House in my oral question to the then Prime Minister in December 1995, it was greeted with expressions of ridicule and disbelief from all sides. I suggest—or at least I hope—that most, if not all, hon. Members are now aware of the issue and realise that there is a serious problem which must be addressed. That is referred to in the updated Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology note No. 98, "The Millennium Threat—an Update", which was issued last month. It is in the Library, and I recommend it as essential background reading.
The briefing note forecasts the dangers of failure to ensure that computer systems are millennium-compliant. They include payroll systems collapsing so that workers cannot be paid; financial records losing track of investments; invoicing systems failing to generate bills or charging 100 years of interest; telecommunication networks failing; the halting of the supply of utilities such as gas and electricity; the unpredictable behaviour of embedded microchip systems in items such as elevators, bank vaults or medical equipment; and the disruption of Government systems such as those responsible for benefit payments, criminal records, medical records and revenue collection. All that has been confirmed in the report to the Cabinet by the National Audit Office, entitled "Managing the Millennium Threat", which was published in May.
In response to my Adjournment debate on the issue in June last year, the then Minister for Science and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher
148
and Walton (Mr. Taylor), referred to the action that his Government were taking on the computer systems for which they were responsible in the public sector. He announced the establishment of TaskForce 2000, involving the private sector in raising awareness of the problem in industry and commerce, and he warned that failure to deal with it could lead to commercial collapse—a warning which I believe his successor has repeated, as has the President of the Board of Trade.
My Bill is designed to avoid such commercial collapse in the private sector of British business. It will give the owners of British companies—the shareholders—the information to which they are entitled about the security of their investment at the turn of the century. It requires companies to conduct an assessment of the capability of their computer systems to deal with calendar dates after 31 December 1999 and, in the annual report to shareholders, to report on that assessment and on the actions that their directors propose to take as a consequence.
It has been suggested that my Bill would impose new and unnecessary regulation and red tape on business, which, to their credit, the Government, like the previous one, have said they are determined to avoid. Not only is that response misleading, but it seeks to avoid the unique nature of the issue. Far from imposing new burdens on business, the Bill merely clarifies for company directors and their auditors an existing duty to give shareholders a true and fair assessment of the company as a going concern in the foreseeable future.
The Bill will help to protect the businesses of those who have acted responsibly from those who would not otherwise have acted without pressure from their shareholders, because computer systems that are millennium compliant will also fail if they are linked to those that are not.
Critics of my Bill have complained that the action that it requires businesses to take will be too costly for them to bear. My Bill imposes no such costly action; it merely obliges directors to report on their action—or inaction, as the case may be. Of course, in many cases, the cost of inaction will be the biggest burden of all—bankruptcy.
If I needed any further justification for the Bill, it came from the press conference held by TaskForce 2000 at the Department of Trade and Industry in February 1997. It was to report the outcome of a second survey, eight months after the first, to find out how British business is responding to this millennium time bomb. The very same companies that were approached the first time were approached again and asked the same question. The answers are revealing and worrying.
Whereas only 15 per cent. of senior mangers were aware of the problem last year, today 28 per cent. are. But whereas 8 per cent. of companies had completed an assessment last year, that figure has gone up to only 9 per cent. That is not a rate of progress which can or should satisfy anyone. It confirms my view that there is now no alternative but to legislate.
The Bill has received encouraging and widespread support from the top 100 companies that I consulted and whose amendments are now incorporated in it. I hope that the Government will recognise the Bill for what it seeks to achieve and that it will be given a swift enactment. If so, it might be sufficient, together with a fully supported TaskForce 2000 and other initiatives by the

149
computer industry itself, to avoid for Britain much of the incalculable chaos and catastrophe that are being predicted if not enough is done.
Nevertheless, it remains a race against time. Only 630 days remain in which to take action. This is one of the greatest challenges facing British business today. Like the change in the millennium itself, it cannot be postponed. That is why I hope that the House will give me leave to introduce the Bill today.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Atkinson, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Frank Cook, Mr. Tam Dalyell, Dr. Lynne Jones, Mr. Nigel Jones, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. Robert Sheldon, Rev. Martin Smyth, Mr. Stephen Timms, Mr. John Townend and Mr. Dafydd Wigley.

Companies (Millennium Computer Compliance)

  COMPANIES (MILLENNIUM COMPUTER COMPLIANCE)
  Mr. David Atkinson accordingly presented a Bill to require companies to conduct an assessment of the capability of their computer systems to deal with calendar dates after 31st December 1999; and to report both on those assessments and on the actions their directors propose to take in consequence: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 November, and to be printed [Bill 58].
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As one of the sponsors of the Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), and having served on the Committee stage of the previous Bill, I want to warn you not to make arrangements to be in an aircraft on new year's eve 1999 or the House of Commons could be looking for a new Speaker because the computers may have gone wrong.
  Seriously, when a Member moves a very important ten-minute Bill, should not there be some Government response as soon as possible, so that, when the House returns in October, we will know the state of play on this vital subject?
  Madam Speaker: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I very much appreciate his warning. I shall put it in my diary as soon as I get back to my office.
  The hon. Gentleman is a long-standing Member and he knows that a ten-minute Bill is simply an application for leave to bring in a Bill. A Bill is not actually being brought in, although the public often think that it is—hon. Members are simply asking the House for leave to do so. The House has today graciously given the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) such leave.

Orders of the Day

  Finance Bill
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  [Relevant documents: The Minutes of Evidence taken before the Treasury Committee on Monday 21st July, Tuesday 22nd July and Wednesday 23rd July (HC169- i to iii).]]
  Not amended (in the Committee), and as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.]

Clause 19

  PENSION FUNDS NO LONGER ENTITLED TO PAYMENT OF TAX CREDITS
  3.40 pm
  Mr. Peter Lilley: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 11, line 38, after 'made', insert 'from 6th April 2004'.
  Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 17, in page 11, line 41, at end insert—
  '(lA) Any claim made under section 231(2) for payment of the amount of a tax credit if or to the extent that the qualifying distribution to which the credit relates is income of a pension fund shall be made to the extent mentioned in Column 1 of the Table below if the distribution is made on or after the date in Column 2 and before the date in Column 3.

  TABLE

  Column 1

  Column 2

  Column 3

  Percentage of the amount or value of the distribution

  21

  6th April 1999

  6th April 2000

  17

  6th April 2000

  6th April 2001

  13

  6th April 2001

  6th April 2002

  8

  6th April 2002

  6th April 2003

  4

  6th April 2003

  6th April 2004

  No. 20, in page 12, line 42, at end insert—
  '(4) The Treasury may by order provide for the suspension of the operation of this section if it has reason to believe that it has had or will have adverse effects upon the number of individuals expected to opt out of the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme (SERPS) or upon the number of individuals in contracted—out pension schemes who are expected to opt back into SERPS.
  (5) An order under subsection (4) shall be by statutory instrument and shall be subject to approval by resolution of the Commons House of Parliament.'.
  No. 18, in clause 23, page 15, line 5, at beginning insert '(1)'.
  No. 19, in page 15, line 6, at end insert—
  '(2) The Secretary of State may by order provide that any person providing a pension shall include in any annual statement to policyholders an assessment of the impact of the provisions in that Schedule upon the policy concerned.
  (3) Any order made under subsection (2) shall be by statutory instrument and shall be subject to approval by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
  Mr. Lilley: We consider the tax to be introduced under this clause to be the biggest of the 17 breaches of promise

  151
  by the Labour Government in their Budget. Before the election, we received the clearest of assurances from the then Leader of the Opposition that:
  "We have no plans to increase tax at all."
  Subsequently, he said:
  "Our proposals do not involve raising taxes. If we have any such proposals we will make them clear before the next election."
  It was therefore extraordinary that the Government should bring in a Budget containing 17 tax rises, the biggest of which involves a £5 billion a year recurring tax on pension funds.
  However, what I did not realise until recently was that it was a breach not only of a general pledge, but of a specific pledge. I understand that on 21 October last, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), who is now the Under—Secretary of State for Social Security, addressed a meeting of the Institute of London Underwriters in Leadenhall street. Someone present at that meeting has written to me saying:
  "As Deputy Chairman of the Trustees of Lloyd's Superannuation Fund, I was concerned that taxing pension funds, many of which have substantial surpluses, would be a relatively painless way of raising significant revenue, so I asked him"—
  the hon. Member for Itchen—
  "to give an undertaking that any future Labour government would not seek to raise taxes from these surpluses. He replied that it was no part of his proposals that Labour would touch them."
  I have subsequently spoken to another person who was present at that meeting and who took notes. He confirms that his notes show, more or less word for word, that that Labour spokesman, before the election, solemnly gave an assurance that Labour had no plans or proposals to tax pension funds or their surpluses.
  As we know, the primary justification that the Government have subsequently given for the tax is that the bulk will come from the surpluses of occupational pension schemes. There could not be a clearer example of breach of promise, and one for which I hope we will have a formal apology from the hon. Member for Itchen. If that is not forthcoming, we shall certainly be calling for his resignation as a junior Minister. [Interruption.] The Minister thinks that breaking trust with the electorate is an amusing matter, although Labour made trust the central issue in its general election campaign and said that greater trust was placed in it than in any other party.
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Helen Liddell)rose—
  Mr. Lilley: I will, of course, give way to the hon. Lady if she will apologise for her colleague.
  Mrs. Liddell: I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has given way. Perhaps the electorate will now receive an apology, after enduring the 22 separate tax rises that were introduced in the previous Parliament by the previous Government, who did not honour their own manifesto commitments. Ultimately, they suffered the consequences for that at the ballot box.
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. We had to face the electorate with that issue before us—but the Government will have to do the same. The electorate will
  152
  not accept as a sufficient excuse their statement, "As we have alleged that other people did that, we felt free to do the same"—especially because the Prime Minister made trust the central issue of Labour's general election campaign.
  Subsequently, we have been assured that the tax will not matter because it will not hurt. To most people, it is self-evident that extracting £5 billion a year from pension funds will make those funds £5 billion a year worse off. The funds will have to be topped up by that amount if the pensions are to give the same pensions, or they will have to pay lower pensions to people retiring.
  In what has become known as the "Primarolo paradox", however, we have been assured that the measure, far from being bad for pensions, will be
  "good for pensions and pensioners, not bad for them … People should understand that our reforms will benefit pension funds."—[Official Report, 3 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 507.]]
  Conservative Members have sought, pressed and asked for any coherent explanation of how it is possible that extracting £5 billion a year from long-term investments made for and on behalf of pensioners can benefit pensioners, but we have received only the most incredible explanations. Nevertheless, an attempt at explanation was made.
  After we received Ministers' explanation and had some suggestion that their rationale—although incoherent and incredible—is that the measure will not hurt pension funds, we asked why the Government are attempting to protect charities from the impact of an allegedly benevolent measure if it is not damaging. There was total silence from Ministers.
  In our amendments, we are attempting to extend to pension funds the protection that the Government are affording charities. We are very much attempting to mirror the precise protection that Ministers have vouchsafed charities, so that we can protect pensions, at least for a period, from the damage that will be done by a damaging tax. We hope that, by the time that that protection expires, the Conservative party will be back in power and able to ensure a much more satisfactory regime for pensions and for the economy overall.
  3.45 pm
  Mrs. Liddell: From the right hon. Gentleman's statement, am I to take it that Conservative party policy is to restore advance corporation tax after the next general election, should it be elected?
  Mr. Lilley: We will not commit ourselves on any matter whatsoever at this stage, here and now, to undo the damage that may be done by the Labour Government between now and the end of their regime. It would be foolish for us to do so. We will state our position in our manifesto for the next general election, after we have seen how much damage the Government have done and in how many spheres, and after we have determined what we can realistically promise to make good.
  There can be little doubt that the measure will be immensely damaging. It can be little satisfaction to anyone to know that the best that the Minister can say about it is, "It's no worse than other Governments may do, although you may well find yourself lumbered with it, at least for a while."

  153
  I have received a letter from the Chartered Institute of Housing, which is not only a charity but a charity with a pension fund. It states:
  "We consider that changes to ACT and its potential impact on pension funds will probably require an additional 0.5 per cent.-0.75 per cent. contribution from the Institute. This money will have to be found from funds that would otherwise be committed to the development of education and training which in, turn creates employment opportunities in the housing sector. You will therefore appreciate our concern with regard to the Chancellor's proposals."
  Of course, the institute's problem is mirrored across the country in pension funds and in organisations with pension funds, be they charitable or commercial. They are all having to consider the extra money that they will be required to put into their pension funds and which will therefore not be available either to invest or to use for the charitable, educational or employment-generating purposes to which the Chartered Institute of Housing refers.
  Another important issue that has arisen in our debates, and on which the amendments touch, is that of the mis-selling of personal pensions. We all deplore such mis-selling, and we are all keen to see the matter resolved and proper compensation given as rapidly as possible. I wish the Economic Secretary every success in achieving that. However, private mis-selling cannot justify public mis-selling.
  The essence of mis-selling is allowing people to purchase pensions or to invest in pensions without full or accurate information being available to them about the implications of their actions for their own circumstances. The Government have now changed the conditions under which people have invested, but they are so far refusing to give the relevant information, either generally, to the public at large, or specifically, via the insurance companies, about the impact of the ACT changes on the contributions that they need to make or on the pensions that they can expect to receive. The Government should ensure that such information is made available. If they do not, people may find themselves opted out of SERPS when they should be opted back in, or they may be tempted to opt out in future when they should not do so.
  On 13 July this year, the financial section of The Mail on Sunday said:
  "Leading independent pensions expert Gareth Marr of Moores Marr Bradley says: 'We would advise anyone who is still contracted into SERPS to stay in because of the uncertainty now surrounding the returns that can be obtained on opted-out plans. We strongly advise those who have contracted out to get back in—unless the government increases the level of National Insurance rebates it gives them."
  The newspaper also states:
  "Steven Cameron, pensions development manager at Scottish Equitable, hopes the government will raise NI rebates to stop a possible flood back into SERPS. He says: 'For many, the advantage of opting out of SERPS has been significantly reduced and for some it has vanished."'
  How can it be other than mis-selling to allow people to make decisions without that information?
  If the Economic Secretary found any of the companies that she chooses to berate every month behaving in that fashion, would she criticise them? If they refused to give such information when selling a pension, would she put them at the top of her jawboning list, or would she say, "It all depends whether you are Government or private. If you're Government, you can do that sort of thing and
  154
  I'll pat you on the back and praise you. If you are private, I will criticise and attack you"? I will happily give way to the Economic Secretary, who is a frequent intervener, if she would like to tell us whether she approves of such behaviour by private pension schemes.
  Mrs. Liddell: I get the impression that the right hon. Gentleman thinks there is something wrong with the way in which the Government have tried to do something about pension mis-selling, but the point that he is making is spurious. The Government have gone to great lengths to ensure that people are aware of the implications for their long-term future of changes to their pensions. Indeed, had the right hon. Gentleman been in Committee, he would have heard the issue debated very fully. Perhaps it is because of the inadequacy of Conservative Members in Committee that the heavy guns have had to attend today's debate.
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Lady should know that, by convention, neither the Chancellor nor the shadow Chancellor sits on the Committee, and that is why I was not on it. However, I was extremely proud of the role played by my team in the appallingly short time made available for proper consideration of the measure. Once again, the hon. Lady ignores the issue and is content to make party political points. Would she tolerate, let alone praise and advocate, the misinformation and lack of information that the Government are providing if the private sector companies that she seeks to regulate had behaved in such a way? If she is not prepared to answer such questions, we can only assume that she has dual standards on this matter, as on so much else.
  Mrs. Liddell: I am happy to make it perfectly clear that the Government have gone to considerable lengths to ensure that information is available to those buying pensions. We discussed the matter fully in Committee and, quite frankly, as a member of a Government who for eight years ignored pensions mis-selling, it is no wonder that the right hon. Gentleman cannot look me in the eye when I am responding to him.
  Mr. Lilley: To say that the Government are going to great lengths to make information available when they spent tens of thousands of pounds of public money producing a pocket Budget—
  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: It cost £50,000.
  Mr. Lilley: It cost the taxpayer £50,000, and its sole reference to this matter was an oblique reference to measures to promote long-term investment.
  If the information is being made available outside the House, can it be made available inside the House? What will be the impact, for example, on a 30-year-old person who has been putting £100 a month into his or her pension scheme and who, as a result of the ACT changes, will have to reconsider the position?
  The hon. Lady says that the information is being made available. Apparently, it was mysteriously made available in Committee, although none of my right hon. and hon. Friends who were present were aware of it. None of it is recorded in Hansard. Somehow the Hansard writer did not manage to get it down. Can she tell us the answer now? If she will not, I can tell the House about the

  155
  calculation by the Association of Consulting Actuaries. If someone put £100 a month into a pension fund before, they will now have to put in £112. It is right that people should know the impact of the changes on their financial circumstances. It is monstrous that the Government are not providing the information.
  I advise the Minister to follow the example of the Trades Union Congress, which has published a leaflet on "Pension power for women" suggesting that women do not have enough information on pensions and should have more. For example, one question in the leaflet is:
  "Is there is a scheme I can afford?"
  After the ACT change, there probably is not. The leaflet offers help in answering such questions as:
  "I work part-time—Can I join my company scheme?"
  The answer is, probably not. The answer may well be that it is not worth doing so now and it might be better to stay in SERPS. I am glad that the trade unions are taking over where the Government have failed to act and deliberately sought to leave people in the dark.
  The impact of the change extends to the pension funds run by local authorities. The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman), from his distinguished position, spelled out the overall impact that it will have on the 99 local authorities that belong to local government pension schemes. He wrote:
  "It has been estimated that the abolition of ACT would add at least 3 per cent. or £300 million to our employers' pension costs. No such increase could be afforded by local authorities without making further cuts to services to their local residents".
  The alternative would be to increase the council tax, if they were allowed to do so.
  Local authorities are beginning to do the calculations to find out how much it will cost their council tax payers in future if they are to ensure that their pension schemes are properly funded.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend not find it extraordinary that, in a parliamentary written answer to me on 21 July, the Department of the Environment announced that the next actuarial revaluation for local authority pension schemes would not be until March 1998? Here we have the Government implementing a Budget measure with no idea whatever of the implications for public expenditure on local authorities. Does not my right hon. Friend find that extraordinary?
  Mr. Lilley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I seem to remember that the answer says something such as, "Not until then will the truth be known." Those words make it clear that, up to now, the truth has not been told by Government Front Benchers, and the facts have not been given, even to local authorities, about the impact of the cost of the measure on the pension funds and council tax.
  Earlier today, I was in Uxbridge—not coincidentally, as there happens to be a by-election there in a couple of days. The Conservative party has a very good local candidate there, unlike the Labour party, which has parachuted in a career politician from outside the constituency. As a local candidate, he wanted to know
  156
  the impact on Uxbridge people of the Budget and the pensions measure particularly. We were able to calculate that probably more than 7,000 people in Uxbridge alone have personal pensions. They, of course, will all wish to know how much extra they will have to put in if they are to receive the pension that they were previously expecting.
  4 pm
  The other night, I was being driven by a taxi driver. I did not ask whether he came from Uxbridge, but he may well have done. He said to me, "You are something to do with politics, aren't you?" I said, being very well known, "That sort of thing." He said that he had just been trying to persuade his father to tear up his Labour party membership card. When I asked why, he said that it was because of what the Budget had done to pensions. I thought that he put the point very pithily when he asked, "What is the point of us putting money into our pension funds if the Government are promptly taking it out?"
  That is precisely what is happening. The amount of money that they are taking out is not so very different from the amount in rebates that the Government were previously putting in. It is a fair indication of how the Government see pension funds just as a source of revenue rather than as prudent provision by the self-employed and those in mobile employment for their future.
  About 7,000 people in Uxbridge will be thinking, "Do I need to put in a full 25 per cent. extra, as will be required just to raise the dividend revenues if everything is in equities, or is the 12 per cent. calculated by the Association of Consulting Actuaries more like what will be required if I have a mix of different investments?"
  Probably about 16,000 people in Uxbridge have occupational pensions. Their position will depend in part on whether their employers are prepared to put extra money into the schemes—in which case that money will not be available for investment, to pay wages or to enhance the firm's position—whether they will have to pay in the money, or whether their future pension rights will be downgraded as a result of the measure. They will have to decide whether their schemes will opt back into the state scheme. The scheme could decide that it is no longer worth being an opted-out scheme, and that it should opt back into SERPS.
  We must consider what impact there will be on the council tax payer in Uxbridge. We understand that, just to pay the extra contributions required by the borough employees' pension fund if it is to offset the effect of the ACT changes, everyone in a band D house in Uxbridge will pay an extra £2 a month.
  There are big impacts on ordinary people in ordinary places—and in important places such as Uxbridge. It is important that that information should be made available. We have tabled new clauses and amendments to try to ensure that more information is made available. If those do not succeed, we want the amendments that will protect pension funds for the next few years to receive the House's support.
  The tax rise concerning pensions is the biggest unexpected tax rise that the Government have inflicted on us. They have done so in direct rejection of assurances given in opposition by hon. Members who now sit on the Treasury Bench. A Government who can do that, and enable it to be done by ramming the Bill through a truncated Committee, are a Government who are ashamed

  157
  of their own actions—and they are right to be ashamed. We believe that they can partly ameliorate that by accepting our amendments.
  Mr. Ross Cranston: I want to deal with the effect of the changes on investment, which was not covered at length in the Standing Committee, and which the House should deal with.
  First, however, I congratulate the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) on his attitude to the mis-selling of private pensions. That mis-selling has been a tremendous scandal, and it is gratifying to hear the right hon. Gentleman admit it. I understood him to be congratulating my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury on the work that she is doing to try to remedy the situation.
  We have heard little about pensioners in general, either in Standing Committee or on Second Reading. For example, we did not hear that the number of active members of occupational pensions schemes has fallen radically since 1979, so that 12 million people in work do not now have access to a company pension. We did not hear about the fact that private pensions can represent very poor value for those on low or modest incomes.
  We heard a great deal, however, about the catastrophic effect that the changes would have on pensions, especially private pensions. In response, I quote to the House the words of Anne Young of Scottish Widows. She thought that one could not put a figure on the impact, and I agree with her:
  "There are three main imponderables. The first is the attitude of companies who currently pay large dividends. The second is the effect the Chancellor's move will have on the valuation of shares, and the third is the attitude of pension fund managers".
  When I consulted my borough treasurer about the impact on the Dudley pension scheme, he could not give me a direct answer. He said, rightly, that a range of imponderables had to be taken into account before the impact of the changes could be estimated.
  Incidentally, the Chancellor has left the tax relief on private pensions entirely untouched. Eagle Star and other advisers on pensions have said that they doubt whether there will be any change in the extent to which people take out private pensions.
  I intended to deal with the effect on investment. I mentioned the subject on Second Reading, so I will not go over the same ground again. However, I must make the point that, when the imputation system was introduced in 1973, most shareholders were basic-rate taxpayers. They did not receive tax credits, but they did not pay tax on the dividends that they received. That system was supposed to be neutral as between companies paying out in terms of distributions and companies retaining earnings to invest. However, a quarter of a century later, we are in a different world, in which most shares are held by institutions—pension funds, mainly.
  The effect of the tax system on distributions, as opposed to retention, has ramifications for that change in the nature of shareholding. In theory, shareholders should be indifferent between dividends and capital gains. If dividends are not paid, the retention within the company should build up the company's strength, and the value of the shares will therefore be enhanced.
  Of course, that is not now the case. Shareholders have different concerns. Some shareholders—those in venture capital enterprises, for example—want capital growth and
  158
  are not so interested in dividends. Conversely, some shareholders want dividends, for a variety of reasons. They may be unsure about what managers will do with the retained earnings, and therefore want to get dividends out quickly.
  Another factor in the choice between paying dividends and the retention of earnings is the tax system. It can be argued that higher-rate taxpayers favour retention because they have to pay tax, despite the tax credit. Conversely, it can be argued that pension funds favour distribution because of the tax credit on dividends they receive. That puts pressure on companies to pay out money in dividends rather than taking the long-term view.
  We did not hear anything about that argument in the Standing Committee. We did not hear about many people's active concern about the extent to which companies pay out dividends rather than taking the long-term view to invest. I realise from the quizzical look on the face of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) that he thinks that pension fund managers, if they get earnings, will use those distributions efficiently and will invest when the opportunity is worth while.
  We say, however, that managers of enterprises should have greater scope to make the decision to invest than they have under the current system. We say that, at present, combined with other factors such as our market for corporate control, which we do not share with Germany and France, there is too much pressure to pay out dividends rather than for managers to use retained earnings to invest for the long term.
  Mr. Shaun Woodward: Will the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to comment on a survey carried out by Merrill Lynch between 7 July and 9 July this year, after the Budget? The company questioned 56 UK institutions managing £775 billion and discovered that, in the wake of the Budget, sellers outnumbered buyers of UK equities by 18 points, the highest figure in a year. Can the hon. Gentleman explain why, if the scheme is so spectacularly successful, this rush selling has taken place?
  Mr. Cranston: The hon. Gentleman anticipates me. In Standing Committee, the hon. Gentleman did not answer one question put to him by my hon. Friends. Yesterday, the hon. Gentleman could not answer one question.
  On Second Reading, I said that there were distortions as a result of the system that the Finance Bill will change. There are distortions in terms of the investment decisions made by pension funds. I pointed out that the existing regime favoured pension funds purchasing UK equities rather than foreign equities. I also said that there is an argument that there is a distortion in terms of buying debt instruments. I acknowledge that one might say that it would be better if pension funds continued to buy UK equities. The point is, however, that there is a distortion, and, as a result of the change, that distortion will be removed.
  Mr. Nick Gibb: Will not the result of the measure be that pension funds will switch to overseas equities? Will that benefit the UK economy?
  Mr. Cranston: I made the point just now that pension fund managers might decide to buy foreign equities.
  Mr. Gibb: Is that better?
  Mr. Cranston: I am not commenting one way or the other. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh. I thought that they believed in free market economics. The existing system has a distortion in it.
  As I said at the outset, the other effect of the change is that earnings will be retained to a greater extent. In that sense, managers of UK companies can take a long-term view which will benefit the economy.
  The widespread debate in the literature and among City analysts and others about the adverse effect of the existing system on long-term growth has passed Opposition Members by. They completely ignored it in Committee; they ignored the possibility of a flat-rate tax on pension funds that was discussed in the reports that they quoted in Committee; and they ignored the possibility of returning to the classic system of corporate tax, which operates in the United States. They were more interested in political rhetoric and in the notion of smash and grab. I do not blame them for that—it was a nice political point to make—but they have not addressed the fundamental issue of long-term investment. As a result of this change, there will be more long-term investment in this economy. I oppose the amendments.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. John Swinney: It may be a naive opinion for a new Member to express, but I hope that during the debate some minds may be changed and some opinions altered. I listened to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) complaining about the lack of debating time. I suspect that, the more debating time we had, the more intransigent Members would become in their positions.
  The amendment covers some serious issues. I did not serve on the Finance Bill Committee, but I have tried to intervene on this point before, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so today. I have an interest in this debate, as, before my election, I was employed by Scottish Amicable, which is one of the principal financial institutions in Scotland and was recently taken over by the Prudential. My only continuing interest in that company is the welfare of the colleagues I left behind, as they face the challenges that that takeover will bring.
  I also have an interest in that both the local authorities in my constituency area will be affected by the implications of additional contributions to pension funds that may be required as a result of these changes. As some hon. Members have said, that is unquantifiable at this stage, which is why I think that the Government have moved with such haste in introducing these changes and the proposals in the Finance Bill.
  When I went to work at Scottish Amicable, I had experience in business development, but I had no experience of the life insurance and pension fund sector. I was struck by the fact that such companies never make decisions on the quality and strength of funds on a short-term basis: it is always on a long-term basis. Any factor that is away from the predictions—out of the ordinary or different—causes disruption to the long-term development of funds. It has an impact on actuarial calculations and on the position taken by officers on reserves for long-term distribution. Those are not day-to-day factors, but factors on which long-term
  160
  judgments must be made. The scale of the change that the Government have undertaken disrupts the process of long-term financial management in the interests of those funds.
  I was also struck by the importance that those companies give to the gearing of finance. The ability to transform small amounts of money into much more substantial sums is the art of actuarial science, and the art of investment management. Unless companies are given appropriate opportunities to pursue that essential part of their work without massively changing circumstances—which the proposals on tax credits constitute—many will face difficulties.
  It would be easy for us to get caught up in an exchange of City anecdotes, but there are some simple truths about the proposed changes. Some people's—not everyone's—pension contributions will have to go up, and it is a myth to suggest that the tax will be easy or painless to raise.
  The changes come on the back of the pensions mis-selling scandal. The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden was right to compliment the Economic Secretary on the energy that has been applied to the problem since the change of Government. I say that partly to encourage her to deal with my constituents' cases that I have forwarded to her.
  It is welcome that the Government are taking such a strong line, and pursuing the industry to guarantee that the wrongs are righted, but it is unfortunate that they have created an element of uncertainty about pensions as a result of the frenetic debate on the Finance Bill—some of which, I concede, has been fuelled by the Conservatives. Anything that creates uncertainty is unwelcome in the pensions industry and the community at large.
  One of my constituents, a trustee of a pension fund of which the principal contributor went out of business, wrote to ask who will pay if additional contributions are required. Some pension funds will be in extremely difficult situations.
  Last week, Standard Life, the largest mutual insurer in the United Kingdom, suspended offering transfer values for occupational pension schemes until it could calculate the full impact of the measures, and various other life insurance and pension companies have said similar things. In pensions, there can be no quick initiatives of which the outcome can confidently be predicted, as the Government seem to think; all changes cause some uncertainty and unease in the industry.
  Let us consider the message that our debate will convey to the country. The debate has been rather impoverished of substance, and fuelled by a great deal of party political rhetoric that will not allay public unease. Anything that undermines the confidence that people are beginning to have to make appropriate contributions to their pension funds, whether primary or secondary, is damaging.
  Pension contributions and funds in this country are more substantial per capita than elsewhere, but they are not perfect. Under the current regime, some people will still have to live on extremely low incomes in their retirement; anything that detracts from people's confidence to contribute to pension schemes is bad news indeed.

  161
  The last thing that the sector requires is more uncertainty. The previous Government presided over many notes of uncertainty, but for the new Government to compound those mistakes in the very first weeks of their term of office would be extremely regrettable.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Let me begin by taking issue with the hon. Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Cranston), whose interesting speech displayed the real confusion and misunderstanding on the Labour Benches.
  The hon. Gentleman said that the present advance corporation tax regime—the arrangement that exists now, before the Bill is enacted, which I hope it will not be—represented a distortion in the market. The opposite is the case. The aim of the imputation tax—I genuinely fear that many Labour Members, including Ministers, do not understand this properly—was to prevent a very serious distortion that would have been inequitable, and would also have had serious and damaging economic consequences. I refer to double taxation. The whole purpose of ACT is to avoid that, but the removal of the dividend tax credit reintroduces the notion.
  It is not right for pension funds to be subject to taxation. Why? Because, when their proceeds are paid to pensioners, those pensioners pay tax on them. The clause will introduce double taxation: the income that is invested for pensioners will be subject to tax, and they will still pay tax on the proceeds.
  Some countries operate a system that is the reverse of ours, under which pension funds are themselves subject to tax, but the pensioner receives his pension tax-free. That is one way of avoiding double taxation; we have a different but very effective way of avoiding it. The hon. Member for Dudley, North is supporting a measure that will reintroduce the concept of double taxation, with all that flows from it.
  Mr. Cranston: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the United States does not have our imputation system, and in what way the United Kingdom system is more advantageous than that in the United States? Can he also explain how the neutrality aspect differs as between higher-rate taxpayers, basic-rate taxpayers and pension funds that are tax-exempt?
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman has asked me a series of questions, many of which are irrelevant to the issue that we are discussing. I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would rapidly halt me if I embarked on a disquisition about the American tax system. We are talking about the British tax system. As for the question of equity between basic-rate and higher-rate taxpayers—[Interruption.] I am endeavouring to answer the hon. Gentleman's questions. Labour Members obviously do not want me to answer their questions, but I shall answer them anyway, whether they want me to or not.
  The equity between higher-rate and basic-rate taxpayers under an imputation system is entirely preserved. The basic-rate taxpayer incurs no further tax liability on his dividend, but the higher-rate taxpayer must account to the Inland Revenue for the difference between the standard rate and his own marginal rate—or the difference between the dividend tax credit rate and the higher marginal rate. That is perfectly simple. Equity is preserved, and the principle of double taxation is avoided.
  162
  If the clause is passed, however, double taxation will become a principle in our tax system. That is a retrogressive and damaging step, and the whole country should be in no doubt about what is happening.
  The measure will affect not only institutional pension funds—which, rightly, we have been discussing today, and about which I shall say a little more shortly—but individuals. It produces another anomaly, in that individuals will be subject to double taxation. Individual taxpayers who should not be paying tax at all, because their incomes have not reached the taxable threshold, will now do so, under legislation introduced—amazingly—by a Labour Government.
  The Labour party used to be proud of concepts of social justice, and proud of being committed to giving the less well-off a fair deal. What will happen now is that a little old widow with her half a dozen privatisation shares who previously could reclaim dividend tax credit and so not pay tax will no longer be able to do so. She will be subject to an invidious and new form of taxation, to which she or anyone below the tax threshold is currently not subject. That is extremely unfair. As well as destroying the neutrality of the system and introducing a distortion, the measure will cause pain and financial loss to those who least deserve to suffer.
  Mr. Peter Brooke: Has it been my hon. Friend's experience, as it has been mine, that pensioner constituents who have been alerted to the change at this late stage in the passage of the Bill are beginning to write in to say that they had not appreciated the situation? Can he contemplate, as I can, the number of letters we will receive after the Bill has become law?
  4.30 pm
  Mr. Davies: I am going to give my right hon. Friend an honest answer, because we all try to give honest answers in this place. The honest answer, which I know is not the one he was hoping to hear, is no. There is a simple reason for that, and the reason is twofold. First—I know they will not mind my saying this—my constituents in Lincolnshire are probably not quite as financially sophisticated as my right hon. Friend's constituents in the Cities of London and Westminster. One would expect the City of London to contain exceptionally financially sophisticated people.
  Secondly—I do not know whether or not this is a compliment, but it can be taken either way—the remarkable success of the Mandelson propaganda machine has been that it has still not become entirely apparent to the general public what will be the effect of the Budget, not only in the field we are discussing now but in many others. If the Labour Government want to regard that as a positive achievement, they can.
  It is a remarkable achievement of propaganda that, in terms of the broad public perception of the initial debates on the Budget, the Government have managed to get away with saying that they have found a pot of gold that no one knew about—that magic holy grail, for which Chancellors of the Exchequer have looking for centuries, if not millennia, but have never found. It is the equivalent of the philosopher's stone—the tax that is not a tax at all; a source of money that can be tapped without doing damage to anyone else. The abolition of the dividend tax

  163
  credit has been presented to the public as though no one would suffer from the extraction of £4 billion or £5 billion a year from those who currently benefit from the dividend tax credit—institutions such as pension funds as well as individuals.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) is correct. As Abraham Lincoln said:
  "you cannot fool all the people all of the time."
  I do not think the British people can be fooled for long, and I am certain that the people of Lincolnshire cannot be fooled for long, so to those who are manipulating that remarkable propaganda machine I say that the truth will come back and hit them—reality always wins in the end, and the truth will be victorious.
  When people realise how they have been defrauded, not only by the tax, but by the way in which the tax has been presented, which compounds the offence, they will be extremely angry. We shall receive thousands of letters full of anguish and distress—not that we will be able to do much for the correspondents, many of whom will express sincere regret at having voted the wrong way on 1 May, not realising what costs would flow from that unfortunate and, in many cases, hasty decision.
  That is just one aspect, and I have not by any means finished my strictures in support of the amendment to the Government's appalling clause. I have tried to show that, far from removing distortions from the tax system, the Bill is introducing for the first time some very onerous and unpleasant distortions into our tax system.
  The other point which the hon. Member for Dudley, North made was also wrong. He said that the abolition of dividend tax credit would increase the retention rate of profits by companies. That, too, comes out of the Mandelson propaganda machine all too frequently, and it is complete and utter nonsense.
  There are only two ways in which a company can be responsibly managed in terms of the distribution and level of profits. The first is the classic method taught in business schools around the world, which is to retain for investment such profits as can be invested in projects whose prospective yield will be equal to or higher than the average cost of capital of the company concerned. That rule has a certain mathematical rigour. It is not always easy to estimate profits from potential investment projects, but that is the science of investment appraisal, and it is what professional managers are supposed to do.
  The second approach is also responsible. It supposes that company directors exist in a fiduciary capacity on behalf of their shareholders, and should therefore do whatever is in their shareholders' interests. If some other principle overrides the one that I have just outlined, they should be prepared to allow that to happen, at least in a certain measure. Where a large number of their shareholders—in this case, institutional pension funds—say to the company directors, "We absolutely depend on the maintenance of our dividend cash flows, our own beneficiaries are pensioners who depend on that, and we look to you as directors of our company to ensure that we are, as far as possible, protected from what the Government are doing", the directors may responsibly say
  164
  that they need to maintain their distribution rate at a slightly higher level than would result from the objective application of the principle that I have set out.
  Mr. Cranston: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the ratio of dividends to GDP is higher in this country than in the United States?
  Mr. Davies: It is probably a function of the structure of industry in the two countries. An awful lot of mistakes are made, such as comparing stock market performance, because the structure of industry in certain countries is not taken into account. In some industries, a higher pay-out ratio is clearly appropriate, because the opportunities for investment that achieve the criterion that I have just set out—yielding the same return as the average cost of the capital of a company—are less strong than in other sectors of the economy. However, I do not think for a moment that differential pay-out ratios have anything to do with the existence or otherwise of an imputation tax.
  I thought that the hon. Gentleman had intervened to say that he found something wrong with my argument, but far from it. If he finds nothing wrong with it, that may be because he has already seen what inevitably and logically flows from it. In the first case, if companies adopt what I call the "professional principle" in determining their pay-out ratios, by definition the pay-out ratio will not change as a result of the abolition of the dividend tax credit. Thus, far from the Government's measure bringing about a higher retention ratio, the ratio will remain exactly the same.
  The second possibility is that the pay-out ratio will increase because company directors will decide to increase it so that cash inflow to their gross pension funds will remain the same. The exact opposite will thus occur: the retention ratio will fall, and the pay-out ratio will rise. I hope that that shows that the assumption behind the hon. Gentleman's analysis was absolutely wrong.
  Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Is not the logic of his point that it is up to companies to decide whether it is in their long-term interest to retain or distribute profits? The tax credit system we seek to abolish put a distortion into the system. It created a subsidy for the distribution of profits, and thereby removed the freedom of company boards to determine their long-term future.
  Mr. Davies: I can tell the hon. Lady that I have sat on the boards of companies, and not for one moment would I have been influenced by that consideration. I would always have adopted the first principle, and I would adopt it now if I were on the board of a public company. I would say that we will determine the pay-out ratio on the basis that we pay out everything to our shareholders, except where we believe that we can reinvest at equivalent risk at equivalent returns—or, of course, at lower risk or better returns.
  Beyond that, we have an absolute fiduciary responsibility to hand the money back to the shareholders to whom it belongs. They can then decide how to reinvest it themselves. I would leave tax distortions out of the matter.
  Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. Companies are in the best position to judge what is

  165
  the best way forward for them. He is arguing against—and, in so doing, making the case for—giving companies the right to determine their own future. That is not logical.
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Lady has not been listening to me; she has been weaving a web of fantasy of her own. I said nothing of the kind. I said that there were two possible sets of consequences relating to the pay-out ratio. As a company director I would wish to operate on the basis that there would no change in the pay-out ratios of British companies as a result of the abolition of the dividend tax credit.
  The hon. Lady implied that that was the basis on which good management would operate, and I agree with her. If she accepts that, she pulls the rug out from under the feet of the hon. Member for Dudley, North, who argued that one of the supposed benefits of the abolition of the dividend tax credit would be an increase in the retention ratio.
  I suggested a second scenario, in which the company was being slightly less objectively and professionally managed. There, the effect of abolishing the dividend tax credit would be to increase the pay-out ratio in order to satisfy the demands of a majority of shareholders.
  Yvette Cooper: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there will be pressure from shareholders on the decisions that companies make, and that those shareholders in the form of pension funds will have an incentive to call for dividends to be paid to them, rather than their potential dividends going into the long-term future of the company and the increase in the value of that company over time?
  Therefore, the distortion comes via the shareholders. Even if other board members are as far-sighted as the hon. Gentleman, the shareholders will put pressure on them to pay out now, rather than to hold the money in investment for the long-term future of the company.
  Mr. Davies: It is typical of traditional Labour myopia about industry to see some antithesis between shareholders and companies. There is no antithesis at all. A company consists of nothing more or less than its shareholders. The members of the company are its shareholders. The board of directors is there only in a fiduciary capacity to manage the shareholders' money. There can be no antithesis or conflict arising between them in a properly managed company.
  The rest of the hon. Lady's point supported my argument that the effect of the abolition of the dividend tax credit will be that some shareholders—the present gross funds, the institutional shareholders and the poor non-tax-paying individuals whom I mentioned earlier—will put pressure on companies to increase the pay-out ratio over what the board of directors would normally consider its responsibility to decide.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Does my hon. Friend recall that, when there was a 5 per cent. reduction in the ACT credit, the consequence was that, in some cases, pension funds, which own many of the companies, required a higher distribution to compensate for the tax credit that they were no longer receiving? Will he confirm that he has observed the paradoxical element in the proposals, which may lead to a higher distribution, higher dividends
  166
  and higher pay-outs from some of those companies? That goes against the Government's position that profits are better retained.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Davies: I agree with my right hon. Friend. He touches on a minor but intriguing theme of the Budget. When the Labour party goes astray, it usually does so by compounding an initial error made by a previous Conservative Administration. It is true that previous Conservative Administrations made a few mistakes, otherwise I suppose that we should still have a Conservative Administration. The Government seem to have said in so many aspects of the Budget, "You sinned a little, so we will sin a great deal more."
  If the Government had examined the consequences for company pay-out policy following the 5 per cent. reduction in ACT a few years ago, they would have seen that those consequences were exactly the opposite of those advanced by their propaganda machine and so ably represented in the debate by the hon. Member for Dudley, North.
  It has taken some time to deal with the illusions betrayed by the hon. Member for Dudley, North, but I shall return to the essence of the clause and the need for the amendment. One hopes that, before the Treasury made such a disastrous proposal, it considered the consequences of abolishing a dividend tax credit. As we shall probably find later, when we discuss foreign income dividends, little consideration and no consultation took place. The Government must confront the damage that would be caused by the Bill, which was not anticipated and which gives rise to confusion and consternation.
  As for the impact on pensions, one can distinguish five consequences that flow inevitably from the abolition of dividend tax credits. The first is that personal pensioners and those with defined-contribution, as opposed to defined-benefit, occupational pensions—there are millions of people in those two categories—will be significantly worse off.
  It simply will not to do to say that, although those pensioners are worse off because of the abolition of dividend tax credit, they are better off because the stock market has done well over the past few months. That would be thoroughly hypocritical, because the Government have not the faintest intention of reintroducing the dividend tax credit if the stock market should cease to perform so strongly.
  When we introduce tax measures, we must always consider the effect if other things remain equal. If this measure is implemented, those two categories of pensioners—millions of our fellow citizens—will be decisively worse off. We heard an estimate of 12 per cent., which more than justifies my saying significantly worse off. There is no escaping that fact.
  The second category is the defined benefit occupational schemes—the traditional occupational schemes in this country. Again, money is being taken away from them. There is no doubt that someone will be worse off; who will it be? In so far as there is a surplus in those funds, some or all of which might have been allocated to pension benefits of one kind or another, clearly the pensioners in those schemes will be worse off.
  In so far as those pension schemes go from an actuarial surplus to an actuarial deficit because of the necessary writing down in the prospective rate of return on the funds

  167
  that every actuary will have to undertake, the companies that have established those defined benefit schemes will be worse off. Under the law, they will have to make additional contributions.
  I complained about that on Second Reading. I said that it was quite irresponsible for the Government to introduce a proposal that will necessarily have a considerable impact on corporate post-tax profitability without making any estimate of the impact on the corporate sector: to what extent it will reduce corporate profits that are available for investment or distribution. Clearly, the effect will be more than significant—although we do not know whether it will run into many hundreds of millions or many billions of pounds a year.
  It is particularly disingenuous of the Government not to make such an estimate when they make much of the fact that they have reduced the nominal rates of corporation tax in the Budget. It is all very well saying that they will reduce corporation tax by 2 per cent., but if not only the utilities, which are targeted in a discriminatory way and face a substantial increase in their corporate taxation, but other companies, which will have to make additional, unexpected and unbudgeted pension contributions, have a new levy imposed upon them, the net position will be a great deal worse. The net impact of the Budget on the corporate sector will be, without the slightest doubt, negative to the tune of several billions of pounds—although we do not know by how many.
  I invite the Economic Secretary and the Paymaster General to intervene in order to give the House that figure. I shall gladly give way now. The hon. Gentleman merely smiles sheepishly: he has not the faintest intention of satisfying my curiosity. There are two reasons why he will not do that. First, he does not know the figure—in which case, he has not done his homework properly. It is a disgrace that the Treasury should advance proposals of that kind without conducting some elementary costing exercises. Secondly, he may know the figure, but he does not want to tell me. He knows how unpopular the news would be for British industry, which would read it in Hansard tomorrow morning—or perhaps the figure would be announced on the airwaves well before then, as I suspect it would be pretty sensational.
  The more reticent, shifty and evasive the Government become every time I question them about this point, the more I am forced to conclude that they have something nasty to hide. If the figure is not calculated by the Government, it will be calculated in due course by analysts in the City and by the actuaries of the various pension funds involved. It will take many months to aggregate the calculations, but, when they are released, the 1997 Budget will be viewed as a grievous one that imposes substantial burdens on industry.
  Despite all the rhetoric and the Mandelson propaganda about the Government's being friendly to business and wanting investment, their deeds totally belie their words. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) is correct: it is only a matter of time before the British people realise how badly they have been taken in, and then there will be political retribution for the guilty.
  A third inevitable consequence of abolishing dividend tax credits and reducing the yield from pension savings will be fewer pension savings. That is an automatic
  168
  consequence: if one reduces the yield from a particular investment, one reduces the volume of that investment. We shall have fewer pension savings, and no doubt fewer savings as a whole, in this country. I pointed out on Second Reading what a curious move that is at a time when the Government claim that the economy is overheating and when, logically, they should encourage, rather than penalise, savings. Considerable aggregate economic damage will flow from that action.
  The fourth important consequence has been mentioned this afternoon. Some funded occupational pension schemes with defined benefits are in the public sector. Local authorities are a good example—civil servants are not, because they have a pay-as-you-go system. Public sector occupational pension schemes are funded, and therefore will lose the income that is currently represented by dividend tax credits. Some schemes will go into actuarial deficit, or surpluses—where they exist—will decline.
  In the course of debate, some pretty frightening estimates have been given of the extent to which local authorities will have to use council tax payers' money—which would otherwise be used for service provision or debt reduction, in the case of Conservative authorities; I do not think that Labour authorities advocate debt reduction programmes—to make up the solvency of the pension schemes. That automatic increase in public expenditure must be set against the gains in public expenditure as a result of abolishing dividend tax credits.
  Yet we have seen no net figure. It is simply not satisfactory to come to the House with a gross figure for tax yield and not tell us the net figure for the necessary losses in revenue or increases in public expenditure that will flow from the same measure. That is a thoroughly unprofessional, unsatisfactory and shoddy thing to do, and it is simply not good enough.
  Mr. Brooke: I am extremely appreciative of my hon. Friend for giving way again. Does he recall that, when the matter was raised with the Prime Minister on the Floor of the House, he absolutely deflected the question, and said that the problem would be solved by the behaviour of the stock market?
  Mr. Davies: Evasiveness is clearly the hallmark of this Administration, and the Prime Minister's colleagues have followed his example. Perhaps we should allow them some moral mitigation—after all, their leader should bear primary responsibility for the tone he establishes in running the Government. On this and other subjects, that tone has been complete evasiveness, as my right hon. Friend has said. That is an extremely worrying state of affairs.
  The fifth consequence of abolishing dividend tax credits also affects public expenditure—but, again, we have absolutely no estimate of its impact. Clearly, all investment decisions are taken at the margin, and the return from potential investment in personal pensions has been reduced significantly.
  Therefore, it follows that many people who, on the basis of the previous equation, would have opted out of SERPS and into a personal pension scheme, will now not do so. There is much evidence that responsible advisers are warning people not to do that. That will impose a greater burden on SERPS as fewer people will opt out,

  169
  and therefore future public expenditure projections must be revised upwards. However, we do not know by how much.
  Several judgmental assumptions must necessarily be made in this case. When the Paymaster General was the manager of Jaguar, I am sure that he did not allow his finance director, the treasury department or accountants to bring forward budgets without stating their assumptions and calculating the consequences of a particular line of expenditure on a net basis. I am convinced that he did not allow that. Will he intervene now and say that he did? I am sure that he demanded to see the net position. If the net position then had to be calculated on the basis of judgmental assumptions, I presume that he would have demanded to know what they were.
  I think that the Paymaster General was a more successful business man than he is a politician, so he would have queried those assumptions. I am sure that he looked hard at the methodology, and insisted that the job be done properly. He may have said, "I won't employ in Jaguar people who do not do that." However, the hon. Gentleman apparently employs in the Treasury many people who have not even begun to do that work—or perhaps they have done the work and we have not been told the results.
  There is no third, fourth or fifth possibility; it is one of two: either they have not done the job properly—they have not done their basic homework—or they are being less than frank with the public. That fundamental issue runs through the Bill, but nowhere does it pose itself more acutely and more pertinently than in this clause.
  I hope that we now finally receive an answer, from whichever Minister winds up the debate, to that essential question. Which is it: do Ministers not know what the net position is—do they not know what the consequences are of the increases in public expenditure or of the reductions in public revenue that will flow from the clause, set against the potential gains from the dividend tax credit? If they do know, why do they not tell us, and when will they tell us?
  5 pm
  Mr. Damian Green: I cannot aspire to the comprehensive, indeed heroic, coverage of the landscape of the clause that my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) has just achieved, but it is important for the House to consider a few more points as to the inadequacies of the clause and the necessity for the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat—Amory).
  The discussion of the behavioural effects of the proposed change to dividend tax credits has been particularly interesting. Behind much of the Government's argument and, in some cases, behind some of the points made by my right hon. and hon. Friends, is the assumption that the Government, through the clause, may be able to change the way in which companies distribute their profits. The point was made most starkly and most instructively by the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who said, more or less, that all dividend payments were bad, that if shareholders demanded extra dividend payments they were likely to fritter them away and that it was therefore extremely important for the Government to try to direct dividend payments in socially responsible ways, such as towards investment.
  170
  That was instructive in two ways. First, it showed a catastrophically fundamental lack of knowledge of and sympathy with any free-market system, in which the interflow of the needs of investors, companies and different classes of shareholder means that investment goes into the most productive sectors. If history, particularly the UK's history in the past 30 years, teaches us anything, it is that attempts by government to micro-manage the economy to the extent of, for instance, managing flows of dividends always end in disaster.
  Secondly, even beyond that misunderstanding, there was a more important misunderstanding: that by cutting companies' incentive to distribute dividends—by changing the ACT rules in this case—we will produce greater investment and greater research and development.
  Mr. Gibb: Would the Government have bothered to deal with this so-called distortion so early in their term if it were not for the fact that it just happened to raise £5 billion a year as a helpful by-product?
  Mr. Green: My hon. Friend makes an extremely pertinent point. The answer to his question is no, of course not. If the Government's proposal directed investment—which they clearly wish to do—but did not raise any money, they would not have introduced it in this emergency Budget. Clearly the fact that dare not speak its name about this tax increase is that the Government were desperate for revenue and took this route because they thought that it was so technical and directly affected so few people that they would get away with it.
  During the debates both upstairs in Committee and on the Floor of the House, the Government have not got away with it. Those involved—the industries, the pension funds and, perhaps most important, the many millions of pensioners who will be affected by the proposal—are beginning to realise what kind of raid this is on their pension funds. When they extract the £5 billion from those pension funds, the Government will notice that pensioners rebel and condemn the clause as much as we do.
  To return to the direct point about whether this tax grab will have any beneficial effect on the flow of funds in British industry, upstairs, we discussed various academic studies that show that what might be regarded as the populist, intuitive line—that, if we make dividends less attractive, companies will put more of their money into productive, long-term investment—is simply not borne out by any evidence.
  All the evidence shows that the companies that devote most effort to research and development are in particular sectors—pharmaceuticals, health care, engineering and electronics—that those companies do not have any particular dividend policy, and that, if there is any link between dividend distribution and investment in research and development, it is that they go together, which is intuitively plausible as well as being true. Companies that invest for the long term are, over the long term, more profitable. They require capital to continue the flow of investment and the flow of profits. Therefore, they need to keep their shareholders happy, so they have generous dividend payments.
  The basic rationale behind the Government's stated desire—the fig leaf that they use to try to disguise the fact that this is simply a tax grab—is itself wrong. There is no rationale that says that, if we reduce the desirability of paying out profits in dividends, we increase the amount

  171
  of money that goes into research and development; so, even on the Government's own rationale, the clause has no merit.
  If the Government were genuinely interested in the rationale that they state for the clause, they would no doubt give tax credits for research and development. A general principle of Conservative Members—and of the previous Government—is that we want a simpler tax system that reduces corporation tax levels and does not have distortions such as tax credits. In other parts of the Budget, the Government have already shown that, where it suits them, they do not follow that regime. They say that various parts of Bill reduce taxes such as corporation tax and try to simplify the tax system, but when it suits them—as with the film industry—they are happy to introduce tax distortions that they regard as beneficial, so if they were really concerned about research and development they could introduce tax credits.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: While my hon. Friend is on the matter of distortions and pay-out ratios, does he agree that it is damaging for an economy to force companies to retain an excessive rate of profit? If an excessive amount were retained in companies that happened to be generating a lot of cash, not only would it disadvantage their shareholders for reasons that I explained in my speech, but the mobility of capital in the economy as a whole would be reduced and less capital would be available for other parts of the company where growth and investment prospects might be better. It would be an extremely ineffective and unproductive economic mechanism.
  Mr. Green: My hon. Friend is right. The underlying point is that businesses and the people who run them know, by and large, where they should be investing. History tells us that, when politicians and civil servants, however well intentioned, try to interfere in the investment policies of individual businesses, they always get it wrong and make businesses worse off in the long term.
  There is another part to the argument. Many of my hon. Friends have shown that the tax change is damaging to industry, but more important is the effect that it will have on pensioners. Does it help any pensioner? No. Does it damage many pensioners? Yes. Certain classes of pensioner, particularly vulnerable and future pensioners, will be particularly hit.
  Another fig leaf that the Government produced when they introduced the clause was that many pension funds were in surplus, so it did not matter. That betrays a morality which, in itself, is extremely questionable. When Mr. Maxwell decided that surplus pension funds were suitable to be raided for his own purposes, many people rightly found that morally unacceptable. I fail to see the distinction between that and the Government deciding that surplus pension funds are there to be raided. Moreover, while some pension funds are in surplus, many are not, and they will need to find the extra money to increase the pensions available to future generations of pensioners or pay out lower pensions.
  Some classes of business that are important for future job creation, such as small firms, will be particularly hard hit by the measure. In addition, underlying businesses will
  172
  be affected. Many of them may well take a responsible long-term view about how they should treat their employees. They might say that their employees should not be disadvantaged by the Government's rather immoral one-off raid on pension funds. If, as a result, they decide to increase the contribution from the underlying business to the pension fund, the net effect will be that, again, investment and dividend payments are reduced. The firm concerned will be forced to do things with its capital that it would not otherwise do and the overall net wealth of the economy will, in the long term, be reduced.
  Mr. Gibb: Is my hon. Friend aware of another consequence of trying to confiscate surpluses from the nation's pension funds, which is that many vulnerable pensioners receive a discretionary increase from those pension funds in the payment of their pensions because those pension funds are in surplus, but once those surpluses are eliminated there will be far less scope for such discretionary increases to the more vulnerable pensioners in Britain?
  Mr. Green: My hon. Friend makes a good point. A point that I would develop from that is that whether any individual pensioner is particularly hard hit will be arbitrary. It will probably be no consequence of any action taken by the individual pensioner whether he is with a pension fund that is in surplus or in deficit, or whether that pension fund is associated with an underlying company that is or is not able to make up the deficit or is in a position to pay discretionary payments. Because of the arbitrary imposition of the tax, pensioners or future pensioners will suddenly find themselves severely disadvantaged.
  Another point that I want to draw to the attention of the House is the long-term nature of savings for pensions. For most people involved, this hit will come halfway through the process of saving for their pension in old age. Because this measure changes the terms they thought they were saving under, it is effectively retrospective legislation. People may have been saving for 15 or 20 years under a certain set of rules. This measure changes those rules, dating back to the time when a person started to save for a pension. I hope that all hon. Members will agree that retrospective financial legislation is a bad thing.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend touches on an important point. Is not the measure a total misrepresentation, particularly to pensioners who are drawing nearer to retirement who have built up their expectations of their standard of living on a certain pension who will now be denied that level of benefit? They have no time left in their working life to make up the shortfall.
  Mr. Green: That is an extremely good point, and it illustrates the amount of extra uncertainty that is injected into the system. The hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) referred to the fact that, from his experience in the pension industry, the worst that can happen for those running the industry and, more important, for those looking forward to receiving a pension, is an increase in uncertainty. Uncertainty is precisely what this tax increase introduces into the system.
  Another effect of the measure is flatly contradictory to much of the rhetoric that we hear from the Government Front Bench, particularly the reforms favoured by the

  173
  Minister for Welfare Reform, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). He believes that there should be greater personal responsibility for savings and he wants the welfare state to move more towards the application of personal savings.
  One definite effect of the clause, because of the uncertainty that it introduces, is that people will be discouraged from taking that route; they will want to take what they regard as a safer route. If at any time a Government can come along and take £5 billion out of the pension fund industry and possibly damage personal pensions, people will feel more reluctant than they were before to go down the route of personal savings to provide for themselves in old age or in times of illness or unemployment.
  5.15 pm
  What is proposed shows the enormous gap between rhetoric and reality in the Government. We hear a lot of rhetoric about an increase in personal responsibility and modernising the welfare state, but a couple of weeks after taking power the Government introduced an emergency Budget that marches strongly in the opposite direction. The Government have failed to come up with any rationale in terms of their own rhetoric on welfare for taking this action.
  Companies will be badly affected by this measure, particularly small companies and companies that take the honourable route of trying to subsidise their own pension funds. Existing pensioners will be worse off, and future pensioners will be more uncertain about the life that they will be able to live in their old age. This is a thoroughly bad clause which at the very least needs amending.
  Mr. Tim Loughton: As a new boy, I might be forgiven for feeling rather frustrated. For 26 hours, members of the Finance Bill Standing Committee went through the Bill clause by clause. My hon. Friends may have felt during those 26 hours that we had strayed on to the set of "The Woodentops", such was the level of debate not forthcoming from the Government Benches.
  I was almost encouraged that some of those mutes appeared to have found their voices today. Alas, the one who did find his voice—the hon. Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Cranston)—appears swiftly to have disappeared. I can only hope that the reason for his disappearance is the former of two probabilities—the first, that he has gone to the Library to check some of his facts, which have been found to be sorely lacking or, secondly, that his pager has summoned him to Mandelson towers, whither he has hurried hotfoot, quickly shoving a copy of the Order Paper down the back of his trousers to mitigate the consequences of speaking out of turn.
  Particularly galling is the fact that the hon. Member for Dudley, North, the only one to venture any opinions on the matter, has completely and utterly—either by choice or out of ignorance—misunderstood and ignored what we spent much of those 26 hours upstairs debating in fine detail. For his benefit, in case he reads Hansard tomorrow, and those few of his colleagues who have bothered to turn up, I want to go through, step by step, the serious implications of these clauses to a deep stratum of companies, pension funds and individuals.
  Last week, I drew on the example of a large FTSE company, one of the largest employers in my constituency, SmithKline Beecham. Despite being a large
  174
  multinational company, typically its pension fund was only about 93 per cent. covered at its last actuarial valuation. We know that, from an actuarial valuation basis, if the ACT credits are lost, the fund will be severely less fully funded than it currently is, but what are the options for the trustees of a pension fund such as that of SmithKline Beecham?
  First, it can have a much less well funded pension fund and in due course be hauled up under the minimum funding requirements. Secondly, it could choose, if it is feeling generous towards its pension holders, to stump up the difference and underwrite the shortfall that will be exacerbated by the Government's moves. The cash injection required to do that will amount to approximately 7.5 per cent. of last year's pre-tax profits. That is not a good way to go about maximising funds for investment, something about which we heard so much from the hon. Member for Dudley, North.
  What will this mean for SmithKline Beecham? To enhance shareholder value, it will probably have to launch a share buy-back programme, for which it will have to borrow money when interest rates are rising. That does not leave a great deal of extra money for investment, which is so important. It will have less money to pay out in dividends—which Labour Members apparently so resent. It will have less money for research and development, which is also important. Labour Members refuse to contemplate introducing a tax credit against research and development expenditure, as operates with varying degrees of success in France and the United States. It will have less money for expansion. I cannot envisage any way in which the Bill will increase the opportunities for that company to improve on its already enormous research and development expenditure.
  The problem will be compounded by any tightening of the minimum funding requirements that the Government may introduce. Although that may not apply to SmithKline Beecham, there are less scrupulous smaller companies with pension funds that may put pressure on their actuaries so that there is a less stringent requirement to top up the pension fund, which may then mask the real nature of those funds. Less scrupulous pension fund managers may switch their pensioners out of defined benefit schemes into money purchase options, which are then open to the vagaries of the stock market and the underlying investments in the schemes.
  The proposals will have especially harmful effects on many large, previously nationalised—or still nationalised—companies, all of which operate in Labour-held constituencies. As I have said, the old National Coal Board pension fund is worth a whopping £20 billion and looks after 500,000 former miners. It does not attract new funds, but it still has a great deal to pay out from a diminishing pot of money. The same goes, to a lesser extent, for the Post Office, with a £12 billion fund and 350,000 employees and former employees; for the steel industry; and for many formerly large engineering companies. The pension funds of all those companies will suffer.
  Let us consider the impact on dividend payouts. SmithKline Beecham had a 15.9p full-year dividend last year. What options are open to it now? It could pay a reduced dividend to its shareholders. Because it will not get the advance corporation tax credit, the impact will fall on its shareholders, who will receive a dividend worth 20 per cent. less. That is certainly true for pension funds now and for individual shareholders from 1999. Its own

  175
  pension fund will suffer as it understandably holds a large number of SmithKline Beecham shares, within the limits allowed. It will be a double whammy.
  Shareholders will suffer immediately and investors will be less attracted to the equity issue, so the cost of capital to borrow goes up, which means equity finance is more expensive, which again affects the capacity of those companies to expand and spend more money on research and development and investing overseas. As raising capital is a speciality of the City of London, it will be a loser under the proposed measures.
  SmithKline Beecham may feel generous. It may feel able to pay out that 20 per cent. lost ACT credit in a higher net dividend to its shareholders. It would be exceedingly generous of that company to do so, but the effect would be less money in the pot for the important investment that the Labour party goes on about—so yet again, the measures are self-defeating.
  What about the impact on individuals? I have already said that people with occupational pension schemes who rely on money purchase arrangements where companies are not making up the difference will be instant victims. Private pensions, which are unlikely to be in surplus, such is the nature of those schemes, will be hit to the tune of 11 per cent. The Association of Consulting Actuaries calculates that about half of final salary schemes will be in deficit and individual schemes will be hit as well. The implication is that pensions will be worth less at a time when the Government have just issued a new basis for encouraging further private pension provision.
  The right hand of the Treasury appears not to know—or chooses to ignore—what the left hand of the Social Security Department is doing. Again, it will be self-defeating. Last week, we heard in detail about the implications for the investment trust and unit trust industry. Holders of those investments will be doubly hit by the changes.
  The upshot is that the measures will undermine individuals' ability to retire early. They will undermine the great clichè of the flexible decade of retirement that we were promised by Labour before the election. Individuals with private pension schemes who already contribute the maximum are given no option to contribute more to make up the ACT shortfall. There have been no changes to the limits. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) said, there will be a serious impact as people will no longer be incentivised to contract out of the state earnings-related pension scheme and may indeed now contract back in.
  There will be an impact on local authority pension schemes. We have had some mixed messages from Labour Members on that issue. My local authority, West Sussex county council, has already estimated that lost ACT credit is likely to cost it £3.4 million. Half of that will be down to the county council; half will be down to the district councils in West Sussex. It comes to about 5 per cent. of the annual payroll for West Sussex. We have received no assurances that that shortfall will be made up.
  I want briefly to read from a letter from Sir Jeremy Beecham, the chairman of the Local government Association, to the leader of West Sussex county council.
  He said:
  "I am pleased to be able to report that the Association correctly anticipated the Chancellor's announcement"—
  176
  very good Mystic Meg qualities; he obviously gets the Financial Times well in advance of most hon. Members—
  "and had made representations to the Government about the adverse impact on local authority pension funds in advance of the Budget.
  The Government has accepted that the loss of tax credits will need to be taken into account in determining local authority provision for 1999/2000 and subsequent years. We are, however, continuing to press the Government on this point and are asking for the increase to be fully underwritten by an increase in TSS and Government grant from 1999/2000 when the results of the next revaluation are implemented."
  However, when the chairman of the UKSC, now the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman), claimed it as a great triumph that local authorities would be underwritten for any shortfall of ACT credits, there was a great deal on squirming on the Government Front Bench and the assurance was not repeated. We have been given no firm commitment by the Government, upstairs, downstairs on in any lady's chamber, that the shortfall will be underwritten. We know that the result can only be increased council taxes, which also depend on what the Government do on capping, or further cuts in local authority services.
  Mr. Gibb: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is astonishing that the Red Book takes into account the extra pension contributions that companies will be required to pay because of the measure—it is stated on page 46 that there will be a consequent reduction in corporation tax—but that it makes absolutely no provision for the extra contributions that local authorities will have to pay so that they can balance their pension funds?
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Loughton: Of course it is astonishing—but then everything that Ministers have loosely said about their intentions to deal with local government pension funds has been quite astonishing. We have heard that the full implications for local authority pension funds will not really be known until next year, but—as any reasonable, responsible council leader or local authority pension fund trustee will say—it is prudent for all local authorities to have as soon as possible an ad hoc valuation of the very real damage that will be done.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that not only is it desirable to make up those contributions but the prescriptions governing rules of local government pension funds require trustees to make an informal valuation each year? If they feel that there is a shortfall, they must make it up each year—not when the next actuarial valuation is due.
  Mr. Loughton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Ministers' sense of urgency in the matter has been positively snail-like and quite disgraceful. Yet again, local authorities have been left on their own to assess ways of making up the damage. The Government have left local government in a disgraceful position.
  On a related subject, I have a copy of a letter from the Minister for Local Government and Housing to the hon. Member for Putney in which she wrote:
  "We spoke briefly last night about the impact of the Budget on local authority pension funds.
  Pension funds should benefit from improved company performance as a result of encouraging quality long term investment, reflected in long term share values. The reduction in Corporation Tax announced yesterday will greatly assist company performance."

  177
  In my experience in dealing in investment matters, every promise of investment performance had to contain the qualification that past performance should not be taken as a guarantee of future performance or gains. The Minister for Local Government and Housing, however, apparently takes stock market gains for granted and holds the sentiment, "Don't worry about what we have done, boys, because any shortfalls will be compensated by our great friends in the City—new Labour, new stockbrokers. Our great friends at the temple of Mammon—the stock market—will bail us out."
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) asked, however, will the Government reverse their decision when the stock market starts going down? In Committee, I elaborated on the fact that the UK stock market rise has been something of a mirage compared with the much greater rises in other major markets, and that that has had a particularly significant impact on multinational companies, the share prices of which, in many cases, have fallen alarmingly.
  The Government's measures will have a serious impact in four spheres—resulting in a quadruple whammy for companies and their company pensions funds, for beneficiaries of those pension funds, for ordinary people with private pension funds, and, inevitably, for anyone who pays council tax. It is entirely fallacious to suggest that dividend payment levels have positively discouraged investment, because those levels and investment are not mutually exclusive. I have already mentioned how a comprehensive study has shown that, in the vast majority of the past 18 years, dividend payments rose as investment rose.
  Let us leave the final word to the former chairman of a major quoted engineering technology company. On the first page of the company's report and accounts for last year, the second strategic objective was described as achieving
  "sustained growth in dividends per share."
  In his report, the chairman was quite proud to report a dividend rate increase of 15 per cent. over the previous year, when he was able also to increase investment in the company by well over the 15 per cent. dividend increase rate.
  The chairman believes that dividend payments and investment are not mutually exclusive, and that dividend payments are a major incentive for equity finance—which is one of the cheapest and most cost-effective ways of producing funds for expansion and research and development—and I believe him. I trust that his colleagues on the Labour Benches will believe him also, because that former chairman of TransTec plc is now the Paymaster General. It is a shame that he is not in the Chamber to echo the words that he wrote only a few months ago in his own company's report and accounts. I hope that one of the few Labour Members remaining in the Chamber for this debate might pick him up on those points.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: The change to advance corporation tax amounts to an income tax of 20 per cent. on pension schemes that hold equities. ACT is paid because the taxpayer suffers an income tax rebate of 20 per cent., which is collected by a corporation on behalf of the Treasury. The tax change is therefore a severe raid on people's pension funds.
  178
  I shall dwell on the effects of the change on local authority pension funds. As I said in an intervention on the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), on 21 June 1997 I received a written answer from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions stating that the next actuarial valuation for local government pension funds would be in March 1988. The Government therefore included the measure in the Budget, although they had no idea—if they did, perhaps the Minister will tell us—of the precise costs and implications for local government.
  Various calculations have been made of the measure's costs to local government, the most accurate of which is perhaps that provided by the chief executive of the London Pension Fund Association—who, as a member of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, is a professional in the field. He has calculated that the combined cost to local authorities will be £200 million to £400 million. The effect for most local authorities, including mine, will be increases in council tax bills of between £10 and £12.
  Mr. Richard Cockcroft, whose current title is director of corporate services for Gloucestershire county council—it is a job to keep up with his title, because he keeps giving himself new jobs—has made the point that the next actuarial valuations will be made in March 1998. He states that an informal survey was conducted on behalf of the United Kingdom steering committee, which showed
  "that the average County Council was less than 90 per cent. funded".
  Therefore—far from being one of the 50,000 companies with a pension fund surplus mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—the local authority sector is in deficit and must quickly make up the shortfall.
  Richard Cockcroft goes on to say that, even before the Budget measures, Gloucestershire county council was
  "already contributing an additional £1m a year to rectify the situation, with the fund's other employers"—
  the district councils—
  "also having to contribute significant extra amounts."
  He states that preliminary discussions showed that actuarial costs for the county council would be
  "at least another £2m a year, with the District Councils in total being faced with similar additional costs."
  Moreover, he states—as I said in an intervention on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton)—that the
  "Regulations governing Local Government Scheme require all 'actuarial deficits' to be made good by the employer."
  Mr. Cockcroft continues:
  "Without some form of assistance, I can see no option but for those additional pension contributions being made at the expense of 'front line' services."
  He states that, alternatively, council taxes could be increased. A third option, of course, would be to increase local authority standard spending assessments.
  This is a serious matter, because the Government announced in the Budget that they would stick to the previous Government's targets for the next two years. If they do so, it means that there will be no extra money for local authorities to meet their additional burdens. Local authorities will therefore have to bear those burdens themselves. If, as they said the other day, the Government are going to apply strict capping criteria and not allow council taxes to be increased above very tight limits,

  179
  the extra contributions will have to come straight out of the money for front-line services. I hope that council tax payers and the recipients of such services across the country will be made aware that their services will deteriorate solely because the Government have introduced this new measure.
  Mr. David Ruffley: I suggest that the position is in fact even worse than my hon. Friend describes. Given the change in the forecast for inflation, it is estimated that there is a cut of between 1 and 2 per cent. in real terms in the amount of central Government grant to local authorities. That is estimated to be a cut of about £570 million this year, and double that the following year. Is not the position therefore rather more grievous for local authorities than my hon. Friend described?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that important point. It is all very well to stick to an expenditure programme in nominal terms, but in real terms—after inflation has been taken into account—the situation is in fact far worse. I suspect that that is why the format of the Red Book was changed this year so that it does not include departmental spending totals, as that makes it easier to work out what the shortfall is next year and, indeed, the year after. The effect will be the same in other Departments that have to make up shortfalls in pension contributions to pension schemes within their remit. Those Departments include, for example, the Department of Health.
  While I am on the subject, it is worth pointing out that there is a local authority pension time bomb. There are many completely unfunded local government pension schemes. For example, firemen have no funded scheme at all—not that the change which we are discussing will affect them—but in view of the demographic changes and the fact that people are living longer, each departmental budget is being increasingly stretched to make up an ever greater shortfall in pension funds each year. The Government will have to take that into account.
  We shall have to wait and see, but this measure may well depress by up to 20 per cent. the value of the equities held by pension funds. I hope that that does not happen, because it would be very serious for many pension funds. Should it happen, it has been calculated that the capital value of pension funds would fall by about 11 per cent. which, I believe, pension fund trustees would be required to make up in the first year. Some employer and employee contributions will therefore have to increase steeply this coming year.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) mentioned the effect on different types of pension scheme. The objective of a defined pension scheme is to ensure that the pensioner receives a defined benefit when he retires. If he suddenly finds that the performance of his fund is 20 per cent. less than expected, he has two options: he can either accept a 20 per cent. diminution in the value of his fund at the time of retirement or, over a period, make up the shortfall in his contributions.
  As I mentioned in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), that is all very well for us youngsters, because we have plenty of time to make
  180
  up any shortfall. However, someone who is within three or four years of retirement—this is true of many of my constituents, because I live in an area which has an elderly population—has virtually no opportunity to make up such a shortfall, because he will not earn enough to do so before his retirement. He will therefore retire on a false prospectus. Such pensioners have reason to feel aggrieved about the Government's proposal.
  5.45 pm
  Of course, the effects depend on the balance of the individual fund. I must make it clear that what happens depends on how the individual fund is structured—the proportion of its investments in equities and the proportion in other fixed or variable interest-bearing stocks. I suspect that one of the effects of the proposal will be to force pension fund trustees to consider other interest-bearing fund stocks—for example, gilt-edged stocks—and increase the proportion of such stocks in their funds. Over time, I suspect that that will mean that the performance of such funds will not be as good as it would have been had they continued to invest the norm of 55 per cent. of their funds in equities.
  Whether institutional investors require companies to pay out their increased dividends to make up the 20 per cent. shortfall or retain the money in their company retained profits, the effect will be distorting. A simple switch out of the equity market of a proportion of the pension funds sounds fairly innocuous, but the Government should bear in mind the combined value of the pension funds—a switch of that nature over a relatively short period could cause a dramatic downturn on the equity market.
  I deal finally with a matter that has not yet been mentioned—the combined effect of the ACT credit withdrawals and the changes to foreign income dividends proposed for 1999. In 1993, Norman Lamont, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, introduced the foreign dividend scheme to enable companies with large earnings on their foreign trading activities to mop up the surplus ACT on those dividends. To the extent that they were able to pay out foreign income dividends, they could mop up the surplus, but, should they not be able to pay out FIDs in future as a result of a measure that we shall debate later this evening, companies would find that they could not reclaim the surplus ACT that they had paid to the Treasury. That is monstrous.
  As I explained at the outset, ACT is paid because the individual taxpayer is getting tax credit on his income. To the extent that the Exchequer is gaining from surplus ACT—more ACT than the income tax credit paid—it is monstrous that companies are not able to reclaim the surplus. I hope that, when we debate foreign income dividends, that point will be highlighted.
  I believe that the Government are seriously rethinking how they will operate the foreign income dividend scheme. I hope that, when further amendments are tabled, perhaps in the other place, the Government will consider the serious effect on some companies that we wish to encourage to make a profit and to repatriate that profit. It would be bizarre if companies were discouraged from repatriating their profits or, indeed, even encouraged to demerge their foreign subsidiaries or if the foreign subsidiaries were taken over by a foreign concern which could then remit the money into this country but not suffer

  181
  tax damage as a consequence. That would indeed be a bizarre and perverse consequence of the proposed changes.
  The ACT proposal is the most far-reaching measure in the Budget. To take some £5.5 billion from the pensions and hard-earned savings of the poorest people in this country is a cruel deception. Most people are not able to understand this highly complex tax, but they will understand when they suddenly find their standard of living and their income reduced. I hope that, when they realise that, they will protest loudly against the changes that the Government have introduced. I have no doubt that that will hasten the demise of the Government and the return of a Conservative Government at the next election.
  Mrs. Liddell: I must confess that, during the two hours or so that we have spent discussing the amendments, an irritating refrain has been going through my head. It is an old song and I hope that the Library will be able to remind me of its words. It goes something like, "I think I may have heard this song before."
  In the past couple of hours, we have heard the same speeches to which we listened in Committee, not once, not twice, but on a number of occasions. However, we missed the presence of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). We send our good wishes to his mother, about whom we heard a great deal in Committee. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) told us at great length about the pleasures of English wine. His constituents may find that extremely interesting, but mine are more concerned about a secure future for the economy.
  I found it interesting that the shadow Chancellor opened the debate today. He made much of the fact that, by convention, the Chancellor and the shadow Chancellor do not sit on Committees considering the Finance Bill. He is correct in that. I wonder how much of a precedent it is to field the shadow Chancellor against a junior Treasury Minister. That shows that the right hon. Gentleman has a lack of confidence in his own troops. He still has not answered the point that was made repeatedly in Committee: why, if ACT is so important, did the previous Conservative Government change it?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Lady makes a political point as to why my right hon. Friend did not address the Committee. He gave her a perfectly cogent answer. However, he has appeared here today: are we entitled to ask when the Chancellor of the Exchequer might take part in our proceedings?
  Mrs. Liddell: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is currently engaged in other Government business. I take it as a great compliment to his team that he did not consider it necessary to address the House today. The fact that we have such a substantial majority means that we have sufficient Members to staff Committees.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. Liddell: No. I shall make some progress; no doubt I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
  This evening, we have discussed what are, in effect, wrecking amendments. Their effect would be to allow pension funds to continue to receive tax credits until April 1999. After that, payments would be phased out over five years.
  182
  I am pleased that, at long last, the Opposition have apparently accepted the principle that the damaging distortion of payroll tax credits should be removed, albeit over a more extended period. That hardly seems logical, but we do not expect logic from the Opposition. That is about all that I can say about the amendments, as they are technically deficient in a number of ways. They would only save the payment of tax credits for companies, when most pension funds do not work in that way. They also purport to allow pension funds to continue to receive payment of tax credits after 1999 at a rate of 21 per cent., when by then the rate of tax credit will have been reduced by 10 per cent.
  Their inadequacies are not really the point, however. The amendments are designed to wreck the carefully constructed package of corporation tax reforms that we have laid before the House. I referred to the fact that the shadow Chancellor has not been able to say why, if tax credits are so vital, the Conservative Government reduced them. It is clear that tax credits were lowered in order to fill a black hole in the Government's finances. Our changes to the corporation tax structure will assist business by ensuring that there is a reduction in the rate of corporation tax for large and small companies.
  It is clear that Opposition Members still do not accept the need for stability and the conditions for long-term growth. That comes as no surprise after 18 years of a Conservative Government who were wedded to the concept of boom and bust. Frankly, people do not want that to continue, and that is precisely why they elected a Labour Government on 1 May.
  Mr. Gibb: How is it stable for a family that, under the new Labour Government, has to pay an extra £10 a month because of the Government's decision to abolish mortgage interest relief at source, and an extra £20 on the mortgage because of three interest rate rises, and now needs to find another £20 a month because of clause 19, which will result in higher pension contributions? How can a family find an extra £50 a month if it did not have £50 surplus in its pay slip before the Budget?
  Mrs. Liddell: I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman, who prides himself on being a technician. If that is the level of his expertise, for the sake of his clients, I am grateful that he is in the House.
  Earlier in the debate, the shadow Chancellor acknowledged that all the rhetoric is pointless. When I challenged him specifically about whether a future Conservative Government would reintroduce ACT, he refused to make any such commitment. That sums it all up. What we have seen here is posturing. Throughout the Standing Committee, Opposition Members were posturing without raising any points of substance.
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Lady berates my caution in not making commitments at this stage in a Parliament. What has she to say of the present Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. Denham), who, only months before the general election, gave a clear and explicit assurance to people in the City that the Labour Government had no plans to introduce this very measure?
  Mrs. Liddell: The right hon. Gentleman is the shadow Chancellor, and his hon. Friends have subjected us to

  183
  weeks of scaremongering. The hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) legitimately made the point that the worst thing that we can do to pensioners is to introduce uncertainty. The only uncertainty that has been introduced has been created by the scaremongering of Opposition Members. If they were so wedded to the concept of ACT, why in 1993 did the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) say that it was the least damaging way for the Government to raise money?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Liddell: No. I must make some progress.
  The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden referred to the mis-selling of pensions. He did it with a straight face. We should like to know how it was that the previous Administration had eight years to act on the mis-selling of pensions, but did not do so. They sat on their hands. That shows how much they were concerned about the impact of the mis-selling of pensions.
  The shadow Chancellor made some dubious comments about his visit to Uxbridge and the number of pensioners there who would be affected by the measure. He did not tell us how many pensioners in Uxbridge had been mis-sold pensions and how many of them had died without the problem being solved. We do not take lectures from Opposition Members who have been responsible for the biggest financial scandal this century.
  The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden talked about how local authority pension schemes will hit council tax payers. That theme has come up repeatedly in debate. Yet again, I should like to put it on record—I know that Opposition Members do not like listening to the facts—that any impact on local authority budgets will not apply until after the next revaluation in March 1998. I say to the hon. Member for North Tayside that, in Scotland, revaluation will take place a year later than that, so the earliest effect will be between 1998 and 2000. Any impact on budgets will depend on decisions taken by actuaries.
  Mr. Ruffley: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Liddell: No, I am going to make some progress.
  Any impact on budgets depends not just on the actuarial impact of changes in ACT but on the impact on company performance of the reduction in corporation tax.
  Much has been made of the letter that my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing sent in relation to the impact on local authority pension funds. This time, I shall quote from that letter—and I quote accurately. I had the letter in front of me while Opposition Members were trying to quote it, and I found a wide discrepancy between what they said and the facts. The letter states specifically:
  "The Government will take all these factors into account in determining he level of local authority provision for that and subsequent years."
  That to me is quite clear-cut.
  Mr. Loughton: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  6 pm
  Mrs. Liddell: No, I want to make some progress.
  A number of hon. Members, especially the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, talked about the briefing paper of the Association of Consulting Actuaries. It has been much prayed in aid in the debate. I understand that the consulting actuaries have now acknowledged that they failed to take into account the effect of the 2 per cent. cut in corporation tax rates. They also failed to take into account the distortion to which tax credits led and the preference that pension funds had for dividends rather than capital gains.
  Despite all the hyperbole and invective of Opposition Members, the reality is that pension schemes are still very favoured by the tax system. There is tax relief for contributions, plus tax-free build-up, plus a tax-free lump sum where that is part of a scheme. It is important to get a sense of perspective into the debate.
  The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) claimed that pension funds would shift out of United Kingdom equities. The decisions that pension funds take are for them. Rational investors put their money where the return is greatest. In international comparisons, the UK still has a very high dividend yield. From 1992 to 1996, the return in UK equities was higher than that in foreign equities, even without the payment of tax credits.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Cranston) made one of his very perceptive speeches in which he talked about the impact on investment of retained profits. We have returned to that point repeatedly. Although it is always very interesting to listen to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies)—once one gets beyond the hyperbole, one often finds that he has something to contribute to the debate because of his expertise and experience—he argued in circles about decisions that companies will take on the future of investment. The Government make the point that it is up to companies to decide what is to their long-term benefit as against distributed profits or retained profits.
  The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton made a most impassioned speech about the operation of free markets. For a free market to operate effectively, it has to operate without distortion. Frankly, his argument is fallacious.
  I turn to a point made by the hon. Member for North Tayside.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Liddell: Yes, I promised that I would.
  Mr. Davies: Does the hon. Lady agree that the abolition of dividend tax credit involves the institution of double taxation in many circumstances? Double taxation is, by definition, a distortion.
  Mrs. Liddell: I shall come to that in a minute.
  I first want to reply to a point made by the hon. Member for North Tayside, who referred to Standard Life. He said that it was delaying quoting transfer values for people changing occupational pension schemes and claimed that that was due to loss of tax credits. A number of factors affect transfer values for people moving from one

  185
  occupational pension scheme to another. Share values and general dividend levels, which have been changing substantially over the year, are just as important as issues such as tax credits. There is no reason for Budget changes to cause any serious delay in the quotation of transfer values.
  Mr. Swinney: The point which I was making was that, as the hon. Lady correctly identified earlier, a variety of factors will bear on decisions made by actuaries. No one factor can be isolated. If the Government introduce a measure that increases uncertainty in the entire decision-making process of actuaries, they must accept some responsibility for the disruption that that causes in the marketplace.
  Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman is contradicting the point that he made in his speech. He referred to the need for long-term stability. As long as there is distortion in the tax system, there are automatically preconditions for instability. The change would mean a move to greater long-term stability. The minute that the previous Government started altering the rate of tax credits, a process of uncertainty began. If we want a coherent corporation tax policy, the logical next step is to get rid of tax credits.
  I turn to the point made by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford about double taxation of pension funds. There is no such double taxation. The basis of imputation will continue as it is now. Where individual shareholders are taxable on dividends that they receive from a UK company, they will continue to get a tax credit to set against that liability. That mitigates any double taxation. Pension funds, however—this is the point that the hon. Gentleman was seeking to make, but he confused the two matters—are usually exempt from tax. There is no tax charge on exempt pension funds when they receive dividends, so there is no double taxation.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I think that the hon. Lady has seriously misunderstood the basis of corporation tax. The whole purpose of a dividend tax credit is indeed to ensure that pension funds are not taxed. Now, they are having tax deducted in the form of ACT, which is not being refunded to them. They have therefore suffered a tax on their dividends. The hon. Lady has not understood the basis of her own tax system.
  Mrs. Liddell: Frankly, that is nonsense, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. I congratulate him on being able to say it with a straight face. To the extent that pension funds are not exempt from taxation, they can set any tax credit against their liability, just like anybody else. In the debate on 9 July, I believe that he suggested that pension funds were being taxed on their dividends. That is not so.
  I turn to another point made by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford about pensioners and pension funds being worse off, "if other things remain equal". We are all familiar with that phrase. Other things are not remaining equal. We are cutting corporation tax rates and boosting capital allowances as part of the package. That means that we are not only removing a damaging distortion but encouraging more and better investment, to the benefit of the UK economy in the long term.
  Mr. Davies: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Liddell: No, I want to make some progress. I am very anxious to do so because I know that Opposition Members wish to debate other matters. I have already given way a number of times.
  I should like to take up one other point that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford made about whether companies will have to make higher pension contributions to defined benefit pension schemes. There should be no effect on many companies until the next actuarial valuation of their pension schemes, which could be as far as three years away. What is more, removing a distortion benefits the pension funds, because they get a more stable corporate base on which to develop investment.
  Mr. Davies: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. Liddell: No. The hon. Gentleman made a great contribution in Committee, but he tends to make the same speech, about how companies that invest in research and development pay dividends. If I have made the point to him once, I have made it half a dozen times: yes, many companies that distribute dividends spend money on R and D—but they would do that anyway, because they are large global companies with large reserves to spend on that activity. The change affects specifically the smaller high-tech companies that the distortion has forced to distribute dividends, when it would have been more effective for them to retain the money.
  The gracelessness of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham has marked our debates. On behalf of his hon. Friends, I must testify to the fact that he has been most insulting to them, describing them as "woodentops". I accept that several of them are new to the House, but they tried hard, and the fact that the hon. Gentleman used that description may suggest that he has been indulging a little too much in the English wine about which he talked earlier.
  The Leader of the Opposition has talked several times about why the previous Government fared so badly in the general election, and has made it clear that features such as arrogance and a lack of humility put the voters off. Perhaps the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham does not care what the right hon. Gentleman thinks—perhaps he supports the prince across the water—but I must tell him that, when people look at the House and see the condescension that was portrayed in his speech, they tend to tar us all, not only on the Opposition side but on the Government side, with the same brush.
  To summarise, we have seen in the debate an attempt to replay the Standing Committee. The shadow Chancellor said that we were ramming the Bill through the House. That is nonsense. Considerable time was given in Standing Committee. That must be so, because I now have an intimate knowledge of the family tree of the hon. Member for Daventry, we have been taken up and down the Orinoco by various members of the Committee, and I also now have a considerable knowledge of English wine, which may lead me to sample it in the next few weeks. However, what we have not heard are convincing arguments about why the Government should not make the change. I therefore ask the House to reject the amendment.
  Mr. Lilley: I am sorry that the Minister is made to feel so inadequate by my presence at the Dispatch Box.

  187
  I assure her that she does not need to feel that way. When I held her post, I certainly did not possess the brazen self-confidence that she brings to it—but then I never had to convince the House that taking £5 billion out of long-term investment would somehow encourage increased investment.
  It is undoubtedly a great help to the hon. Lady to have the effrontery that she no doubt picked up in Glasgow politics and elsewhere.
  Mrs. Liddell: I feel that, for the sake of my constituents in Airdrie and Shotts, I must make the point that not only am I not a Glaswegian, but I live between Glasgow and Edinburgh, and my constituency lies between Glasgow and Edinburgh. There is no greater affront to a Lanarkshire lassie than to suggest that she is a Glaswegian.
  Mr. Lilley: I apologise unreservedly to the hon. Lady, and look forward to the repercussions that her remarks may have among her hon. Friends. I should say that such Scots blood as I have comes from the same part of Scotland from which she comes, so I have no excuse for having made that mistake.
  I must return to the essential issue that faced us throughout the Committee stage. There have been only 12 working days between the publication of the Bill and today, the end of Report. That compares with an average of about 77 days during the preceding 18 years of our consideration of Finance Bills.
  That is a measure of how compressed has been the time within which people outside the House have been invited to make representations. My hon. Friends have done sterling work in Committee in exposing the inadequacies and putting forward reasoned arguments and propositions, but they have had to do so without backing, without being able to mobilise the considerable unease felt in the country as a whole. People have not had the time they have had in previous years to make representations.
  6.15 pm
  That is all the more alarming because—I have already exposed this fact—the Government have introduced in this measure the biggest of the 17 tax increases that they have made, in flat contradiction of specific promises and assurances given by Front-Bench Labour spokesmen only a few months before the election.
  That is another reason why the Minister needs her brazen effrontery. When faced with the truth, she goes into auto-rant about the defects of other people. The fact is that the people who now form the Government made promises to the British electorate that they have broken, and for which they will be held to account.
  The hon. Lady pretends that the measure involves some high-minded purpose to do with fiscal neutrality—but it is not fiscally neutral to take £5 billion out of pension funds. Nothing that she has said, or can say, can convince us that it is. She has not answered the Primarolo paradox. If the measure is harmless, why is it essential to protect charities from its impact? The Financial Secretary to the Treasury could not explain that, and the Economic Secretary has not been able to do so either.
  188
  The hon. Lady took up the issue of mis-selling, from which she sometimes shrinks when it is raised from the Opposition Dispatch Box in such debates, although she had the effrontery to say that she would take no lectures from us on the subject. I shall certainly take no lectures from a former public affairs director of the Maxwell group during the four crucial years when Maxwell was ripping off surpluses throughout the country in a way that the Government now seek to emulate.
  When I became Secretary of State for Social Security, the biggest issue that I faced was the Maxwell—[Interruption.] I got the money back for the pensioners, including the Minister—every penny of it. Not one of those pensioners had to suffer a penny's loss. That is why we will take no lectures, especially on this issue, from a Government who reassure pensioners by putting a former Maxwell employee in charge of dealing with mis-selling, who appoint as a Government spokesman someone who was previously Maxwell's fearless seeker after truth—Alastair Campbell—and who employ Lord Donoughue, one of his cronies, as another Minister. I am afraid that this is not an issue on which we shall take lectures from them.
  We want to know the answers to our questions. Will what the Government have done encourage people to opt back into the state earnings-related pension scheme system, as we are convinced it will, and as are all the experts whose testimony I have read out? Do the Government agree that that will be the impact? Was that their intention? Have they made any calculation of the number of people who will be persuaded to opt back in?
  Will that number be equal to the number who ought to opt back in? If not, will it constitute mis-selling that those who are not properly informed and persuaded to do that, despite the change in their circumstances, will be left outside with pensions less adequate than those that they could have received inside, because of the changes?
  The other big issue that has come up in the debate is the impact of the measures on local authorities. We have received no satisfactory response from the Government Front Benchers to the issues raised by their own Back Benchers as well as ours, and by Labour as well as by Conservative councils throughout the country.
  Council tax payers need to be reassured that the change will not inevitably feed through into higher council tax when hundreds of millions of pounds extra are required every year to ensure that local authority employees receive the pensions that the boroughs, the districts and the county councils have promised them. It is just not good enough for the Minister to say, "Oh, we shall not know the cost for a year or so; therefore, we need not take any action or inform everybody about the impact now."
  This is a very important issue. Some £5 billion of tax revenue is to be raised for no purpose other than to be spent in future, because Labour Governments only tax now to spend later. The Government are acting in clear breach of their election promises, and in a way that will disadvantage members of occupational and personal pension schemes and leave them in ignorance of how the change will affect them. Our amendments would help to remedy some of those defects, and we urge the House to support amendment No. 16 in the Division Lobby.
  Questions put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 168, Noes 328.

  Division No. 71]

  [6.20 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Hammond, Philip

  Arbuthnot, James

  Harvey, Nick

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Heald, Oliver

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Baker, Norman

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Baldry, Tony

  Horam, John

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Bercow, John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Body, Sir Richard

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Boswell, Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Brady, Graham

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Brake, Thomas

  Keetch, Paul

  Brazier, Julian

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Breed, Colin

  Key, Robert

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Burns, Simon

  Leigh, Edward

  Burstow, Paul

  Letwin, Oliver

  Butterfill, John

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Lidington, David

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Cash, William

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Loughton, Tim

  Luff, Peter

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cotter, Brian

  Madel, Sir David

  Cran, James

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Day, Stephen

  Merchant, Piers

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Moore, Michael

  Duncan, Alan

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Norman, Archie

  Evans, Nigel

  Oaten, Mark

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Öpik, Lembit

  Faber, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Fabricant, Michael

  Page, Richard

  Fallon, Michael

  Paice, James

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Pickles, Eric

  Flight, Howard

  Prior, David

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Gale, Roger

  Ruffley, David

  Garnier, Edward

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Gibb, Nick

  Sanders, Adrian

  Gill, Christopher

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Gorrie, Donald

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

  Gray, James

  Soames, Nicholas

  Green, Damian

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Grieve, Dominic

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  190

  Spring, Richard

  Viggers, Peter

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wallace, James

  Steen, Anthony

  Walter, Robert

  Streeter, Gary

  Wardle, Charles

  Stunell, Andrew

  Webb, Professor Steve

  Swayne, Desmond

  Wells, Bowen

  Swinney, John

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Syms, Robert

  Whittingdale, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Willetts, David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Willis, phil

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Woodward, Shaun

  Townend, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Tredinnick, David

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Trend, Michael

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Tyler, Paul

  Mr. Nigel Waterson and

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Mr. Malcolm Moss.

  NOES

  Ainger, Nick

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clelland, David

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Clwyd, Ann

  Ashton, Joe

  Coaker, Vernon

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Coleman, Iain (Hammersmith)

  Banks, Tony

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Barnes, Harry

  Cooper, Yvette

  Barron, Kevin

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Battle, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cox, Tom

  Beard, Nigel

  Cranston, Ross

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Crausby, David

  Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Cummings, John

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Benton, Joe

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Berry, Roger

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)

  Best, Harold

  Betts, Clive

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dalyell, Tam

  Blizzard, Bob

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Darvill, Keith

  Boateng, Paul

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Borrow, David

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dawson, Hilton

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Denham, John

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Burden, Richard

  Dowd, Jim

  Butler, Christine

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Byers, Stephen

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Caborn, Richard

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Edwards, Huw

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Efford, Clive

  Canavan, Dennis

  Ellman, Ms Louise

  Caplin, Ivor

  Ennis, Jeff

  Casale, Roger

  Etherington, Bill

  Caton, Martin

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Cawsey, Ian

  Fisher, Mark

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Church, Ms Judith

  Flint, Caroline

  Clapham, Michael

  Flynn, Paul

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Follett, Barbara

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  191

  Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

  Linton, Martin

  Fyfe, Maria

  Livingstone, Ken

  Galbraith, Sam

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Gapes, Mike

  Lock, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Love, Andrew

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McAllion, John

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McCabe, Stephen

  Godsiff, Roger

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Macdonald, Calum

  Graham, Thomas

  McDonnell, John

  Grant, Bernie

  McFall, John

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McKenna, Ms Rosemary

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Gunnell, John

  McLeish, Henry

  Hain, Peter

  MacShane, Denis

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hanson, David

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Mallaber, Judy

  Healey, John

  Marek, Dr John

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Heppell, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Hesford, Stephen

  Maxton, John

  Hill, Keith

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hinchliffe, David

  Meale, Alan

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Merron, Gillian

  Home Robertson, John

  Michael, Alun

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hope, Phil

  Milburn, Alan

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Miller, Andrew

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Morley, Elliot

  Hurst, Alan

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hutton, John

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Mountford, Kali

  Illsley, Eric

  Mudie, George

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Mullin, Chris

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pendry, Tom

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Pike, Peter L

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Plaskitt, James

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pond, Chris

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pope, Greg

  Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

  Pound, Stephen

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Khabra, Piara S

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Laxton, Bob

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lepper, David

  Rammell, Bill

  Leslie, Christopher

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Levitt, Tom

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  192

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Stringer, Graham

  Rogers, Allan

  Stuart, Ms Gisela (Edgbaston)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Rooney, Terry

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Ruane, Chris

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Timms, Stephen

  Salter, Martin

  Tipping, paddy

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Todd, Mark

  Sawford, Phil

  Touhig, Don

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Trickett, Jon

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Truswell, Paul

  Sheerman, Barry

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

  Short Rt Hon Clare

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Singh, Marsha

  Vaz, Keith

  Skinner, Dennis

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Watts, David

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  White, Brian

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Winnick, David

  Snape, Peter

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Soley, Clive

  Wise, Audrey

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Wood, Mike

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Wray, James

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Stevenson, George

  Wright, Tony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Mr. David Jamieson and

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Janet Anderson.

  Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 3

  INSURANCE COMPANIES AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES
  Mrs. Liddell: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 64, line 22, leave out 'In'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 12 to 15.
  Mrs. Liddell: The amendments take us into the wonderful mysteries of the taxation of life assurance companies. I shall not go into too much detail on this subject, because I do not want hon. Members to get too excited before the holidays. I shall try to give a brief explanation of the purpose of the amendments.
  Hon. Members will perhaps detect that the amendments have something to do with foreign income dividends. When we dealt with clause 36, we discussed at length the abolition of FIDs in 1999. The amendments have nothing to do with abolition: they are about the treatment of FIDs received by a life assurance company after 1 July 1997.
  Schedule 3 makes a number of detailed changes to the tax treatment of dividends received by life companies, one of which involves the calculations that are made to determine what part of a life company's income is charged at special rates, what part is charged at policyholders' rates and what part at normal corporation

  193
  tax rates. The Bill, as drafted, made a minor but necessary change to the way in which ordinary dividends are treated in that calculation, and the treatment of FIDs should have been changed in the same way. However, it was not, because an oversight that occurred when reference to FIDs was inserted in the 1994 Finance Bill was regrettably repeated this year. The amendment makes the necessary change. Failure to do so could cost a few million pounds a year, depending on the extent to which FIDs are paid in the future.
  A related change made by the amendment is to remove some disadvantages that life companies have perceived. They affect the so-called notional case one test, of which the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) gave an eloquent description to the Committee considering the 1996 Finance Bill. The test involves a comparison of profits calculated in two different ways. FIDs have hitherto appeared on one side of the comparison but not on the other. There might have been good reasons for that at the time, but, with the treatment of FIDs and ordinary dividends in the hands of life companies and other dealers in shares becoming more similar, there is less reason to distinguish between them.
  I may add that, in proposing this change, we have taken account of representations made by the Association of British Insurers.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 12, in page 64, line 23, leave out from 'companies)' end of line 28 and insert
  'shall be amended as follows.
  (1A) In subsection (2B) (relevant income from life assurance business to be sum of items in paragraphs (a) and (b)) for paragraph (b) (relevant franked investment income) there shall be substituted—
  "(b) the franked investment income of, and foreign income dividends arising to, the company which are referable to its basic life assurance and general annuity business."
  (1B) In subsection (8) (interpretation) the definition of "relevant franked investment income" shall cease to have effect.'.—[Mrs. Liddell.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to Government amendments Nos. 13 and 14.
  Mr. Gibb rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: These amendments have already been debated. We are now voting on them.
  Amendments made: No. 13, in page 69, line 36, leave out 'and'.
  No. 14, in page 69, line 43, at end insert
  'and
  (c) in paragraph (c) (which provides for Case I profits to be reduced by the shareholders' share of foreign income dividends in respect of such investments) for "in respect of investments held in connection with the company's life assurance business" there shall be substituted "which are referable to the company's basic life assurance and general annuity business".'.—[Mrs. Liddell.]

Clause 30

  TAX CREDITS
  Mr. Tim Boswell: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 22, leave out lines 24 to 37.
  The intention of the amendment is to modify the Government's proposals on distributions and tax credits arising on or after the tax year 1999–2000. It would strike out the provisions of the Bill that deprive United Kingdom residents who are not taxpayers of the payable tax credits that they can now claim on their dividends. We believe that the amendment says a great deal about the philosophical differences between the Conservative party and the Labour party, and a good deal about the practical outcome of the stances that they each adopt: where they are coming from affects where they get to.
  There was a point in the partial imputation system that was introduced by a Conservative Government in 1973. Those of us who served on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill know that the Economic Secretary has emphasised her belief that that was a distortion. She has sold her proposals not as a tax increase—which they are—but as the removal of a distortion that has crept into the tax system. We do not accept that.
  I remind the House that the purpose of the changes introduced nearly a quarter of a century ago in 1973, after the former Labour Chancellor, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, had unsuccessfully tried to produce something similar to what the Government are producing now, was to avoid double taxation on the same profits arising in the hands first of the company then of its shareholders. That was done by arranging that advance payments of corporation tax against dividends should be met by a matching tax credit in the hands of shareholders.
  Shareholders were then, and are now even more, a heterogeneous bunch. Many more shares now are held by institutions, some of which, such as pension funds, are non-taxpayers; others, such as insurance companies, have special arrangements. Income on dividends for pension funds is effectively exempt because the funds pay their tax on the way out to pensioners, in whose hands it is taxed.
  Other types of shareholders include collective investment vehicles, such as the unit and investment trusts that we debated extensively in Committee, and holders of personal equity plans, who are individuals, but in a protected environment. There is still a significant number of private direct shareholders, especially in privatised companies; it has been estimated that at the peak there were about 10 million, and anyone who reads a company's annual report and looks at the distribution of shareholders will be likely to find that, although the majority of the share capital is held by institutions—often by a limited number of institutions, such as pension funds—there is a numerical preponderance of individual shareholders, who in some cases still account for a significant proportion of the share capital. Those shareholders pay varying rates of tax: some are higher-rate taxpayers; some on the basic rate; some on the lower; and some, the subject of the amendment, do not pay income tax at all.
  There are two remarkable aspects of the Government's proposals. The first is that they have found it necessary to put in place elaborate arrangements, as set out in schedule 4, to effect them. Schedule 4 introduces us to the delights

  195
  of schedule F ordinary rate, higher rate and trust rate, on the back of a residual tax credit of 10 per cent. The reason for that residual tax credit will become apparent later on.
  The effect on the lay taxpayer, the man or woman who has an income from employment and a few shares—let alone somebody older, with a pension and a few shares, who does not find forms easy to manage—is likely to be pretty awkward; the more so now that self-assessment is being introduced.
  There will be serious trouble with the self-assessment forms, given that we are talking about a limited amount of people's personal income. It is not their professional income from employment, and they will not all have accountants. It is pretty difficult even for accountants to contend with some of the complexities of schedule 4.
  I hope that the Economic Secretary will reflect on those concerns; perhaps she can find a simpler way of effecting the measures. If she reflects, as I wish that someone had reflected before the Bill was introduced, she may come up with a simpler structure.
  The Government have set up an elaborate, roundabout route, if not to Paradise by way of Kensal Green, at least to Birmingham by way of Beachy Head. They have very probably succeeded in their goal of achieving no detriment to the ordinary or even the higher-rate taxpayer. Praise the Lord: the Paymaster General is unscathed by the measures. It is only the non-taxpayer—the Aunt Agatha, although she will change her name later in my speech—who will lose out.
  The second rather bizarre aspect of the proposals is that Ministers show clear signs of not knowing what they are doing; perhaps that is understandable, even if not formally excusable, given the complexity of the proposals. Conservative Members are thoroughly familiar with the law of Bristol, South, as enacted by the Financial Secretary, from whose constituency it is named. Speaking of the impact of advance corporation tax changes on pensioners, she said:
  "The measure is good for pensions and pensioners, not bad for them."—[Official Report, 3 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 507.]
  The same philosophy seems to have affected the Economic Secretary, who said:
  "Ordinary shareholders who previously did not pay tax are not adversely affected by the Bill."
  Search me about that; indeed, search my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), because when he rose more than once in the dialogue that ensued to challenge her about that assertion, she replied:
  "I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Official Report."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 21 July 1997; c. 224–25.]
  Her latest statement on the record therefore remains uncorrected. I believe that it is wrong—we challenge it—and that she should use this opportunity to correct it formally.
  6.45 pm
  There will indeed be an impact on non-taxpayers who previously received the benefit of payable tax credits, which will be withdrawn with effect from April 1999. Within two years—this is the sole exception of treatment—non-taxpayers will be in exactly the same
  196
  position regarding payable credits as pension funds are now, although there are some significant differences between them.
  The first difference is that pension funds are much larger, accounting for about half the value of the current tax credits, while individuals, excluding those in PEPs, account for only about £100 million, and the second is that pension funds and other institutions have effective voices to lobby and cry foul at the Government's proposals—they have indeed lobbied us and we rehearsed those points extensively in Committee—but Aunt Agatha has usually and typically only herself to rely on. She will not know what has hit her until she finds that she can no longer reclaim the cash.
  In its Budget submissions, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales cited an example of a widow aged 80 with a state pension of £3,247 a year and dividends of £1,600, which currently attract a tax credit of £400, which is about £8 a week. Even if she were still to get the nominal 10 per cent. tax credit—and the Government do not propose to offer her even that—she would be £222.23 a year worse off; as it is, she will lose the whole £400. As the institute says, the effect is harsh and is likely to encourage such people to dispose of their shares.
  Because people in that situation are approaching the end of their working years, although I hope not of their natural life, and can hardly plough new savings into, for example, individual savings accounts, having instead to rely on what they have, the measure is a dead loss to them.
  In Committee, the Economic Secretary briskly referred to the need to encourage savings, presumably in a tax-sheltered medium, such as gilt-edged, and made the remarkably clear but remarkably challengeable assertion that tax credits for non-taxpayers are a contradiction in terms. In doing so, she revealed that she simply did not understand—or, to put it more charitably, perhaps did not accept—that companies representing shareholders were already paying corporation tax on behalf of all their shareholders, including the non-income-tax-paying shareholders who are the subject of the debate. I say "companies representing shareholders" because the two cannot, as it were, be unpicked.
  The final anomaly of treatment, which gives rise to political as well as technical concern, is that the Government can take tax credits away from those with no power, but fight shy of taking them from those with more clout. The Budget documentation revealed that foreign shareholders receive some £600 million a year in payable tax credits—but they, of course, have the protection of double—tax agreements. That is what the tax credit—continuing and notional, and never repayable—is about. The Government must go through the rigmarole of maintaining a notional 10 per cent. tax credit as a basis for calculating relief for overseas taxpayers.
  The Government now say that the effect is so small that it will make no difference, and that the effective credit is likely to be about 0.25 per cent. of the total income. That gives rise to a dilemma. Either the Government have kept faith with the spirit of the double-tax agreements that are being concluded for this country, or they have gutted them, while preserving a legal shell against legal challenge for the renegotiation of those agreements. Either they are repaying significant funds to overseas shareholders, or they are not; and I think that if they are

  197
  not, overseas shareholders and their Governments will draw an inference from that. The tension that is thus engendered also gives rise to unfairness in the difference between the treatment of the foreign taxpayer—the foreign shareholder—and that of the domestic shareholder.
  Not only do the Government dislike the small domestic shareholder, whom they deny the benefit of credit that is available to higher-rate taxpayers in this country—because it will still run for lower, basic and higher-rate taxpayers—but they dislike the United Kingdom resident shareholder and non-taxpayer so much that they are prepared to contrive, notwithstanding the complexity involved, to contemplate a system that pays credits to the foreign resident who is in exactly the same income position as the domestic taxpayer to whom they deny those credits—or even in a better position. In those circumstances, I think that Aunt Agatha will change her personality.
  Let us suppose that I have two aunts—Aunt Ursula, who lives in Uxbridge, and Aunt Bertha, who has gone to live in Boulogne. Whether she has gone for the seafood or to watch French films—which we debated in another context in Committee—I know not. Both have inherited from their mother a share portfolio—what Victorian novelists would have described as a modest competence—worth, say, £10,000, which generates an annual income of £500. In addition, Aunt Bertha has shares from her late husband worth, say, another £10,000, which means that she has two modest competences, as well as a residence in Boulogne. The other income—pensions and so forth—is the same in both cases.
  In those circumstances, who will receive more help from the United Kingdom Treasury—Aunt Ursula of Uxbridge, or Aunt Bertha of Boulogne? You have guessed it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Not only does Aunt Bertha receive a tax credit on her husband's shares; she receives a tax credit on the shares that she inherited from her mother—which the Economic Secretary is denying her sister Aunt Ursula, who happens to live in Uxbridge.
  I shall draw my remarks to a close, having exposed the incoherences of the Government's approach. I can only conclude that the Government have either been hasty in preparing the legislation, or exercised malice. Either they intended to do what they have done, or they do not care what they have done. They preach the brotherhood and sisterhood of man, they talk about the need for investment and they introduce what they would call a Budget for the people; but, when we vulgar persons analyse the Budget, we find that it gives tax credits to British shareholders only when they have enough capital to generate an income large enough to incur tax, and gives greater credits to those who go abroad than to those who stay in this country. It targets the pensioner of modest means who needs the tax credits most. It is unfair and, in the amendment, we challenge its damaging social agenda.
  Mr. Gibb: As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) said, the amendment seeks to end a distortion introduced by clause 30. The Government contend that by removing the ability of non-taxpayers to retain their tax credits, they are removing an anomaly or distortion; but the contrary is true. All the measures in the Budget introduce a severe distortion.
  198
  The explanatory note attached to clause 30 states:
  "Currently, the system actually goes further than simply mitigating any double charge to tax. Where a person is exempt from tax, or where their tax credits exceed their tax liability, the tax credit can be paid to them. This introduces a distortion into the system. The payment of tax credits to certain shareholders means that profits paid out by a company can actually face a substantially lower effective tax charge than the profits which are retained by the company and reinvested."
  That is a political statement if I ever heard one. Similarly, "The Pocket Budget", produced with £50,000 of taxpayers' money—the so-called Inland Revenue explanatory note—makes a political statement, with which Conservative Members whole-heartedly disagree. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) has already explained that the imputation system does not introduce a distortion, and that removing the so-called distortion itself creates a distortion. The Inland Revenue seems content to state categorically that there is a distortion, but it is treading on a political issue—and, again, the Government are using taxpayers' money to air a political issue.
  That point goes to the heart of the imputation system. With your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, let me try to explain to Labour Members precisely how the imputation system works, and how the taxation of a dividend in the hands of an individual works. Let us suppose that a dividend of £80 is paid to an individual by a United Kingdom company. That £80 must be grossed up in the individual's tax return by tax credit, and the individual is therefore regarded as having received taxable income of £100. A basic-rate or lower-rate taxpayer will have £100 in his or her tax return, and will then pay tax at 23 or 20 per cent., depending on whether he or she is a basic-rate or lower-rate taxpayer. The lower-rate taxpayer will therefore have a tax bill of 20 per cent. of £100, which is £20.
  That £20 bill is paid by the tax credit that is attached to the dividend, so the lower-rate taxpayer will have no further liability. The basic-rate taxpayer will have a theoretical bill of £23, but he, too, will have no further tax to pay, because the tax credit received with his dividend wipes out his bill, too. We then turn to the higher rate taxpayer, who is regarded as receiving £100 of dividend income. He or she is taxed at 40 per cent. on that income, so the tax bill is £40, against which is a placed tax credit of £20, giving a final tax bill of £20.
  We then turn to the position of the non-taxpayer, who is again regarded as receiving £100 of gross income from the £80 dividend because the dividend has to be grossed up. On the non-taxpayer's tax return, if one is filled in, it says £100 of taxable income from dividends less the personal tax allowance—the implication being that a non-taxpayer has not yet fully used up the tax allowance—therefore the tax bill will, in effect, be zero.
  However, the non-taxpayer will have only a cheque for £80 in his or her hands, despite having theoretically having received income of £100. Where does the remaining £20 come from? The answer is that the non-taxpayer applies to the Inland Revenue, which sends a cheque for £20, corresponding to the tax that the company paid over to the Inland Revenue through the advance corporation tax mechanism just after the dividend was paid. The company has paid the tax of the taxpayer, but if the individual receiving the dividend is

  199
  not a taxpayer, that individual expects to get the tax back and thus be in the same position as the other two types of taxpayers in having received gross income of £100.
  7 pm
  That is how the imputation system works. As it is currently structured, there is no distortion in the system. The explanatory note goes on to say:
  "The payment of tax credits to certain shareholders means that profits paid out by a company can actually face a substantially lower effective tax charge".
  That is misleading: it is not the tax credit that creates the lower effective rate of corporation tax; it is the personal allowance of the non-taxpayer that gives rise to that beneficial effective tax rate. The personal allowance of about £4,000 means that someone earning only £4,000 per annum faces a lower effective rate of tax than someone earning £5,000 per annum; and someone earning £5,000 per annum faces a lower effective rate of tax than someone earning £6,000 per annum. That is because Parliament has decided that people on low incomes should pay a lower effective rate of tax. The House decides at every Budget that it is right that people on low incomes should pay a lower rate of tax, which is why we have the whole notion of personal allowances.
  The same applies to pension funds. Parliament decided that pension funds should be tax free, and the purpose to making them tax free is to encourage and help people to save for their old age. That is and should still be a priority, given that the era we are entering is one of an ever-aging population. The fact that a company appears to have a lower effective rate of tax when it distributes profits to a non-taxpayer is irrelevant, because that arises from the special status that we have deliberately attached to non-taxpayers. Parliament decreed that certain individuals should be non-taxpayers for the sound social reasons of helping people on low incomes and encouraging people to take out pensions and provide funds for their old age.
  The essence of the imputation system—or, as it should be called, the partial imputation system—is that the combined tax position of both the company and the shareholder is looked at. In most cases, where the shareholder pays tax, the profits distributed are taxed—broadly speaking—only once, at the rate applicable to company and shareholder. For example, a basic rate taxpayer will pay no more tax because the company from which the dividend is received has paid tax on those profits at 33 per cent. A higher-rate taxpayer will pay a little more, because he or she pays tax at 40 per cent.
  A UK company receiving a dividend from another UK company will pay no more tax, because the company paying the dividend has already been taxed. When a non-taxpaying shareholder receives a dividend from a UK company, the overall tax position is that the company and shareholder will have an effective rate of tax of about 15 per cent., because one half of that combination of company and shareholder—the shareholder—is not taxable, so the imputation system does not seek to extract tax from that individual. To do so would be to impose a tax that Parliament has decreed, for social reasons, should not be imposed.
  The new Labour Government do not understand business tax or the imputation system, so they have effectively imposed a tax that is focused solely on non-taxpayers. It is the most regressive tax ever imposed, and the amendment seeks to undo that damage.
  200
  I had hoped that the amendment would be drafted a little wider, because the clause has a detrimental effect on overseas investors. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry has given a wise explanation of why the Government decided to halve the tax credit from 20 to 10 per cent., apparently in order not to contravene the treaties.
  Let us suppose that a United States shareholder invests in a wholly owned subsidiary in Britain. Previously, that company was able to obtain a repayment of half the tax credit, less a withholding of 5 per cent. of the net dividend plus the tax credit. That meant that the effective rate of tax for an overseas United States shareholder in a UK company was about 28 per cent. instead of 33 per cent. It was therefore attractive for US companies to own and invest in the UK.
  Now, however, halving the 10 per cent. tax credit leaves only 5 per cent., from which is withheld 5 per cent. of the net dividend plus the tax credit. That leaves almost nothing—in fact a repayment of only 0.25 per cent. or less is received, which will not be attractive to investors from the United States. The consequence of the measure is that it will discourage investment in the United Kingdom, yet the Budget was meant to encourage investment by companies.
  Overall, the clause is highly damaging to shareholders, non-taxpayers and overseas investors. Had the Government spent a little time between announcing their Budget intentions and drafting the Finance Bill, and gone to the trouble of consulting outside bodies, many of these points would have been spotted. The Government have accused Conservative Members of arrogance in the way our arguments were advanced, but the truth is that the arrogance is on the Government side. Why did they not spend a little time consulting? There seems to be no real evidence that there was any requirement to get the Finance Bill passed by 4 August—that is certainly the understanding of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales—so the rush can only be put down to the arrogance of newly gained power.
  Another example of that arrogance comes in clause 39, in which there is a drafting error. The error does not appear to have been amended in the Standing Committee, yet I raised it in Committee. The Financial Secretary said to me:
  "I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point."
  She went on:
  "I am happy to write to him and to other members of the Committee making our"—
  that is, the Government's—
  "intentions absolutely clear. If the hon. Gentleman is correct, we shall have to return to the matter."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 22 July 1997; c. 393.]
  Of course, I have received no such letter, and the drafting error in clause 39 remains.
  Mr. Boswell: I may be able to help my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Can the hon. Gentleman explain to me why he is discussing a different clause? The amendment before us relates to clause 30. How does clause 39 relate to that?
  Mr. Gibb: I raised it as an example of the Government's arrogance, but I take your point,

  201
  Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hoped that the clause would be amended before Third Reading, and I am keen that the Bill should not enter the statute book containing a drafting error.
  Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend may not be aware that, within the past few hours, I have received a response from the Government on that point. This shows that it is difficult for any of us, particularly when we cannot seek outside advice and do not have access to expertise, to know whether it is right. It is unfortunate that my hon. Friend has not yet had a chance to see the letter, let alone assimilate it. I am afraid that the same points may well apply to clause 30 as well.
  Mr. Gibb: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out, and I look forward to reading the letter when I sit down. I rest my case, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The amendment was drafted to try to alleviate the unjust position that clause 30 creates, particularly for non-taxpayers. Many retired people in my constituency of Bognor Regis and Littlehampton have small portfolios of shares. As a result of the Budget, after April 1999 they will no longer be able to reclaim small sums of money back from the Exchequer on receiving dividends from their small portfolios.
  The measure is regressive and unfair, and I hope that the Government will accept the amendment as a way of alleviating a distortion created by the Finance Bill.
  Mr. Edward Davey: The Liberal Democrat party supports the amendment whole-heartedly, as it aims to protect non-taxpaying pensioners on the lowest incomes.
  Some of the points that Conservative Members and I raised in Committee were not properly answered by Ministers, who showed no regard for the effect that the measure would have on low-income pensioners. They claimed that that category of pensioners would be protected because removal of tax credits would be phased in and would not come into effect until April 1999. The Government say that, by that time, they will have put in place individual savings accounts, enabling such pensioners a tax exemption on those dividends.
  I would argue, however, that the Government are not living in the real world. The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) described the real world of self-assessment and complicated tax legislation. In the real world, savers are inert to changes in the tax regime. Aunt Agatha and Aunt Ursula are probably the most unresponsive of savers. They do not read the financial pages of Sunday newspapers every week for advice and they are much less likely to be aware that such tax measures have even been introduced. Indeed, Aunt Agatha will probably get a shock in April of the financial year 1999–2000, when she will lose her tax credit. She was probably looking forward to spending it, although it would probably have been spent on making ends meet.
  The money that will be taken from those pensioners will make the difference between giving them some dignity in their old age and giving them no dignity. I should like to understand why the Government proposed that move, particularly given the efforts that they have expended on behalf of foreign shareholders and higher-rate taxpayers. I do not criticise those efforts,
  202
  but simply say that the Government seem to have perverse priorities if they wish to protect those affected by the changes. Why are they not acting on behalf of Aunt Agatha and Aunt Ursula?
  The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) said that part of the Government's argument is that they want to remove all distortions from the system. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman that the change in ACT does not remove distortion; there is a genuine argument that removing the ACT credit system removes distortion in the way companies decide on their dividend and investment policies. However, removing tax credits from non-tax-paying pensioners is not about removing distortions; it is about over-tidy minds in the Inland Revenue.
  It is preposterous to suggest that protecting that group of non-tax-paying pensioners would have led to distortions within companies' dividend policies. It is ludicrous to suggest that quoted companies would change their investment mix if that protection were given to non-tax-paying pensioners. The Liberal Democrat party will therefore support the amendment whole-heartedly.
  7.15 pm
  Mrs. Liddell: I oppose the amendment. I do not wish to keep repeating myself—although why should I change what has been happening for the past couple of hours? The amendment goes over old ground and was discussed at length in Committee. It would stop the second stage, in 1999, of the abolition of payable tax credits for all UK shareholders.
  I am not clear whether the amendment is also intended to allow pension funds to claim payment of tax credits again from 1999, although that may be one of its consequences. It comes to mind, given the comments of the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) on a previous set of amendments. I do not want to go over old ground. We have explained again and again why we have taken action to remove a distortion in the corporation tax system, which was affecting company behaviour and investment.
  The entitlement to payable tax credits is removed from pension funds from Budget day and from others from 6 April 1999. The amendment would stop the second element of that change, leaving in place a permanent anomaly and distortion whereby some people would be entitled to a payable tax credit while others would not. That would simply not be sustainable.
  As I have said repeatedly, it was not easy to decide whether we should move to abolish tax credits, because we recognised that it would be a complex measure and that we would have to take into account many knock-on effects. Clause 35 relates to charities, which was the subject of one of the best debates in Committee. Hon. Members on both sides recognised the great work done by charities and were unanimous on wanting to protect them. This measure, however, seeks to get rid of a distortion.
  If we simply wanted to get rid of the distortion and completely ignore the long-term needs of ordinary savers—the Aunt Berthas, Aunt Agathas and Aunt Ursulas—the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) would be right to criticise us. If we sought simply to draw the line in 1999, he would be right to condemn us for saying that ordinary taxpayers

  203
  would not suffer. However, that is not what we are doing. We are taking a two-year period to allow people to adjust their portfolios and savings requirements.
  By 1999, we hope to have in place individual savings accounts. I have already made it clear to Opposition Members how anxious we are to include them in discussions about the future of individual savings accounts.
  That is why, if the hon. Gentleman quotes what I said in Committee and does not match it with our intention to introduce individual savings accounts, he is right. However, through individual savings accounts we are seeking to develop a savings vehicle that suits all low-income savers, and is transparent and easy to understand. For many people, savings are as complex as the taxation system. We now have an opportunity to introduce a savings account that Aunts Agatha, Bertha and Ursula would find easy to comprehend and which would benefit them.
  Mr. Gibb: The hon. Lady used the word "protected" with regard to charities. She said that charities need to be protected. I asked her from what. Perhaps I can suggest an answer: protected from the damage that clauses 30 and 19 do to charities. If she believes that charities should be protected from those devastating measures, what about pensions and non-taxpayers? Do they not also need protecting?
  Mrs. Liddell: If the hon. Gentleman wants me to replay all the arguments of the Bill, I will happily do so, and it will take up the time until 9 o'clock, which will mean that hon. Members will not have an opportunity to debate other matters.
  We took action to protect charities because they do not have the freedom of manoeuvre that other investors have. That is why we have given seven years. It is interesting to see the extent of the selective amnesia of Opposition Members. It was the previous Conservative Government who reduced the level of ACT. In doing so, the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) said clearly:
  "I did not seek to disguise the fact that the measure is revenue-raising. It is intended to raise revenue from a part of the economy where it can be raised, in the context of the Budget, with minimum damage."—[0fficial Report, Standing Committee A, 15 June 1993; c. 387.]
  We have acknowledged that charities will encounter difficulties. We recognise that if we take away something that has benefited certain groups of savers, we must put something in its place. That is why we are moving to the introduction of individual savings accounts.
  I challenge the hon. Gentleman. Here is an opportunity for him to channel his undoubted talents into helping to create a savings vehicle that takes into account those who do not even have the modest competence about which the hon. Member for Daventry spoke. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton belongs to a profession that is not known for hyperbole. He should remember that. He speaks about the measure as the most damaging and regressive change in the history of creation. That is wrong. We are getting rid of a distortion so that we can improve matters for the future.
  204
  It does no good to attack officials. The hon. Gentleman may think that in attacking me, he is attacking only me, but when he attacks the Revenue, he attacks the officials who construct the explanatory notes, and they do so with the best intentions.
  We had a lengthy discussion in Committee about self-assessment. Hon. Members spoke about the complexity of the tax system. May I point out that the tax system did not become complex just from 1 May. The previous Government had 18 years to demystify the taxation system and the legislation surrounding taxation. What we propose to do with corporation tax and ACT is to remove yet another complexity from the taxation system.
  There will be plenty of time to adjust the forms that must be filled in for self-assessment, to take the change into account. When taxpayers receive dividends, their dividend voucher will show, as now, figures for the dividend and the tax credit. They will have to copy those over to their tax returns, just as they do at present. They will not have to do anything more when completing their tax returns. The hon. Member for Daventry and I discussed in Committee the need to make all the procedures as straightforward as possible.
  We had our usual foray into geography with the hon. Member for Daventry. I always learn new phrases from him. I had never heard the one about Paradise by way of Kensal Green. In Airdrie and Shotts, I may have difficulty explaining that to the people of Bonkle and Newmains, who do not even know where Kensal Green is. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the information that it was an allusion to G. K. Chesterton. It is some years since I last read Chesterton, but perhaps we can have a conversation about it some time. I have some comments to make, but I will not take up the time of the House.
  The Government have been honest and open about the decision to enhance the neutrality of the taxation system. We have tried to have a full and wide-ranging debate. A number of hypothetical cases have been used. The hon. Member for Daventry spoke about the 80-year-old widow; the same example was used by the Institute of Chartered Accountants. She will not save more through 1999. However, she will be able to switch to tax-favoured individual savings accounts during 1999. The decision about whether she saves more is entirely up to her.
  Let me take up the issue of Aunt Bertha from Boulogne, vis-a-vis Aunt Ursula from Uxbridge. Neither UK nor French individuals will generally be able to obtain payment of tax credits from 1999. Credits will not generally be available to portfolio investors such as Aunt Bertha. The notion that Aunt Bertha would be more severely disadvantaged than Aunt Ursula is wrong.
  Mr. Boswell: I should be grateful if the Economic Secretary would clarify the point. If there is provision for relief for foreign shareholders under double tax agreements, why should it not be available for the individual portfolio investor?
  Mrs. Liddell: Individual portfolio investors have two years to adjust their portfolios. The question of tax credits for non-residents under double taxation agreements was fully discussed. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton began the debate on double taxation agreements in the Standing Committee. Some agreements

  205
  with other countries provide for a given proportion of tax credits to residents of those countries. It has always been clear that, if the amount of tax credit fell, so would the payment under the agreement. That happened in 1993, as I am sure right hon. and hon. Members can tell the hon. Gentleman.
  That follows the spirit and the letter of our agreements with foreign Governments. We are not overriding those agreements. We are keeping tax credits at a certain level, to try to avoid any question of disadvantage to UK-based groups with US subsidiaries and some US investors, mainly individuals in US-dollar-denominated preference shares issued by UK banks and others.
  There is an interesting assumption that the Labour Government are suddenly homing in on ACT. In reality, the previous Government began eroding ACT in 1993. Only a few weeks ago, the special adviser to the former Chancellor referred to the distorting impact of ACT. It is wrong to suggest in the extreme phrases that we heard from the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that the change represents the end of civilisation as we know it.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who had Edward Troup as his adviser, clearly received information that there was a distortion. I cannot believe that, in the space of a few days, that gentleman would have changed his position. It is a logical assumption that the previous Chancellor was urged to get rid of the distortion.
  We have carefully considered the effects of the change. That is why we are anxious that individual investors should have the opportunity to invest in new tax-privileged individual savings accounts in 1999. If we were not offering that, there would be some substance to the hon. Gentleman's criticism. However, we intend to take that measure. I have suggested that there is cause for common ground in creating an acceptable tax vehicle. That is one of the reasons why we have been generous in providing transitional arrangements for charities so that they receive compensation over five years.
  Mr. Brooke: The hon. Lady has said that those who will be disadvantaged by the provisions—several examples were given earlier—will be compensated by the individual savings account. Will she give an assurance that the Treasury will consult those who are disadvantaged and who have investments at present?
  7.30 pm
  Mrs. Liddell: There will be widespread consultation. We referred to that at great length in the Standing Committee. The second stage will not kick in until 1999 in order to give people an opportunity to adjust their portfolios, given sensible advice and in recognition of the nature of the individual savings account that will be on offer. I urge the House to reject the amendment.
  Mr. Boswell: The Economic Secretary is clearly in a hole, and she is doing her best to scramble out of it. She has created a series of measures in haste that target the least well off and the least sophisticated shareholders. Although she has not explicitly conceded that she is doing damage, her comments suggest that some will be damaged unless they rearrange their affairs. She has made a series
  206
  of suggestions about what may be done in two years through the individual savings account. That may be a way forward in the future—particularly if the hon. Lady is prepared to rebrand as an individual savings account the small shareholdings of individuals who do not want to change those shareholdings or lose control of them.
  We have no details of that proposal at present, and no clear proposition in that regard. We have simply a withdrawal of the payable credit in two years. That is the Government's certain proposal. We find it socially damaging and unacceptable, so we shall press our amendment to the vote.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 149, Noes 326.

  Division No. 72]

  [7.31 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)

  Gibb, Nick

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Gill, Christopher

  Arbuthnot, James

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Baker, Norman

  Gorrie, Donald

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Gray, James

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Green, Damian

  Bercow, John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Body, Sir Richard

  Hammond, Philip

  Boswell, Tim

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Harvey, Nick

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Heald, Oliver

  Brady, Graham

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Brazier, Julian

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Breed, Colin

  Horam, John

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Burns, Simon

  Hunter, Andrew

  Burstow, Paul

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Butterfill, John

  Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Cash, William

  Key, Robert

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Chope, Christopher

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Leigh, Edward

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Lidington, David

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Lilley Rt Hon Peter

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Livsey Richard

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon sir Peter (Fareham)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Loughton, Tim

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Luff, peter

  Day, Stephen

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Duncan, Alan

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Maclennan, Robert

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Evans, Nigel

  Madel, Sir David

  Faber, David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Fabricant, Michael

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Fallon, Michael

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Flight, Howard

  Merchant, Piers

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Norman, Archie

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Oaten, Mark

  Gale, Roger

  Ottaway, Richard

  207

  Page, Richard

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Paice, James

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Pickles, Eric

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Prior, David

  Townend, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Tredinnick, David

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Trend, Michael

  Ruffley, David

  Tyler, Paul

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Sanders, Adrian

  Viggers, Peter

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Walter, Robert

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Wardle, Charles

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Webb, Professor Steve

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Wells, Bowen

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

  Whittingdale, John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Willetts, David

  Willis, Phil

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Spring, Richard

  Woodward, Shaun

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Yeo, Tim

  Streeter, Gary

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Stunell, Andrew

  Swayne, Desmond

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Syms, Robert

  Mr. Malcolm Moss and

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mr. Nigel Waterson.

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 36

  FOREIGN INCOME DIVIDENDS
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 29, leave out lines 11 to 27.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 24, in schedule 6, page 80, leave out from beginning of line 22 to end of line 8 on page 86.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Nothing displays the Government's muddled and incompetent policy in this entire Budget better than these two amendments and the clause to which they relate. Foreign income dividends can appear somewhat technical, and it is no disrespect to hon. Members if I say that some of them may not have followed the intricacies of the British corporation tax system. Most people have better things to do, but, luckily, the effect and purpose of the dividends can be easily stated in non-technical terms.
  210
  FIDs, as they are called, are a way of relieving certain multinational companies based in this country from paying excessive corporation tax. Without FIDs, important British companies with large foreign earnings would be unable to relieve their advance corporation tax payments. Therefore, they would be paying ACT and tax on their foreign earnings. That is unfair and excessive, as was recognised by the previous Government, who introduced foreign income dividends to relieve the situation.
  Under the Government's proposal, British companies earning profits overseas but based in the United Kingdom, would be put at a disadvantage in relation not only to ordinary British companies, but to foreign multinational companies based here. We would have the absurd situation in which a multinational British company would suffer unfair competition from a foreign company, perhaps operating in the same markets, and would be vulnerable to takeover by such a foreign company.
  Despite those well-known facts, in his Budget statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced with a flourish that foreign income dividends were to be abolished. Any first-year accountancy student or half-decent tax practitioner could have told him that that was daft. We do not know whether he received such advice. I imagine that he probably did, but, with that ignorance, combined with arrogance, that has been the hallmark of the entire Budget process, he went ahead and announced the abolition of foreign income dividends in two years' time. He wrote that into the Bill in clause 36, and in the six-page schedule 6.
  When we reached clause 36 in Committee, we warned Ministers that the abolition of foreign income dividends would be extremely damaging, and we advised the Government to withdraw the proposals. As usual, the debate was guillotined, so we had no real opportunity to explore the subject at great length. All six pages of the complex schedule 6 went entirely unexamined because of the timetable motion imposed by the Government.
  Luckily, however, we were not entirely alone in drawing attention to the damage that might be caused. When the companies affected heard the Chancellor's statement, they contacted the Treasury and made it clear that, if they were treated in the way set out in the Budget, they would simply leave the United Kingdom. They would prefer to remain here, but they do not have to be located here. They are, by definition, international companies, they operate in many different markets, they have investments in many other countries, and, if pressed, and if sufficiently damaged by the change, they would relocate. The Government would lose not only some important British companies, their headquarters and the employment that they offer, but all the tax.
  Even this Government realised that something was wrong, so they eventually started to listen. Not only were they contacted by the companies themselves, but they received urgent representations from business associations and institutes, such as the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors. All pointed out to the Government how stupid the proposal was.
  Drawing almost at random from the letters sent to me as a member of the Finance Bill Committee, I have here a letter from the Association of British Insurers. It says:
  "The measure will have very detrimental effects for British based international groups. There has been inadequate time for consideration of the measure. In these circumstances I ask you to press the Government to withdraw the measure."

  211
  I believe that that letter was sent to all members of the Committee, but, as usual, Labour Members showed no interest in standing up for British business. They remained entirely silent about the matter, and it fell to my hon. Friends on the Committee to make the appropriate noises.
  We now have a Liberal Democrat gracing our presence here this evening, but that is unusual, because they were seldom present in Committee. Perhaps one or two Liberal Democrats are present. I apologise to the hon. Member for Taunton (Mrs. Ballard), who comes from my county of Somerset. I particularly welcome her presence this evening.
  However, their presence was highly unusual in Committee, and, during the debate on foreign income dividends, not one Liberal Democrat was present, despite the fact that they had been alerted to the damage that would be caused to important British companies, many of which operate in their and our constituencies. As usual, it fell to Conservative Members to take the entire burden of opposition to this particularly daft proposal in the Finance Bill.
  We are not here dealing with a few odd British companies with highly unusual tax positions. We are dealing with companies such as BAT Industries, Burmah Castrol, Coats Vyella, Glaxo Wellcome, Reckitt and Colman, RTZ, SmithKline Beecham and Taylor Woodrow, to name just a few. The damage caused caught the eye of the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry in particular, and it wrote in strong terms to, I think, all members of the Committee, certainly to the Government, in a release headed "Planned tax changes 'could drive firms out of UK"'. Its chief executive said:
  "We are concerned that these proposals will drive many companies out of the UK as they will object to having to pay a tax 'double whammy' in Britain and abroad."
  He urged:
  "the decision to scrap FIDs was over-hasty and unjustified."
  Dr. Rudi Vis: Will the right hon. Gentleman list those companies which have said that they will be leaving the United Kingdom, rather than mention a long list of companies which we all know about? Which ones have said that they will be leaving the United Kingdom if what the right hon. Gentleman says takes place?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The discussions between the companies concerned and Ministers were presumably confidential. The companies do not want to issue threats. They prefer to make the threats in private.
  I have spoken to representatives of the companies concerned, and they have made it clear to me that they do not have to put up with a hostile tax regime in Britain. They would prefer to remain in the United Kingdom. We are a magnet for these companies. They like our low costs, our flexible labour market and our business-friendly environment, all of which are very much the achievements of the previous rather than the present Government; but they have made it clear that, if they run up against a tax regime that does not understand their particular requirements, and effectively subjects them to double taxation, they will relocate.
  212
  If the hon. Gentleman does not think that that was a consideration, will he explain why the Government capitulated and agreed to look again at the matter? They realised that they had made a mess of this, and finally listened to the entreaties. In other words, the penny finally dropped. The Chancellor, and the Paymaster General in particular, realised that a major mistake had been made, and they went into a frenzy of back-tracking, side-tracking and general confusion.
  Of course we welcome the rethink—we welcome it when a sinner repents—but the fact that the Government are thinking again does not stop some of the damage. There is still a great deal of uncertainty around about the Government's intentions.
  During the debates on the timetable motion, we heard how important it was to get the Bill through in order to give taxpayers certainty. Do my hon. Friends remember that? We heard a lot of that, particularly from the Financial Secretary, who said that certainty and stability were crucial, so the Bill had to be put on the statute book without any delay. But that rush has created the very uncertainty we now see.
  The Government have withdrawn the original damaging proposal to abolish foreign income dividends, but they have not replaced it with anything else. Many companies are highly uncertain about what sort of tax regime they will face in future. They do not know where they stand, and the Government still not have told them.
  We listened with great interest in Committee when we reached clause 36, when the Paymaster General was due to tell us the result of his deliberations. Although we laboured under the timetable motion, we were careful to give him plenty of time to expand on his plan to give taxpayers the certainty that the Government deemed so important.
  What a terrible disappointment that all was. The Paymaster General admitted that a great rethink was going on. Remarkably, he started with the suggestion that it was the companies themselves that should come up with a new arrangement. He seemed unwilling to do any of the work. However, a little later he said that he had four options. They were sketchily set out in his remarks. The first is clearly completely dotty. He suggested that he might restrict foreign income dividends to companies mainly in foreign ownership. To discriminate even more transparently against British companies in that way does not solve the problem; it makes it worse.
  As we proceeded with the non-explanation of the conclusions to the non-consultations, we became more and more depressed, because it was apparent that the Government were in a terrible muddle, and were really a victim of their own guillotine. They wanted to bring forward some alternative proposals, but the timetable motion that they have imposed on the Bill and on the House made it impossible to consult fully and table proposals in time for consideration in Committee and by the House.
  By bringing forward legislation in such a rush and by refusing to consult, the Government have fallen into their own trap. They now realise that the abolition of foreign income dividends is unsustainable. Therefore, clause 36 and schedule 6 are damaging, contradictory, defective and wrong.
  8 pm
  Nevertheless, in Committee the Government insisted on passing that clause and schedule into law unamended. They say that they will look at the issue again, but it is extraordinary that, having failed to consult before legislating, they are now legislating before consulting. That is a serious matter for the House, which is being invited to pass into law something that the Government know is wrong.
  Luckily, the House has two amendments before it which would remove the whole shambles from the Bill and give the Government an opportunity to think, discuss and consult. After all, the measures would not have come into force for two years, anyway, so what is the hurry? Sheer arrogance is preventing them from withdrawing these damaging measures, which they know are wrong. Instead, they intend to force into law something that they admit is wrong and damaging, simply because they lack the courage to withdraw it.
  I urge the House to take advantage of these modest amendments, which would remove the confusion from the Bill and give the Government an opportunity to have a genuine re-think.
  Mr. Howard Flight: After the attack on pension fund accumulations, the two other aspects of the Finance Bill that do most damage are the abolition of foreign income dividends and of TESSAs and PEPs in 1999, without announcing what the Government intend to put in their place.
  The main advantage of the Anglo-Saxon economies of north America and Britain, in contrast the continental Europe economies, has always been the clarity of our tax law, which has been sharply defined both in this House and by the courts. In continental Europe, tax law is a political mush, with many areas where it is not clear what is within or without the law.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) said, to legislate for the abolition of FIDs in 1999, but then to say that that will not happen and that the Government will sort it out in the 1998 Finance Bill, makes no sense. Having recognised the problems, the correct course must be not to change the law until there has been full consultation.
  Similarly, woolly statements in the Budget speech and in Committee about ending TESSAs and PEPs in 1999 and putting some undefined individual savings accounts arrangements in their place creates unnecessary uncertainty for savers and for the investment management industry. I declare an interest, as I spent 25 years in the industry, and I remain the deputy chairman of an international investment management company.
  I recollect that the Chancellor stressed in his Budget speech that his key long-term objective was to increase investment in this country. However, the two interrelated actions that I have described are bad news for savers and for investors, especially at a time when the Government should be promoting and strengthening measures to encourage savings.
  If we want to take pressure off interest rates and sterling, we should encourage people to save the £32 billion pay-outs from mutual building societies. Surely we saw the problem coming, so the Finance Bill should have included appropriate measures. The way to
  214
  achieve higher investment is through higher savings. Anything that is a potential attack on savings is bad for investment. I shall return to that point later.
  I want to focus specifically on FIDs. Surely it is self-evident that it is desirable to retain and encourage international companies based in the United Kingdom. Whether they are foreign-owned or internationally owned, they are a source of tax revenue and employment, with a spin-off for accounting, legal and other services.
  Our long-term history shows the wisdom of encouraging our businesses to invest profitably overseas, whether through direct investment by individual companies or portfolio investment by individuals or pension funds. The abolition of FIDs would undermine that. If international holding companies do not know where they stand, which will be the case if the Finance Bill goes through unamended, there is every motive for those companies not to take risks, and to consider moving somewhere else. In addition, I believe that the estimated savings of £250 million per annum are highly optimistic.
  The conditions suggested by the Paymaster General to alleviate the position make little sense. If we require 80 per cent. foreign ownership, that merely encourages foreign takeover of British companies, but also encourages British-based international companies to move elsewhere. If we require a fixed percentage of overseas earnings—90 per cent. has been suggested—that would be illogical and inflexible. Indeed, it would discourage international companies from setting up in the UK. To limit the amount that companies could pay out in an FID would impose a fiscal distortion on UK companies' overseas investment.
  My biggest objection is one of principle—the attack on FIDs is an attack on the principles behind the double taxation treaties and the underlying equity thereof. Aside from the practical problems that that raises, I am surprised that it should ever have been considered by the Government.
  The present rules permit advance corporation tax paid on FIDs, which cannot be offset against UK corporation tax, to be recovered. The reason is simple. An international company pays its taxes in the parts of the world where it operates. It gets double taxation relief on those against UK corporation tax. If it pays dividends, which is a normal and proper thing for a company to do, there is likely to be a shortfall that cannot be offset against its specific UK corporation tax liability.
  Therefore, the net effect of abolishing FIDs is that British-based international companies will suffer a tax disadvantage against UK companies. That then encourages UK companies to concentrate their investments in this country, and not spread them around the world where we have such a good record.
  More narrowly, FIDs abolition, as proposed, represents for the UK investment management industry a complete undermining of several years of work and substantial expenditure by both the Government and the industry in developing the open-ended investment company as a UK-based investment fund structure designed to compete attractively with Dublin and Luxembourg, encouraging foreigners to come to the UK to use an OEIC to structure their funds to sell around the world. If people go to Dublin or Luxembourg, they will take not only fund management fees but all the ancillary accounting and legal revenues.

  215
  It is no wonder that Dublin is laughing, as it again offers a substantial tax advantage for international funds. Speaking as someone in the industry—after years of work trying to get the right product—I find it frustrating that the ground is being cut from under such products just as we are about to use them.
  Also damaging for the United Kingdom investment management industry, and related to our not knowing what will happen with FIDs and ACT after the next two years, is the announcement that PEPs and TESSAs will be abolished. Middle England has to be clear that PEPs and TESSA will end.
  We have received some notice of the nature of the proposed individual savings scheme in the Inland Revenue's news release, "A New Individual Savings Account". Having thought about the matter in some detail, however, I believe that whatever is proposed will be considerably less attractive than the current PEP and TESSA arrangements if ACT is lost and if the FIDs measures are passed. It will also be less attractive in principle.
  The announcement mentions proposals that tax relief will be limited, up to an overall—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is speaking about matters that are not relevant to the amendment. We are debating foreign income dividends, not savings schemes. He was properly speaking to the amendment; perhaps he will do so again.
  Mr. Flight: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I apologise. I ask the indulgence of yourself and of the House, however, because the matters are interrelated. As you will have noted, when Conservative Members make a point about something damaging investors' interests—whether it is abolition of ACT or of FIDs—we receive the reply from Ministers, "But we have this new savings scheme, which will answer all the problems." I believe that it is fair to give the matter an airing.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It may seem fair to give the matter an airing, but the House has given me its rules, which state clearly that hon. Members must stick to the amendment and not stray from it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will find another opportunity to raise those issues.
  Mr. Flight: I hear what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that you will give me an opportunity on Third Reading to deal with the matter.
  The point that I wish to stress is that abolition of FIDs and the other tax proposals that I have mentioned will not only damage for UK international businesses but bring a lack of clarity to our tax system. The measures are also damaging to the UK investment management industry—which I should have thought it was in the interests of the Government and the House to support. Unless our amendment dealing with FIDs is passed, we will make no progress with the OEIC scheme in competing for business with our competitors in Luxembourg and Dublin.
  I hope later today to have an opportunity to deal with the issues. The measures will be damaging if they are passed unamended. They are bad aspects of the Budget and of the Finance Bill, and we should correct them before they become law.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Brooke: My speech will be extremely brief. I think that I am right in saying that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), the Paymaster General and I are the only four hon. Members participating in the debates on this Finance Bill who were on the 1978 Standing Committee.
  I remember the Paymaster General with particular affection on that occasion, because we tried to cause the House to sit into August, and the only way in which we could accomplish that was by ensuring that the Finance Bill was considered for a decent length of time. On one occasion, he joined us after dinner and—slightly to the distress of his Whips—made a very powerful speech, in which, for our purposes, he gently steered the ball towards his own goal. Against that background, and with immense good will, I should like to ask him one question. I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will not rule me out of order.
  I served in the Committee on the Housing Act 1996. The Government had proposed in that Act several clauses that they subsequently withdrew because of representations from people in my constituency. Although the Minister for London and Construction, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) made a powerful speech explaining how incompetent the then Government had been, the Opposition had not explained what was wrong with the clauses.
  In the case of this Finance Bill and foreign income dividends, not only the Conservative party but my constituents, in a series of multinational companies, have drawn the Government's attention to what is wrong with their clauses. In the Government's posture, I do not understand—I hope that the Paymaster General will tell us—why Ministers, unlike those dealing with the Housing Act 1996, will not straightforwardly withdraw the clauses and return with the proposals on which, they say, they are consulting. Why are Ministers ploughing ahead and saying that they will consult after the clause has been passed? I do not absolutely follow the logic of the Government's actions.
  Mr. Gibb: I do not know whether the Government are aware how much damage they are doing with their decision to abolish foreign income dividends, how much damage has been done since 2 July 1997 or how much damage is being done daily as Ministers dither in deciding how to extract themselves from the mess that they have got themselves into. Conservative Members have mentioned in this debate the problems of United Kingdom companies with overseas holdings, and I mentioned those problems in an earlier debate. Today, however, I should like to deal with the equally disastrous problems—which my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) mentioned—that the City of London will face.
  The history of the City of London has been bound up in collective investment vehicles. Unit trusts, particularly, have been an enormous success, although they are not particularly attractive vehicles for overseas investors—especially continental Europeans, who do not really understand the trusts concept. Consequently, in recent years, centres such as Dublin and Luxembourg—which my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South

  217
  Downs also mentioned—have become much more popular locations for collective investment vehicles. The asset management side of the industry is located in the United Kingdom, but the back office—which represents about 60 per cent. of managers' cost base—is located with the vehicle.
  Dublin and Luxembourg have open-ended company vehicles rather than trusts. Therefore, those locations have recently become enormously popular for collective investment vehicles. Luxembourg and Dublin combined now have a 22 per cent. share of the European funds market—which represents 12 per cent. growth in just five years. In the same period, the UK's share has remained static at 10 per cent. Moreover, in that period funds managed in Luxembourg and Dublin have quadrupled while those in the United Kingdom have only doubled.
  In 1992, the combined assets of UK fund managers in Luxembourg and Dublin were three and one third billion dollars. By 1995, they had increased to £20 billion. Sixty three per cent. of Dublin business has been undertaken by UK fund management houses. This means that we are exporting jobs to Dublin and to Luxembourg. We are talking about thousands of jobs in the back office—jobs in the accountancy and legal professions, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs also alluded. In co-operation with the City and the Government, the concept of an open-ended investment company was recently developed. These OEICs were introduced precisely to deal with the problem that I have just outlined.
  OEICs are attractive to European investors, but only while we have foreign income dividends. If those companies are to be attractive to European investors, they will have to invest in European or overseas equities. By definition, investors want to reduce the risk of, for example, currency fluctuations, so they will want to invest through vehicles which will themselves invest in European and overseas equities. Of course, if those overseas equities are paying dividends to the UK OEICs, those dividends will have been taxed in the overseas jurisdiction; when they arrive in the UK vehicle, they will be subject to UK tax, but that tax will be offset by double taxation relief.
  We now reach the point at which those vehicles want to pay dividends to their investors. Again, the companies will be subject to advance corporation tax, but there is nowhere for those vehicles to offset their ACT because there is no mainstream UK corporation tax liability. The ACT is therefore simply carried forward from one year to the next, indefinitely into the future. As such, it becomes an irrecoverable cost. Unless we have foreign income dividends, it becomes an unsustainable cost.
  If a company can demonstrate that the dividends that it is paying out of the OEIC derive from overseas investment income, having FIDs means that that company can obtain a repayment of the ACT that was paid when the dividends were initially paid. Effectively, that means that the ACT is no longer a cost and the company is being taxed only once on its overseas profit. That is precisely what FIDs were designed to do and why OEICs have become an attractive vehicle. If OEICs do not have FIDs, the attempt to overturn the rise of Luxembourg and Dublin will fail. OEICs are taxable on their income at 20 per cent., but they are exempt from tax on their capital gains.
  218
  Research shows that, if the Government retained FIDs, and if OEICs were fully established in the UK, a European portfolio moving to the UK would yield more than double an identical fund in an offshore centre, and the yield would be about 40 per cent. more for a global fund than for a European fund. That is the result of the previous Government's development of FIDs and, of course, of our favourable double taxation treaty network.
  Until the Budget, Luxembourg and Dublin were greatly concerned about the development of OEICs and the fact that we have FIDs. However, on 4 January the Financial Times said:
  "OEICs are expected to stem an exodus of investment business to Dublin and Luxembourg."
  The previous Government had successfully tackled a serious problem for the City of London but, alas, we then had the Budget on 2 July.
  Investment Week magazine states:
  "Perpetual is to consider selling offshore funds to the UK market following the Government's decision to scrap Foreign Income Dividends (FIDs).
  The fund management group is one of several that have now put on hold plans to establish UK-based OEICs to sell into Europe"
  and
  "repatriate funds from Dublin or Luxembourg … These include Standard Life, Henderson Investors and Barings.
  David Mossop, chief executive of Perpetual said:' … We have plans to start marketing into Europe in 12–24 months and will now have to consider using Luxembourg vehicles rather than UK OEICs.'"
  That is the consequence of this enormously damaging measure.
  I refer the Paymaster General to the letter from Sheila Nicoll, director of legal and fiscal affairs at the Association of Unit Trusts and Investment Funds, who says:
  "we will continue to stress the need for an early statement"
  on FIDs. She continues:
  "Damage has already been done, and while the toothpaste clearly cannot be put back in the tube, a clearer statement at Report Stage that Ministers have no intention of damaging the international competitiveness of UK-based funds would at least prevent more spillage."
  In Committee, the Paymaster General accepted that the Government had committed an enormous gaffe and had been wrong to propose the abolition of FIDs, and that they were now going to consult interested parties to see whether they could come up with a solution to the problem that they had created. He suggested four solutions but, even during the enunciation of those potential solutions, he said:
  "I do not know whether any one of these suggestions will solve the problem."
  I will briefly run through the Paymaster General's four suggestions.
  The first was that the Government
  "could relax the shareholding condition for the international shareholding company rules."
  International holding company rules are slightly different from FID rules. One can establish an international headquarters company, which means that one is not obliged to pay ACT initially—one can pay a FID without paying ACT in the first place. When the Chancellor introduced that scheme, he pointed out that the

  219
  international holding company rules will remain in place so that these provisions can be used. As everyone knows, however, the international holding company rules can be used only by companies which are at least 80 per cent. owned by non-residents.
  The Paymaster General's first suggested solution was thus to relax the rule that international holding companies should be 80 per cent. owned by non-residents. He said that the Government could "reduce that percentage", but to what does he propose to reduce it? If he were to reduce it to nil, he will be virtually reintroducing FIDs, so why on earth does he not withdraw the clause and schedule 6, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) proposes?
  The Paymaster General's second proposal was to
  "allow surplus ACT to continue to be reclaimed by companies which derive 90 per cent. or, perhaps, a lower percentage—".
  Is that not virtually bringing back FIDs? The third suggestion was
  "to limit the amount of FIDs that a company could pay to the amount that it had paid historically, perhaps in the average of the past two or three years."
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs said, that is a terrible distortion of the tax system. It is also horribly complicated but, in any case, if the Paymaster General does that, is he not virtually bringing back FIDs?
  The Paymaster General continued:
  "A fourth option would be to that a company could pay no more than a specified proportion of its dividends as FIDs."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 22 July 1997; c. 386–7.]
  Depending on what proportion the Government deigned to allow the companies to pay, they may or may not be virtually bringing back FIDs. If the Government allowed a lot of FIDs to be paid, they would be bringing back FIDs.
  All the Paymaster General's proposals admit that the only solution to the terrible mess that the Government have got this country and the City of London into is to bring back FIDs. Why is he prolonging the agony of international and multinational companies based in this country, and that of City fund managers who want to boost London as a centre for collective investment funds, by saying they have to wait until the 1998 Budget before he can undo the damage that the Government have now done? Why does he not instead simply accept the amendment and withdraw this very damaging clause, so that, from now on, the City of London and the multinational companies can get on with what they do best, which is investing and making money for this country?
  The Paymaster General (Mr. Geoffrey Robinson)rose—
  Mr. Woodward rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to speak, he will have to be quick.
  Mr. Woodward: I apologise for being so slow, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In considering the amendment, I find myself questioning the rationale behind it and the rest of the Budget. Why, when there seems to be so much
  220
  evidence to support the need for consultation and a review, do the Government wish to proceed with the clause? The amendment is sensible, given the sheer body of opposition to the proposals.
  8.30 pm
  Let me remind the House what the Paymaster General said in Committee:
  "There will be two years in which we can not only ask but consult them, and we have made it clear that we will do so."
  He then referred to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton):
  "What is the hon. Gentleman on about? I cannot understand the sense of his remarks."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 22 July 1997; c. 387.]
  I should like to make some sense of the remarks that the Paymaster General found so difficult to draw together. They were ably and simply expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who suggested that the right thing to do would be to withdraw the clause altogether, rethink it and come back with some better proposals.
  There is no question that FIDs were introduced to benefit the United Kingdom. The purpose of the current FIDs system was to provide a means by which companies with foreign operations could avoid double taxation. I hope that Labour Members do not support double taxation, despite their addiction to taxation as a means of living. Double taxation should always be resisted. The reasons for the introduction of the system are extremely important.
  The amendment seeks to remove the distortion that the clause will introduce. It is yet another example of the Government's desire to proceed with precipitous haste. They have been in government for only three months and yet they are throwing out this proposal. Has their policy really been thought through?
  There is now evidence from so many companies which earn a great deal of money for the United Kingdom. They are clearly extremely worried. The Paymaster General said in Standing Committee that he could not understand what we were on about. It is very simple: we are expressing the concerns of businesses up and down the country that earn money for this country. We are at a loss to understand, if the right hon. Gentleman knows that a review is necessary, what is the point of proceeding with the clause. Of course, withdrawing it might involve some loss of face, and we know that the Minister without Portfolio would be extremely upset with his colleagues were they to do that, but is the measure right for Britain?
  The Government spend hours every day constructing reviews and appointing business leaders from all over the City to join various projects. Would it not be better to withdraw the clause and then to draw in experts from some of those companies to review the matter properly and look in detail at the consequences of what the Government wish to achieve?
  The Association of British Insurers has been perfectly explicit. It states:
  "The measure should be withdrawn and any changes in this area should be the subject of full consultation."
  The Government are in love with consultation and working parties. They prefer a review, when a decision would be more appropriate. In case after case, they have

  221
  a review or set up a working party. Yet when business says, "Let us have a review and full consultation," what happens? In the most arrogant, high-handed way, the Government say, "No, we know best: we will introduce the legislation and if there is a problem, we will try to clear it up in the next two years."
  The Association of British Insurers points out:
  "The purpose of FIDs is to ensure that British based multinationals are not at a tax disadvantage in respect of trading income and dividends received from abroad. The withdrawal of the FIDs regime will place such groups at a disadvantage."
  What is the point of that? The Association of British Insurers recognises:
  "Foreign-owned groups will not be affected by this change because they will be able to set up International Headquarters Companies to remit dividends overseas without paying ACT."
  What do the Government have against British-based multinationals?
  The Government spend a great deal of time talking about the need to create certainty and stability. The Chancellor claimed that his entire Budget was predicated, as he claimed, on the need to create certainty. Yet declaration after declaration by company after company is that the proposal will create uncertainty and instability.
  Only a few weeks ago, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that there would be "no U-turn" on FIDs. He also added that the Paymaster General was in talks with companies to find an alternative. Where is the certainty when on the one hand the Government say that they will do something but on the other hand realise the need for consultation? What is gained by their precipitate haste?
  Some of the companies are issuing warnings. The chief executive of Lasmo wrote to the Chancellor as follows:
  "The very independence of Lasmo, and all British companies which have had international success, is put at risk by your proposals, as we will simply be worth more to a foreign acquirer than we can be on our own."
  Is that not a significant warning that the Government might wish to heed?
  Time after time, we hear sermons from Labour Members about why the Conservative party failed to understand. In speech after speech and sermon after sermon in Committee we heard that our knowledge was not relevant because we lost the election. But the warnings are not from Conservative Members: they are statements from the companies that will be affected by the proposals.
  Burmah Castrol, the oil company, said that it would lobby the Chancellor, and stated:
  "It seems a shame that successful groups are being penalised in this way. We need to review our options. Moving offshore is not high among them but remains a possibility."
  Rio Tinto, the world's largest mining company, is also understood to have written to the Government expressing its opposition. Glaxo Wellcome and BAT have also said that they intend to make known their opposition to the change as they are worried about double taxation on profit. We are talking about big money. Brokers estimate that it represents up to 5 per cent. of United Kingdom dividends.
  The consequences of the proposal are serious. SmithKline Beecham, which earns more than 90 per cent. of its profits overseas said:
  "This is a disappointment. If London is going to be a centre for raising capital, this is hardly the thing to do."
  222
  So why is it being done now? The purpose of our amendment is to ask the Government to have a little humility. The Chancellor, the Paymaster General and the Chief Secretary lecture the Conservative party on the need for humility. Is there not something for them to learn, too? Should they not show a little humility in recognising that, when company after company clearly express not minor concerns but grave, serious concerns about the proposals, it might be better to amend the Bill and take the proposals out pending further consideration?
  The Chancellor said that, to stop the yield from ACT being eroded by greater use of foreign income dividends, the Government were ending foreign income dividends from 6 April 1999. Yet expert after expert tells us that that defence is a fig leaf. The change is an arbitrary revenue-raising mechanism. The Government should not take my word for it. I know that Government Members will simply respond to the words of Opposition Members by saying that they are, in their eyes, the words of a discredited Tory party. They do not have to accept our words. They should take the words of Paul George, tax adviser with the accountants Coopers and Lybrand. He said:
  "The abolition of Fids will bring back a distortion in the tax system which can penalise overseas investment by UK multinationals. The logic for the change is not clear."
  We are searching for the logic, the rationale behind the fact that, although the Government are claiming that they are removing distortions, company after company and adviser after adviser are telling them, "Hold back: this may be a mistake." Yet the Government are proceeding with extraordinary haste in their concern to, in their eyes, tidy up the distortions that they see.
  Why do the Government not listen to some of the bodies that I have mentioned? Why do they not have the humility to recognise that in this Finance Bill, which has been put together at extraordinary speed, covering a wide range of areas that were never anticipated in the Labour party manifesto, it would be better to hold back, review, involve all groups who have expressed concern, accept the amendment, and withdraw clause 36?
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: I shall not need to detain the House for very many minutes as we approach the final moments of the Finance Bill debates. What we have heard has, sadly, been nothing more than a rehash of what we heard on Second Reading and in Committee. Much though we welcome the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) to the Opposition Front Bench, he, too, had nothing to bring to the debate.
  I shall deal with the core question first to get it out of the way. The simple reason why we had to introduce clause 36, which puts an end to foreign income dividends in two years' time, was that, if we did not, there would be a rising net cost to the Exchequer of almost £1 billion. That is simply because, having removed one element of distortion—the tax credits—in the arrangement that the previous Government had rightly struck between shareholders, companies and the Exchequer, there was every incentive for multinational companies to move much more heavily into FIDs.
  I ask Opposition Members to reflect for a second on the fact that, despite introducing the arrangement four or five years ago, multinationals have continued to pay a great deal of dividends in the normal way simply because they have

  223
  been under pressure from their shareholders for them to obtain tax credits. We do not have precise figures on how much they have paid, but it is a substantial amount. That could grow very much more quickly in the new, unbalanced situation. We want to discuss that balance with industry, consult industry and negotiate with it. For the arrangement to be balanced, it has to be fair among the three parties.
  For the Opposition to criticise the Government for allowing time to consult is to deny completely all their criticism about lack of consultation. In this case, we have provided all this time for consultation, which has been welcomed by the companies concerned. We are determined and confident that we will reach a new arrangement with them.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If the Government wish to protect their revenue, while at the same time protecting the position of important British companies, why did they not announce a consultation exercise with a view to legislating in a future Finance Bill? Why rush ahead with an ill-judged announcement about the entire and immediate abolition of FIDs, which has turned out to be a fiasco?
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Robinson: I notice that the right hon. Gentleman challenged not the need for a review but the need to get the balance back that his own Government so rightly struck when they introduced FIDs. The point is very narrow. We had to include in the Bill the fact that we could not accept the tax loss that could well amount to more than £1 billion. Industry had to be notified of that. That does not mean that we are prejudging in any way where the new balance will be struck or the mechanism for it.
  I notice that Opposition Members were scathing about some of the proposals that I put forward just as starters, but two of them came straight from the initial consultation that we have already had with companies.
  Mr. Gibb rose—
  Mr. Robinson: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a second. He might deal with the following point in his intervention. I do not think that he is a scaremonger or very irresponsible—if he is, I have misjudged him—but ever since we have been discussing the point, he has mentioned the damage that it is doing. Why did Billiton go ahead with a major flotation that was a great success?
  Mr. Gibb: I have been told about the damage to which I have referred by the Association of Unit Trusts and Investment Funds. That is the body which is most concerned about the damage. The proposals are doing enormous damage to the City of London. Investment in OEICs has almost been totally wiped out by them. You refer to my criticism—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Member should be referred to as the Paymaster General.
  Mr. Gibb: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Paymaster General refers to my criticism of his four proposals and says that one of the proposals came from
  224
  industry itself. The reason why I am scathing about them is that they virtually mean that FIDs need to be brought back. If he is merely going to bring them back, why does not he do it today?
  Mr. Robinson: We need a new arrangement—a properly balanced arrangement like the previous one among the three parties. That is what I am sure we will strike.
  Mr. Loughton rose—
  Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman missed much of the debate, but I know that he was very vocal and garrulous in Committee, so I shall give way to him.
  Mr. Loughton: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's somewhat more subdued comments in comparison with the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who is not in her place. Perhaps, as an employee of the company that floated Billiton, I could be granted the opportunity to respond to the question that he asked my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb). Why did that company have to be floated at a substantially reduced price than was previously anticipated, due to the changes in the Budget? If it had not been affected by those changes, why is the share price heading below the issue price? The change has not been taken very well, has it?
  Mr. Robinson: I should have thought that a share price returning to its issue price happens quite often in the markets. The hon. Gentleman should know that far better than most in the House, and perhaps even better than I. As I have said before, I long ago gave up trying to read the markets and how a price may move on a particular day.
  I do not know of any criticism of the Government from the Flemings advisers—I imagine that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) was declaring an interest, if he still retains one—or from the company itself. If he considers a personally written letter that arrived on my desk—I will spare him the embarrassment of quoting from it—he will find that the negotiations that we conducted with Billiton and its advisers might well serve as a model for how Government and industry can work together. Far from there being damage, the Government have regained the confidence of industry and of the stock exchange, and we are building on that.
  Mr. Brooke: I thank the hon. Gentleman genuinely for the straightforward way in which he answered my question. What I am not quite clear about—perhaps he could clarify this—is whether the events on 2 July in the Chamber, on 4 July in Standing Committee, and in debates today are exactly what the Government intended in the first instance.
  Mr. Robinson: Yes, exactly. The relevant part of the Budget speech by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who has just joined us for these climactic moments as we move towards the last few seconds of the debate, said precisely that. We could see that there would be a problem, and we said, "That is why it has to end then. We must have new arrangements."

  225
  I, too, remember the Finance Bills that the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) rather ungraciously brought up. He knows that to be straightforward and clear-cut gives a deadline against which the negotiations can be undertaken, a benchmark against which the new arrangements can be set. That is precisely what we have done.
  Far from there being any uncertainty, we have certainty in the markets, and a willingness on the part of all the major companies that have written to us to enter into the negotiations. We are determined to reach a balance between the three interested parties.
  SmithKline Beecham has already proposed one of the suggestions that I put forward. Flemings has also put forward one of the proposals—I see the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) nodding. For all I know, there may be better and more radical proposals, but what I do know is that we are approaching the negotiations in a spirit of commitment and determination, and that industry is doing the same.
  Throughout our debates we have seen and heard the Opposition's crass hypocrisy. They say that they do not have enough time; then they filibuster for hours to fill the time that they get. We have seen them perform with rank incompetence from the very first day, when they could not table any amendments that were in order. The best that they have been able to do tonight consists of two wrecking amendments, which I urge the House to reject.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Why cannot the Government, just once, admit that they have messed up? That is clearly what happened, and we all know it. Any impartial outside observer—there are plenty of them—realises that the Government have fallen into a trap of their own making.
  On Budget day the Chancellor announced with a flourish, and without qualification, that he would abolish foreign income dividends. He did not say that he might not do it after all, or that he might have a second thought. He did not say that he would consult. It was a bald and unambiguous assertion: foreign income dividends would go.
  That is what is in the Bill before us. Clause 36 does not refer to any conditions being attached. Schedule 6, which, sadly, the guillotine denied us the opportunity to debate, puts into practice and lays down detailed mechanisms for the abolition of foreign income dividends.
  We all know what happened then. The Government suddenly realised that they had made a mistake. Under the impact of what the Opposition said, what the trade associations, the Confederation of British Industry and so on said, and what the companies were saying, the Government suddenly realised what any tax practitioner could have told them—that one cannot simply abolish foreign income dividends and expect important British companies to go on locating in the City of London or elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
  Companies are subject to double taxation without the relief granted by foreign income dividends. We know that, and now the Government know it, too. They did not know it on Budget day, but they have learnt it since. An extraordinary combination of ignorance and arrogance characterised both the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement on Budget day, and the bluster of the Paymaster General throughout the Committee.
  226
  The Paymaster General refused to admit that the clause was defective. It apparently protected the Revenue, but by threatening to drive companies out of the United Kingdom altogether it would have the paradoxical effect of decimating revenues.
  Why can the Government not withdraw the clause? It will not come into effect for two years, anyway, so what would be lost by admitting that they have made a mistake? If they accepted our amendments, they would thereby withdraw the damaging proposals and could then have their discussions and consultations with those affected. That would enable them to bring forward some genuinely thought out proposals in plenty of time for the next Finance Bill.
  The Government have not established that there is a threat to the Revenue. The Paymaster General merely asserts that there is. Even if there is a need to protect the Revenue, while balancing that with the needs of British companies, that is all the more reason to take the matter rather more slowly.
  The Government are a victim of their own timetable motion. We know that, and it is extraordinary that on this small item, this small amendment that would simply withdraw from the Bill something that they know to be wrong, they, in their pig-headed way, proceed in the knowledge that they are thereby putting into law something that they know to be damaging.
  We shall persist with our amendments and press the matter to a Division. Outside commentators will draw their own conclusions—that, when the Government talk of the need for a partnership with industry, a need to consult and to listen, those are hollow words from a hollow Government.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 150, Noes 330.

  Division No. 72]

  [7.31 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)

  Gibb, Nick

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Gill, Christopher

  Arbuthnot, James

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Baker, Norman

  Gorrie, Donald

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Gray, James

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Green, Damian

  Bercow, John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Body, Sir Richard

  Hammond, Philip

  Boswell, Tim

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Harvey, Nick

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Heald, Oliver

  Brady, Graham

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Brazier, Julian

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Breed, Colin

  Horam, John

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Burns, Simon

  Hunter, Andrew

  Burstow, Paul

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Butterfill, John

  Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Cash, William

  Key, Robert

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Chope, Christopher

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Leigh, Edward

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Lidington, David

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Lilley Rt Hon Peter

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Livsey Richard

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon sir Peter (Fareham)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Loughton, Tim

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Luff, peter

  Day, Stephen

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Duncan, Alan

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Maclennan, Robert

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Evans, Nigel

  Madel, Sir David

  Faber, David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Fabricant, Michael

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Fallon, Michael

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Flight, Howard

  Merchant, Piers

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Norman, Archie

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Oaten, Mark

  Gale, Roger

  Ottaway, Richard

  207

  Page, Richard

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Paice, James

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Pickles, Eric

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Prior, David

  Townend, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Tredinnick, David

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Trend, Michael

  Ruffley, David

  Tyler, Paul

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Sanders, Adrian

  Viggers, Peter

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Walter, Robert

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Wardle, Charles

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Webb, Professor Steve

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Wells, Bowen

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

  Whittingdale, John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Willetts, David

  Willis, Phil

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Spring, Richard

  Woodward, Shaun

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Yeo, Tim

  Streeter, Gary

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Stunell, Andrew

  Swayne, Desmond

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Syms, Robert

  Mr. Malcolm Moss and

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mr. Nigel Waterson.

  NOES

  Ainger, Nick

  Clapham, Michael

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Ashton, Joe

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clelland, David

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clwyd, Ann

  Banks, Tony

  Coaker, Vernon

  Barnes, Harry

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Barron, Kevin

  Coleman, Iain (Hammersmith)

  Battle, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cooper, Yvette

  Beard, Nigel

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cousins, Jim

  Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)

  Cranston, Ross

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Crausby, David

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Benton, Joe

  Cummings, John

  Berry, Roger

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Best, Harold

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Betts, Clive

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Blizzard, Bob

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Dalyell, Tam

  Boateng, Paul

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Borrow, David

  Darvill, Keith

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Denham, John

  Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Burden, Richard

  Dobbin, Jim

  Butler, Christine

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Byers, Stephen

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Caborn, Richard

  Doran, Frank

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Dowd, Jim

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Canavan, Dennis

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Casale, Roger

  Edwards, Huw

  Caton, Martin

  Efford, Clive

  Cawsey, Ian

  Ellman, Ms Louise

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Ennis, Jeff

  Church, Ms Judith

  Etherington, Bill

  208

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Laxton, Bob

  Flint, Caroline

  Lepper, David

  Flynn, Paul

  Leslie, Christopher

  Follett, Barbara

  Levitt, Tom

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Fyfe, Maria

  Linton, Martin

  Galbraith, Sam

  Livingstone, Ken

  Gapes, Mike

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Lock, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Love, Andrew

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McAllion, John

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McCabe, Stephen

  Godsiff, Roger

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Macdonald, Calum

  Graham, Thomas

  McDonnell, John

  Grant, Bernie

  McFall, John

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McKenna, Ms Rosemary

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Gunnell, John

  McLeish, Henry

  Hain, Peter

  MacShane, Denis

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hanson, David

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Mallaber, Judy

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Marek, Dr John

  Healey, John

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Martlew, Eric

  Heppell, John

  Maxton, John

  Hesford, Stephen

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hill, Keith

  Meale, Alan

  Hinchliffe, David

  Merron, Gillian

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Michael, Alun

  Home Robertson, John

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Milburn, Alan

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mitchell, Austin

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morley, Elliot

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hurst, Alan

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Hutton, John

  Mountford, Kali

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Mudie, George

  Illsley, Eric

  Mullin, Chris

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Olner, Bill

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Pendry, Tom

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pond, Chris

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Pope, Greg

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Khabra, Piara S

  Prosser, Gwyn

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  209

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Rammell, Bill

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Raynsford, Nick

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Stringer, Graham

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela (Edgbaston)

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Swinney, John

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Rogers, Allan

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Rooney, Terry

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Timms, Stephen

  Ruane, Chris

  Tipping, Paddy

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Todd, Mark

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Touhig, Don

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Trickett, Jon

  Salter, Martin

  Truswell, Paul

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Sawford, Phil

  Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Vaz, Keith

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Singh, Marsha

  Watts, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  White, Brian

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Wigley Dafydd

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  William, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Wilson, Brian

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Winnick, David

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wise, Audrey

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wood, Mike

  Snape, Peter

  Wray, James

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Spellar, John

  Wright, Tony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Wyatt, Derek

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Stevenson, George

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mr. David Jamieson and

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Janet Anderson.

  Division No. 73]

  [8.54 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Amess, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Bercow, John

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Day, Stephen

  Body, Sir Richard

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Boswell, Tim

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Duncan, Alan

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Brady, Graham

  Evans, Nigel

  Brazier, Julian

  Faber, David

  Breed, Colin

  Fabricant, Michael

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fallon, Michael

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Flight, Howard

  Burnett, John

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Burns, Simon

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Burstow, Paul

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Butterfill, John

  Gale, Roger

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Cash, William

  Gibb, Nick

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Gill, Christopher

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Chope, Christopher

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  227

  Gorrie, Donald

  Paice, James

  Gray, James

  Paterson, Owen

  Green, Damian

  Pickles, Eric

  Greenway, John

  Prior, David

  Grieve, Dominic

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Hammond, Philip

  Ruffley, David

  Harvey, Nick

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Sanders, Adrian

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Horam, John

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

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

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hunter, Andrew

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Spring, Richard

  Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Streeter, Gary

  Stunell, Andrew

  Keetch, Paul

  Swayne, Desmond

  Key, Robert

  Syms, Robert

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Leigh, Edward

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Letwin, Oliver

  Townend, John

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Tredinnick, David

  Lidington, David

  Trend, Michael

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Tyler, Paul

  Loughton, Tim

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Luff, Peter

  Viggers, Peter

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Wallace, James

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Walter, Robert

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Wardle, Charles

  Maclennan, Robert

  Waterson, Nigel

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Webb, Professor Steve

  Malins, Humfrey

  Wells, Bowen

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Whittingdale, John

  Merchant, Piers

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Woodward, Shaun

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Yeo, Tim

  Norman, Archie

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Oaten, Mark

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ottaway, Richard

  Mr. Oliver Heald and

  Page, Richard

  Sir David Madel.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  It being after Nine o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker proceeded, pursuant to Order [14 July] and Resolution [yesterday], to put forthwith the Question on an amendment moved by a member of the Government.

Schedule 8

  REPEALS
  Amendment made: No. 15, in page 95, line 4, column 3, at beginning insert—
  'In section 76(8), the definition of "relevant franked investment income".'.—
  [Mr. Darling.]
  Bill reported, with amendments.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  9.7 pm
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alistair Darling): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  This debate concludes proceedings on the first Finance Bill of the new Government. The Bill goes a long way towards implementation of the manifesto commitments that we made prior to the election and resulted in our winning. It introduces a number of measures that are good for the long-term health of the economy. The measures that we have taken in the Budget and in our reform of the way the Bank of England fixes short-term interest rates will ensure that we have a stable platform on which to build for the future.
  Before I deal with the merits of the Bill, I want to say a word or two about a recurring theme of the debate. Conservative Members referred to the guillotine and to proceedings on the Bill generally. We had the usual two days in Committee of the whole House, nine sittings in Standing Committee A and the best part of two days on Report. If there was insufficient time to discuss everything that the Opposition wanted to discuss, they have only themselves to blame. From our proceedings in Committee—both here and upstairs—it is obvious that the Opposition did not make the best use of their time.
  For example, on Wednesday 23 July, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who has won the respect of all hon. Members on previous Finance Bills, and whose ability to speak without notes on any subject for any length of time the Whips care to allot him is unparalleled, was warned under Standing Order No. 42, which deals with "irrelevance, or tedious repetition", because he spoke for more than an hour on clause 43, which the Opposition did not even oppose.
  The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) spoke for about an hour on a measure relating to the film industry that the Opposition did not oppose. We had a long discussion about the mother of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and whether she was Welsh. At one point, the shadow Chief Secretary told us about a tour that he had taken in various parts of the world. We had all sorts of discussions.
  We know, because we had 18 years—rather too long—to practise, that it can be easy and tempting for the Opposition to filibuster and waste time when there is no matter of substance to discuss. Conservative Members and those who follow our proceedings outside the House have every right to expect that legislation should be studied line by line, but the Opposition did not put their limited time to good use in this instance. Some Labour Members believe that the Opposition's strategy all along was not to

  231
  discuss the matters in hand, so that they would have some reason to complain afterwards. That is a matter for the Opposition.
  We gave ample time—more than has been given in the past—to debate the Bill. It is surprising, especially in view of everything that the Conservatives said during the general election campaign and right up to the Budget, that they gave the windfall tax on the privatised utilities such scant attention. That, we were told, was to be the main battleground for the Tory party, yet it was not even mentioned on Second Reading and there was scarcely any criticism—certainly none of substance—in Committee. The Opposition talked a lot beforehand, but when they had the opportunity to table amendments, they could find nothing that they wanted to criticise, and did not even bother.
  Mr. Ken Livingstone: I agree with my right hon. Friend about the weakness of the attack. Many of us regret the fact that the Budget's weaker points were not scrutinised more diligently by the Opposition. Perhaps I can now help to rectify that. Does he think that the Opposition did not really attack the windfall tax because they did not think that it was too bad? As they had seen all those City forecasts that the utilities could stand £10 billion of tax, our settling for half that amount seemed like a pretty soft option.
  Mr. Darling: I am sure that my hon. Friend needs no encouragement to follow the Opposition and offer his own criticisms. Before the general election, we always said that the windfall tax was reasonable in every respect, and so it proved when it was announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. It was a reasonable amount because we are a reasonable Government.
  What is more, the tax will be applied to a reasonable cause: helping to equip the country for the future and to give many young people and the long-term unemployed some hope. Perhaps that is why the Conservatives gave up on their opposition to it; perhaps they realised that people in general, and even the utilities themselves, understood that our proposal was reasonable, as was the purpose to which the money was to be applied.
  Not only will the tax help the young and the long-term unemployed, but there will be £1.3 billion, of which my hon. Friend the Paymaster General and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment are now considering the allocation, for rebuilding and repairing schools and thus improving education for children.
  The Government have also introduced measures to begin a programme to reduce the deficit—the massive debt—that we inherited because of the outgoing Conservative Government's mismanagement of the economy. It is necessary to reduce debt if we are to secure the stable platform that the country needs to build for the future.
  A central part of the Bill is the measure to reform the corporation tax system. Lowering corporation tax rates by 2 per cent. for both large and small companies is one of the major reforms of the system and will help businesses to plan and to invest for the future. The Bill also contains measures to increase investment relief. Conservative Members either did not find that exceptionable or did not get round to tabling any amendments to it.
  232
  A central part of the Government's approach to taxation is the concept of fairness—a concept that the Conservative party does not always understand. That is one of the reasons for our reduction of VAT on domestic fuel to the lowest rate that European rules allow. The Bill also contains a number of measures designed to close tax loopholes and deal with abuses in the tax system. That clearly excited Conservative Members. Let me say this to them: did not their Government, under prompting, try to close some of the loopholes in the Finance Bill that was debated earlier this year? It must be the duty of any Government to ensure that there are no unintended abuses in the tax system and, if there are loopholes, to close them.
  I appreciate that it can be galling for those who engage in tax planning and who legitimately advise people on how to take best advantage of the tax system to find that the Government of the day have shut off a particularly lucrative avenue. They must accept, however, that as taxpayers themselves they have an interest in ensuring that the Government are rigorous in their approach to the system and do not allow abuses to develop.
  The Bill also builds on our commitment to the environment and the promotion of health. It largely implements our manifesto promises, on the basis of which we won the election.
  I note that the International Monetary Fund, which is not noted for its support for our party in government, said that the new Government have made an excellent start and that we have set a high standard for our economic policies, aiming to maintain stability and foster long-term growth while seeking fairness and developing human potential. That does not strike me as too bad an assessment of what we have done, and it strikes me as an infinitely better assessment than anything that could have been said about many of the Budgets that have been introduced over the past 18 years.
  This is a Budget for fairness. It is a Budget for opportunity. It is a Budget that will create the right economic conditions for investment, growth and job opportunities. The Budget, and the Finance Bill, will equip the country for the future and provide a solid foundation on which to build. That is why it deserves an overwhelming endorsement.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The Bill was conceived in great haste and forced through on a timetable motion. Its long-term effects will be extremely damaging.
  The Chancellor promised only one tax increase in the Bill: the windfall tax. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury made the extraordinary observation that the Committee had not debated the tax. I realise that he made only fleeting appearances during the Committee stage, but one of his hon. Friends really should have told him that we spent the whole of the first day debating the windfall tax, having spent a good deal of the Committee stage on the Floor of the House debating clause 1—the clause that introduces the tax. The right hon. Gentleman cannot even get the facts straight in regard to proceedings in Committee.
  The central feature of the Budget, however, is the fact that, although the Chancellor did indeed promise us one tax increase, he delivered 17. Despite all the assurances and promises that were made before the election, which were repeated so often and emphasised so strongly,

  233
  the Chancellor will raise between £5 billion and £6 billion every year, starting this year. We have the immediate imposition of extra duty on fuel—petrol, diesel and heating oil—which nets the Chancellor £750 million this year and is far more than he is giving away in the 3 per cent. cut in VAT on domestic fuel. We have the restriction on mortgage interest relief, the stamp duty increase, the abolition of relief on health insurance and many other increases.
  Then, an hour or so ago, we again witnessed the extraordinary spectacle of the foreign income dividends saga. The whole world knows, even if the Government will not admit it, that the Government made fools of themselves over that. They blundered ahead, trying to abolish foreign income dividends in the teeth of advice to the contrary.
  For the benefit of any hon. Member who has just joined us, I remind the House that foreign income dividends are a form of tax relief for British companies with large overseas earnings that was brought in by the previous Government. The Labour Government simply wanted to abolish them, but were soon told by those responsible that the damage would be immense. Instead of withdrawing the proposals, however, they continued to blunder on and, an hour ago, we were forced to adopt the proposals in the Finance Bill. The Bill that is about to pass out of the House of Commons contains a clause and a major schedule that do not contain the Government's intention—we have legislated to put into law something with which the Government disagree.
  The Government were a victim of their own guillotine. Having admitted their mistake, they did not have time to correct it. That is not the way to legislate. We did our best in Committee, both upstairs and on the Floor of the House, and on Report to improve the Bill. Few Liberal Democrats were involved in our proceedings, although I see that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), who was a member of the Committee, is here. I believe that they had three places on the Committee, but whole debates went by without any Liberal Democrat representative, so the burden fell on my hon. Friends. I can safely say on behalf of my hon. Friends that they did a great deal to try to improve the Bill but, despite their efforts, 14 clauses and three long schedules were left entirely undiscussed in Committee—24 pages of a Bill of slightly more than 100 pages went unexamined.
  There was no filibustering—[Interruption.] If the Chief Secretary or his hon. Friends are alleging that there was, they are really saying that the Chairmen, one of whom is a member of their party, failed to control the Committee. The Chairmen did not allege that there was any filibustering, and there was none. There were long speeches because we had a lot to discuss. The Finance Bill is highly technical and it is no fault of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) that he happens to know a great deal more about the subject than the—
  Mr. Darling rose—
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am responding to the Chief Secretary's points. One of his hon. Friends will have an opportunity to respond to the debate and we will listen to what is said. It is not the fault of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford that he knows more about the Bill than the Government or that he spoke at some length to some of the amendments and clauses.
  234
  About a quarter of the Bill remained unexamined at the end of our proceedings. That created great difficulty, not only for the members of the Committee but for outside bodies. The Chief Secretary's extraordinary statement that the Bill's being bundled through the House was all according to precedent ignores the fact that outside bodies often want to criticise some of the proposals, recommend improvements and propose amendments, but they were denied the opportunity to do so.
  We are complaining not just about the short time between the Bill going into Committee and its coming out of Committee, but about the fact that the Committee sat every day of the week. Many outside bodies, institutes and tax practitioners wrote in to complain.
  I have before me a letter from the respected Association of Unit Trusts and Investment Funds, which complains that it was not seeking, in its suggested amendments, to wreck the Government's proposals. It says that it likes to work with Governments to avoid unintended consequences of legislation. It says that its members would not meet Ministers because there was no time. When its members asked to meet officials they were told that there was no point in talking to officials because Ministers made the decisions. So the only people worth talking to had no time for them. Association members were offered the chance to meet Ministers only once the Bill had completed its Committee stage.
  That is what we are complaining about. It is an insult not just to the House but to taxpayers outside the House that they had no opportunity to be consulted or to recommend improvements to the Bill. I am surprised that the Government do not concede that. Hon. Members will remember that they came to office full of all sorts of stuff about partnerships, the need to listen—they were going to be a listening Government—and the need to consult. How hollow and hypocritical it sounds now. The way we have proceeded is practically a definition of how not to legislate. The Government have proceeded in haste, made mistakes, and pushed ahead in the teeth of well-argued opposition.
  The proceedings have not been fruitless. We are not saying that the procedures of the House have not brought advantages, because we have established certain facts beyond dispute. One interesting fact the Government did not deny—and implicitly accepted—is that real expenditure in the current year is reduced by £3 billion, and by more than £5 billion in the next financial year, because of the extra inflation that is now built into the Budget arithmetic at least in part because of the inflationary effect of some of the Budget measures.
  I mentioned the increase, from the date of the Budget, in petrol and heating oil duties, which, as we have already observed, feed straight into the retail prices index. That is inflationary for all public services and an additional imposition on their costs, but there is extra money for none of the public services this year or next. What the Government have done for next year is simply pre-allocate some of the reserve, which was part of the control total anyway. Not a penny piece has been promised for public services as a whole, but the inflationary consequences of the Budget and other measures that the Government have taken ensure that the real value of public expenditure is reduced by £3 billion in the current year. It was therefore useful to be able to establish beyond doubt that that is indeed the case.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. Friend will recall that the Chief Secretary has stated more

  235
  than once—he certainly did it in his opening speech—that the Budget is designed to bring growth and stability for the future. That must mean unemployment continuing to fall and investment continuing to grow.
  Does my right hon. Friend believe that the way the Government have dealt with foreign investment dividends and advance corporation tax in respect of pensions is likely to lead to further investment by companies, which will now need to invest rather more in their employees' pensions thus depriving companies of investment in technology and machinery? How will he further respond to matters relating to foreign investment dividends, which will have a damaging effect on some big companies that employ a large number of people?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I agree with my hon. Friend. He will recall that, as an excuse for the timetable motion, the Government said that they wanted to get the Bill on to the statute book to end the uncertainty. In fact, as we now know, the Bill has created uncertainty. The status of foreign income dividends is in limbo. We do not know what the Government intend. All we know is that clause 36 is defective and inoperative.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the effect on savings and pensioners. The central feature of the Budget is the huge and unexpected tax increase on pension funds and, therefore, on millions of savers. I use the word unexpected only because a few people might have believed the Labour party's promise not to increase taxation. They will have been alarmed and amazed by the speed with which the Labour party broke its pre-election promises.
  Labour is hitting the very people who are attempting to provide for themselves and their families in the long term. The Government have the brass neck to call this a Budget for the long term. It is, in one sense: it hits the people who are saving for the long term.
  To add insult to that injury, the Government deny that they are hitting pension funds at all. It remains Government policy, as enunciated by the Financial Secretary, that the withdrawal of £3.5 billion a year from pension funds is good for them. That is what she asserted on 3 July. No member of the Government has withdrawn or modified that remark.
  The Budget will always be known as the pension tax Budget. If the Government believe that hitting pension funds to the tune of £3.5 billion a year is good for them, many other sectors of the economy must be hoping that the Government will not try to do any good to them in future Budgets.
  We knew that the Labour party would break its promises on taxation. We did not know that they would break them within three months and on such a colossal scale. We and millions of people outside will never trust the Government on taxation again.
  9.31 pm
  Mr. Tony Clarke: I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech during this debate. I begin by offering through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my gratitude to Madam Speaker for her comments on her acceptance of office. She spoke about my predecessor, the right hon. Michael Morris, who was the previous Chairman of Ways and Means and a Deputy
  236
  Speaker. She spoke of his fairness in handling debates, and I echo those remarks. Many hon. Members have commented to me on his fairness, and in particular his handling of the Maastricht debate.
  I wish to take this opportunity of placing on record my thanks to Michael Morris for his service to the House, and wish him and his family well for the future. He was a good servant of the House and I am sure that he will be missed in the Speaker's Office.
  Michael is not the only Member for Northampton to have left his mark on the House, as previous post-holders have played their part in the history and administration of this place. I am honoured to count myself among their number.
  Spencer Perceval entered Parliament in 1796 and remains the only Member for Northampton to date to hold the post of Prime Minister. He also has the unenviable honour of being the only British Prime Minister to be assassinated. He was shot in the Members' Lobby in 1812 by an angry farmer by the name of J. Bellingham.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: John.
  Mr. Clarke: Indeed.
  I appreciate that the folk of Northampton have strong views on parliamentary representation. Fortunately, Mr. Bellingham was not a local, but from the east coast.
  Charles Bradlaugh was a radical Member, first elected in 1880, but it was six years before he was finally able to take his seat. Having asked to affirm rather than swear the oath on arrival, he was imprisoned in the Clock Tower and excluded from Parliament, and a by-election was called. The wise folk of Northampton refused to accept Parliament's view. They did not allow Parliament to tell them whom they should select or refuse, and continued to return Bradlaugh. Unlike people today, he faced elections in 1880, 1881, 1882, 1884 and 1885. The people of Northampton returned him each time, declaring, "It is up to us to decide whom we wish to represent us." Finally, the Speaker allowed him to take his seat in 1886. I am pleased to say that, in 1888, he secured the passage of a Bill legalising affirmation in both the law courts and Parliament.
  Bradlaugh opposed the English oppression of Ireland. He also frowned on many aspects of the British empire, and was a great friend of India—of which I am sure many people are aware. He condemned war making and deplored malnutrition and neglect of the people. He was an advocate of land reform, and a staunch republican. There is much about Mr. Bradlaugh and his views that I find desirable today.
  No history of Northampton parliamentarians would be complete without reference to Margaret Bondfield—who was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble). Margaret Bondfield became the first woman Minister in this place when she was appointed Minister of Labour in 1929.
  Northampton was a seat of Parliament many times during the 14th century, and it has a proud history in defence of this place. During the civil war, the strong parliamentary garrison at Northampton led the assault at Naseby. Its shoemakers made the boots for Cromwell's army on the promise of payment following his victory. That payment was never received—I raise that issue now

  237
  as we are discussing the Finance Bill, and the relevant Ministers are present. I understand that the Chancellor is looking to introduce legislation on late payment of bills. I believe that Northampton has a just case in that regard. Alternatively, if that is not possible, we would settle for a favourable standard spending assessment settlement next year.
  My constituency of Northampton, South today comprises the southern half of the town and its surrounding green belt. It remains one of the fastest growing constituencies in the land. Despite a recent review, the electorate is 81,000 and rising. The population increases at an alarming rate: Northampton alone grows at a rate of 2,000 people per annum. The current population of 192,000 is expected to exceed 200,000 by the millennium.
  Industry has changed over the years. It still includes the tradition of shoemaking, but is now much more diverse. Church's shoes are particularly noteworthy, and I am grateful to the company for its assistance during the election campaign. The shoes that I purchased from it are still going strong and have seen me through both the election campaign and my many trips around this place, during which I have got lost many times. I recommend that brand to hon. Members.
  As I said, industry in my constituency has changed and is now more diverse. Carlsberg, Barclaycard and MFI are based in my constituency and have their headquarters in Northampton. We look forward to welcoming Panasonic to the fold later this year. Industry looks to the Government to strengthen the economy, and the measures in the Chancellor's Budget and in the Finance Bill will ensure that there is long-term stability and prosperity, rather than a cycle of boom-bust, for the first time in several years.
  My constituents welcome that stability and prosperity, and they welcome the additional provision for the national health service and for education. Although I understand the reasoning behind some of the amendments placed before the House today—I was in the Chamber for a considerable time this afternoon, listening to discussions about the pensions issue—I am somewhat disappointed that none of the amendments mentioned from where finance would come to replace that which they would eliminate. I found it particularly difficult to accept Conservative Members' advice on pensions, when they sat back for eight years and did nothing about the mis-selling of pensions.
  It is a great honour to serve the people of Northampton and its surrounding areas. It is the town of my birth and where I live and raise my family. I am proud to be the first member of the town for many years to serve the place of my birth. If we look through its history, we will see that not many people who were born and bred in Northampton have had the honour of serving that area. I am proud to be able to do that.
  May 1997 was a memorable time for me, not simply because of the general election result, but because, as the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) will know, my team, Northampton Town, were at Wembley. The cobblers, celebrating their centenary this year, reached Wembley for the first time and were victorious. Their defeat of Swansea was not appreciated by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) who joined me on that day, but
  238
  Northampton Town has now been promoted to the second division. That is proof positive that anything is possible under a Labour Government. As vice-chairman of the supporters trust, I wish the team well in their centenary year.
  I also place on record my gratitude to my constituents, who have supported me very well since the election, and thank my family for their support.
  I trust that the Bill will be passed and will bring about the financial stability for which the country cries out. On a personal note, my task is to serve my constituents with the same diligence and dignity that were evident in the careers of the Members whom I mentioned earlier. Northampton was described by Daniel Defoe as the handsomest town in England. I share that view, and I look forward to serving Northampton's people well into the new millennium.
  9.40 pm
  Mr. Brooke: On behalf of the whole House, I congratulate the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke) on a perfectly excellent maiden speech. I suspect that he made it easier for the Deputy Speaker to decide who should be called when a wide range of hon. Members—I am not referring to myself here—got up in what is necessarily a truncated Third Reading debate.
  The proceedings on the Bill have been notable for the fact—this is a tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb)—that Bognor has, I suspect, been mentioned more often than the City of London. I have visited Bognor, but the most vivid thing I knew about it before these proceedings was an exchange between the late Duke of Norfolk and someone who asked him whether, when he was senior steward at the Jockey Club, he ever had a flutter. He said that it was wrong that he should ever make a bet of any sort in that capacity, but it was true that Lavinia, the duchess, did occasionally have a bet. "Does she do well?", the person asked. "Not really," said the duke, "I had to sell Bognor last week."
  The Government's defence for the truncated proceedings on the Bill—the 12 working days that it has taken—has been that they are guided and governed by precedent, and that we have had just as much time as in past years; but the fact remains that, by having to take it day after day without intermission, the outside bodies have not had the opportunity to contribute, nor necessarily has there been any margin for those of my hon. Friends who sat on the Committee to be able to absorb advice. Frankly, the test will be whether the Government, who have defended the use of 12 days this year, use the same technique next year. If they were to use it again next year, the City of London would have much more to say than perhaps it has had to say this year, in these circumstances.
  The Chief Secretary alluded to the Treasury to the long speeches, and various references have been made to the fact that those speeches were not wholly satisfactory. One of the consequences of the long speeches of Conservative Members has been the nature of the interventions that they have provoked and prompted. The interventions of Labour Members on both the Back and the Front Benches have been the most revealing way in which they have shown that they have not fully understood the Bill.
  I close, because I want other hon. Members to be able to speak in the debate, with one exchange that I had with the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, with whom

  239
  I have had, broadly speaking, excellent relations throughout, although I acknowledge that there have been frissons.
  On the subject of the windfall tax, I raised with the Economic Secretary the fact that one Minister had said that there was no difficulty at all in companies affected by the tax paying it out of their borrowings. Her response to me was that the Paymaster General had made it clear in other debates that the regulators had said that the utilities would have no difficulty in paying the tax without affecting their investments, but that was not the point that I was making.
  The point that I was seeking to make was that it seemed to me to be an offence against the golden rule that the Chancellor had put forward in terms of his Budget that one should borrow for public purposes only if the money was to be used for investment and then oblige the utilities to borrow to pay the tax. That seemed to me an unfortunate imbalance and, although the Government have said that this is a one-off measure, I have an uneasy feeling that private borrowing will be used on future occasions.
  I promised that I would be brief. I reiterate my congratulations to the hon. Member for Northampton, South.
  9.44 pm
  Yvette Cooper: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke) on his admirable maiden speech. This is my speech as a maiden from the Finance Bill, or perhaps a Finance Bill virgin. Friends and family asked, "So how was it for you?" I have to say that it was a strange experience.
  I shall give the House some examples. I took Opposition Members extremely seriously when we began proceedings on the Finance Bill. For example, they said that they did not have enough time to discuss the important measures in the Bill which deserved deep scrutiny. I looked at the reports of the Committee's proceedings in Hansard. In my earnestness, I even timed some of the debates. I counted the column inches, subject by subject.
  Taking an afternoon at random—not one of those that included some of the more strange and exciting flights of fancy around the world and around the various members of the family of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell); it was slightly more specific—we had a two and a half hour debate, of which Conservative Members spent 40 minutes discussing how little time they had. That was 40 minutes that could have been spent scrutinising all kinds of measures that would have been important to the House. Instead, 40 minutes was spent discussing how little time they had. A further hour was spent on various trips around the globe, flights of fancy and matters adding, shall we say, colour, a full character list, a cast to the debate.
  Taking a step back from the intricacies of the Finance Bill, which obviously needed to be scrutinised, we see the overall balance of the Finance Bill. I found two dividing lines between the Government and the Opposition. The first is fairness and the second is consideration for the long term.
  240
  On fairness, Opposition Members felt the need to defend tax relief for private medical insurance, something that helps only a tiny minority, rather than using the money to reduce VAT on fuel, something that favours everyone and that we can extend to all. The most important measure of all for fairness was the windfall tax, raising money to help the long-term and the young unemployed into work. Nothing could be more important to fairness and to helping people who are in most need of support, help and fair opportunities in Britain.
  Then there was the long term. The Opposition tended to cluck and crow, and kept raising the issue of the long term. They said that the Government did not understand it. I found that the Opposition simply did not understand that the most important long-term issue for Britain and the British people is to get out of the traumatic long-term boom-bust cycle that has plagued the economy for so long, doing huge damage.
  We saw that time and again in the debate about pension funds. Opposition Members simply could not understand that what matters for future pensioners is the long-term health of the entire economy; what matters is staying out of another recession, not swinging on the same old rollercoaster—up we go, inflation takes off, down we come again, and crash into a recession with repossessions and huge numbers of people losing their jobs and being forced on to the dole once more.
  Opposition Members did not seem to take that seriously, but the Government are determined to do something about it. That is what the Budget is all about: that means the measure to give the Bank of England operational control of interest rates, measures for investment and measures to improve the capacity of the economy and to help the long-term unemployed back to work. All those things can help to improve the long-term sustainable growth rate of the economy.
  That also means sorting out the public finances. I heard little about that from Conservative Members, yet sorting out the public finances and the level of borrowing in the economy are incredibly important matters, not only to encourage a balanced recovery, but to get it on a sustainable footing for the future—something that the Conservative Government failed to do.
  After the last recession, borrowing rose to 7 per cent. of gross domestic product. That is a shocking level. Even next year, on the Conservative Government's forecast last November, borrowing would have been £12.2 billion, despite the years of economic growth. That is not a sustainable level. The Labour Government pledged to do something about it, and they are doing something through the Bill. The measures for contracting borrowing by £4.1 billion are important, yet we have heard little from Conservative Members about that or about what they would have done. All we heard was, "Why are you having a Budget? It is not needed." Presumably they would have been content with borrowing at unsustainable levels.
  Conservative Members took the same attitude on individual measures throughout our debates. For example, they opposed the abolition of tax credits on advance corporation tax, but they did not tell us what they would have done to find that £3.9 billion next year. However, they were content with the cuts in corporation tax of £1.9 billion, but where would they have found that money? They supported the cuts in corporation tax, but not the measures that would raise the money to fill the

  241
  gap. Time and again, Conservative Members opposed measures to cut borrowing, yet they said nothing about how they would fill the gap and tackle the problem of unsustainable borrowing.
  That typifies the irresponsible, short-termist view of the Opposition. It is a shame. This is a constructive Finance Bill, and there could have been a constructive debate about the long-term future of Britain, something on which the Government place great emphasis.
  It is astonishing how little Conservative Members have taken into account fairness and the issues that matter to people throughout the country. They have quibbled, moaned and whinged about bits and pieces here and there—
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Pensioners.
  Yvette Cooper: If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about pensioners, let us talk about the 15,000 pensioners in my constituency who were horrified by the way in which the previous Conservative Government treated them and their future. They were denied their full entitlement to benefits and denied help to get the extra income support to which they were entitled. Some 2,300 people in my constituency were mis-sold personal pensions—
  Mr. Swayne: However much the hon. Lady wishes to return to better days and to bring back the past, I remind her that we are discussing this Finance Bill. Does she agree that pensioners, those approaching pensionable age and even those some years away from pensionable age who are making savings decisions, require, more than anything else, stability in their assumptions? This Budget has robbed them of any stability. Does she accept that the Budget will go down in history as one that attacks the saver?
  Yvette Cooper: I am not trying to look backwards; I am trying to look forwards. The hon. Gentleman makes my point—pensioners need stability. They need to know that their pension funds will be worth something when they retire. What matters to them is the future performance of the pension funds. That performance depends on the state of the economy in which those pension funds are invested. That performance depends most of all on whether the companies in which they invest continue to grow and to prosper, rather than being slammed into a recession with the consequent destruction of capacity, of jobs and of those companies' value. The previous Government pushed companies and pension funds into such a recession.
  The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) is absolutely right: stability is what matters—for people of my generation, considering our future. What most jeopardises our security and future stability is the fear that we may lose our jobs because the economy again tumbles into recession—which has been caused by the boom-bust, irresponsible policies pursued by the previous Government. Ministers in the previous Government simply shrugged their shoulders and said, "The economy has nothing to do with us; it can carry on rolling up and down, up and down."
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: We have the strongest economy in Europe.
  Yvette Cooper: The previous Government slammed our economy into a deep and damaging recession,
  242
  in which people lost their jobs and their homes were repossessed. Conservative Members seem to shrug their shoulders over those consequences.
  We now have a chance to do something about that cycle and to try to prevent it from happening again—to make a difference for the sake of our future, of our children and of our grandchildren.
  Mr. Cranston: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Boswell rose—
  Yvette Cooper: Yes.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Boswell.
  Mr. Boswell: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke) on his maiden speech.
  Mr. Livingstone: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is clear that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) gave way to a colleague behind her—not to this.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It was not clear to whom the hon. Lady gave way. I thought that she had finished her speech. I call Mr. Cranston.
  Mr. Cranston: Does my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford agree that, in Committee, we heard nothing about issues of growth or, specifically, of social justice? We focused on the needs of only a few people who would be affected by withdrawal of relief on private medical insurance—a measure that will affect no more than 550,000 people.
  Yvette Cooper: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The Budget will be remembered for the contribution that it makes to jobs for the long-term unemployed. We are raising money and enabling people to get the jobs and the future that they need.
  Future pensioners will depend most on stability, on jobs and on having the money to contribute to their own pensions—which they will not have if they are without a job and on the dole. Future and current pensioners care most about their children and their grandchildren and about jobs for them. Our Budget will get 250,000 young people off benefit and into work, making a huge difference to the 900 under-25s in my constituency who have no job and very little hope for the future. They certainly deserve better than they received from the previous Conservative Government.
  The Budget has managed to provide extra resources for the health service, for education and for rebuilding our schools.
  Mr. Ben Chapman: My hon. Friend is talking about the welfare-to-work programme and how it will affect 250,000 young people. In my constituency, as many as 2,000 young people are striving to get work, and as many as one in four are out of employment. Many of our young people have no aspirations, no hope and no

  243
  opportunity of getting work, and they very much welcome the Budget. My entire constituency welcomes the Budget, and I applaud my hon. Friend's efforts to explain it.
  Yvette Cooper: I thank my hon. Friend—[Interruption.] It is such a shame that Conservative Members want to cluck, crow and jeer when the subject under discussion is the future of the young unemployed and their opportunity to thrive and prosper—an opportunity not given to them by the previous Government but which they are being given by this Government, who believe in a future for the people of Britain.
  9.59 pm
  Mr. Boswell: The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) has clearly cast herself in the role of winding up the debate. No Government Front Bencher was prepared to do it, but the hon. Lady did not make too bad a job of it.
  I attempted to congratulate my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke), on a most elegant speech full of wit and in which he paid a gracious tribute to Michael Morris.
  I have very little time to say anything else about the Bill because of the operation of the guillotine. It is a Bill that should never have been. There might be some credibility in the proposal for the windfall tax, but there is no mandate for or credibility in the other 15—
  It being Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [14 July] and Resolution [yesterday].
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 336, Noes 168.

  Division No. 73]

  [8.54 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Amess, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Bercow, John

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Day, Stephen

  Body, Sir Richard

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Boswell, Tim

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Duncan, Alan

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Brady, Graham

  Evans, Nigel

  Brazier, Julian

  Faber, David

  Breed, Colin

  Fabricant, Michael

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fallon, Michael

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Flight, Howard

  Burnett, John

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Burns, Simon

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Burstow, Paul

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Butterfill, John

  Gale, Roger

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Cash, William

  Gibb, Nick

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Gill, Christopher

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Chope, Christopher

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  227

  Gorrie, Donald

  Paice, James

  Gray, James

  Paterson, Owen

  Green, Damian

  Pickles, Eric

  Greenway, John

  Prior, David

  Grieve, Dominic

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Hammond, Philip

  Ruffley, David

  Harvey, Nick

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Sanders, Adrian

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Horam, John

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

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

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hunter, Andrew

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Spring, Richard

  Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Streeter, Gary

  Stunell, Andrew

  Keetch, Paul

  Swayne, Desmond

  Key, Robert

  Syms, Robert

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Leigh, Edward

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Letwin, Oliver

  Townend, John

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Tredinnick, David

  Lidington, David

  Trend, Michael

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Tyler, Paul

  Loughton, Tim

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Luff, Peter

  Viggers, Peter

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Wallace, James

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Walter, Robert

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Wardle, Charles

  Maclennan, Robert

  Waterson, Nigel

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Webb, Professor Steve

  Malins, Humfrey

  Wells, Bowen

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Whittingdale, John

  Merchant, Piers

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Woodward, Shaun

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Yeo, Tim

  Norman, Archie

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Oaten, Mark

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ottaway, Richard

  Mr. Oliver Heald and

  Page, Richard

  Sir David Madel.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Ainger, Nick

  Blizzard, Bob

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)

  Boateng, Paul

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Borrow, David

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Ashton, Joe

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Banks, Tony

  Barnes, Harry

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Barron, Kevin

  Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)

  Battle, John

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Bayley, Hugh

  Burden, Richard

  Beard, Nigel

  Butler, Christine

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Byers, Stephen

  Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)

  Caborn, Richard

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Benton, Joe

  Canavan, Dennis

  Berry, Roger

  Caplin, Ivor

  Best, Harold

  Caton, Martin

  Betts, Clive

  Cawsey, Ian

  228

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Church, Ms Judith

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clapham, Michael

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Gunnell, John

  Hain, Peter

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hanson, David

  Clelland, David

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clwyd, Ann

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Coaker, Vernon

  Healey, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Coleman, Iain (Hammersmith)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Heppell, John

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hesford, Stephen

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hill, Keith

  Cousins, Jim

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cox, Tom

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Cranston, Ross

  Home Robertson, John

  Crausby, David

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cummings, John

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Hurst, Alan

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hutton, John

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Darvill, Keith

  Illsley, Eric

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Jamieson, David

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Denham, John

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

  Edwards, Huw

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Efford, Clive

  Khabra, Piara S

  Ellman, Ms Louise

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Ennis, Jeff

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Etherington, Bill

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Laxton, Bob

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Lepper, David

  Flint, Caroline

  Leslie, Christopher

  Flynn, Paul

  Levitt, Tom

  Follett, Barbara

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

  Linton, Martin

  Fyfe, Maria

  Livingstone, Ken

  Galbraith, Sam

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Gapes, Mike

  Lock, David

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Love, Andrew

  Gerrard, Neil

  McAllion, John

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McCabe, Stephen

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Godsiff, Roger

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Macdonald, Calum

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McDonnell, John

  Graham, Thomas

  McFall, John

  Grant, Bernie

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  229

  McIsaac, Shona

  Salter, Martin

  McKenna, Ms Rosemary

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sawford, Phil

  McLeish, Henry

  Sedgemore, Brian

  MacShane, Denis

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Sheerman, Barry

  McWalter, Tony

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Mallaber, Judy

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Marek, Dr John

  Singh, Marsha

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Maxton, John

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Michael, Alun

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Snape, Peter

  Milburn, Alan

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Mitchell, Austin

  Spellar, John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Morley, Elliot

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Mountford, Kali

  Stringer, Graham

  Mudie, George

  Stuart, MS Gisela (Edgbaston)

  Mullin, Chris

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Swinney, John

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Olner Bill

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pearson, Ian

  Timms, Stephen

  Pendry, Tom

  Tipping, Paddy

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Todd, Mark

  Pickthall, Colin

  Touhig, Don

  Pike, Peter L

  Trickett, Jon

  Plaskitt, James

  Truswell, Paul

  Pond, Chris

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pope, Greg

  Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

  Pound, Stephen

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Vaz, Keith

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Watts, David

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Quinn, Lawrie (Scarborough)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rammell, Bill

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Raynsford, Nick

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Wilson, Brian

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Winnick, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wise, Audrey

  Rogers, Allan

  Wood, Mike

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wray, James

  Rooney, Terry

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wright, Tony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wyatt, Derek

  Ruane, Chris

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Mr. Kevin Hughes and

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones

  [Division No. 74]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Borrow, David

  Ainger, Nick

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Ashton, Joe

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Banks, Tony

  Burden, Richard

  Barnes, Harry

  Butler, Christine

  Barron, Kevin

  Byers, Stephen

  Battle, John

  Caborn, Richard

  Bayley, Hugh

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Beard, Nigel

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Caton, Martin

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cawsey, Ian

  Benton, Joe

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Berry, Roger

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Best, Harold

  Church, Ms Judith

  Betts, Clive

  Clapham, Michael

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Boateng, Paul

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  244

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hanson, David

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clelland, David

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clwyd, Ann

  Healey, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Coleman, Iain (Hammersmith)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Heppell, John

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hesford, Stephen

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hill, Keith

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Cox, Tom

  Home Robertson, John

  Cranston, Ross

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Crausby, David

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Cummings, John

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Hurst, Alan

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hutton, John

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Darvill, Keith

  Illsley, Eric

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Jamieson, David

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Denham, John

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

  Edwards, Huw

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Efford, Clive

  Khabra, Piara S

  Ellman, Ms Louise

  Kidney, David

  Ennis, Jeff

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Etherington, Bill

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Flint, Caroline

  Laxton, Bob

  Flynn, Paul

  Lepper, David

  Follett, Barbara

  Leslie, Christopher

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Levitt, Tom

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Galbraith, Sam

  Linton, Martin

  Gapes, Mike

  Livingstone, Ken

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lock, David

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Love, Andrew

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McAllion, John

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Godsiff, Roger

  McCabe, Stephen

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Graham, Thomas

  Macdonald, Calum

  Grant, Bernie

  McDonnell, John

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McFall, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McKenna, Ms Rosemary

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Gunnell, John

  McLeish, Henry

  Hain, Peter

  MacShane, Denis

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McWalter, Tony

  245

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sawford, Phil

  Marek, Dr John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Martlew, Eric

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Maxton, John

  Singh, Marsha

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Michael, Alun

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Milburn, Alan

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Snape, Peter

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Soley, Clive

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Morley, Elliot

  Spellar, John

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Mountford, Kali

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mudie, George

  Stevenson, George

  Mullin, Chris

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stringer, Graham

  O'Hara, Edward

  Stuart, Ms Gisela (Edgbaston)

  Olner, Bill

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Pearson, Ian

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Pendry, Tom

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pike, Peter L

  Timms, Stephen

  Plaskitt, James

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pond, Chris

  Todd, Mark

  Pope, Greg

  Touhig, Don

  Pound, Stephen

  Trickett, Jon

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Truswell, Paul

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Vaz, Keith

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Watts, David

  Rammell, Bill

  White, Brian

  Raynsford, Nick

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Wilson, Brian

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Winnick, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Rogers, Allan

  Wise, Audrey

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wood, Mike

  Rooney, Terry

  Wray, James

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wright, Tony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Ruane, Chris

  Wyatt, Derek

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Mr. Jim Dowd and

  Salter, Martin

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Amess, David

  Baldry, Tony

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Arbuthnot, James

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  246

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Bercow, John

  Keetch, Paul

  Blunt, Crispin

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Key, Robert

  Boswell, Tim

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Brady, Graham

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Brazier, Julian

  Leigh, Edward

  Breed, Colin

  Letwin, Oliver

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Lidington, David

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Burnett, John

  Livsey, Richard

  Burns, Simon

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Burstow, Paul

  Loughton, Tim

  Butterfill, John

  Luff, Peter

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Cash, William

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Chope, Christopher

  Maclennan, Robert

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Merchant, Piers

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Cotter, Brian

  Moore, Michael

  Cran, James

  Moss, Malcolm

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Norman, Archie

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Oaten, Mark

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Day, Stephen

  Ottaway, Richard

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Page, Richard

  Duncan, Alan

  Paice, James

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Paterson, Owen

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Pickles, Eric

  Evans, Nigel

  Prior, David

  Faber, David

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Fallon, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Ruffley, David

  Flight, Howard

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Sanders, Adrian

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Gale, Roger

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Garnier, Edward

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

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

  Gibb, Nick

  Soames, Nicholas

  Gill, Christopher

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Spring, Richard

  Gorrie, Donald

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Gray, James

  Steen, Anthony

  Green, Damian

  Streeter, Gary

  Greenway, John

  Stunell, Andrew

  Grieve, Dominic

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Syms, Robert

  Hammond, Philip

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Harvey, Nick

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Tredinnick, David

  Horam, John

  Trend, Michael

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Tyler, Paul

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Viggers, Peter

  Hunter, Andrew

  Wallace, James

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Walter, Robert

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Wardle, Charles

  Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Webb, Professor Steve

  Wells, Bowen

  247

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Woodward, Shaun

  Whittingdale, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Willetts, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Willis, Phil

  Mr. Oliver Heald and

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Sir David Madel.

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

  CONSOLIDATION, &c., BILLS
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Tony Clarke, Mr. Patrick Hall, Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews, Mr. James Plaskitt, Mr. Laurence Robertson, Mr. Adrian Sanders, Dr. George Turner, Mr. Andrew Tyrie and Mr. Brian White be members of the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords as the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills.—[Mr. Betts.]

  DEREGULATION
  Ordered,
  That Mr. David Chaytor, Mr. Iain Coleman, Mr. Brian Cotter, Mr. John Cryer, Mr. Stephen Hesford, Mr. Edward Leigh, Mr. Ivan Lewis, Mr. David Lock, Mr. Stephen McCabe, Mr. Gordon Marsden, Mr. Piers Merchant, Mr. Denis Murphy, Mr. Peter L. Pike, Mr. William Ross, Miss Geraldine Smith, Mr. Richard Spring, Mr. Anthony Steen and Mr. Ian Stewart be members of the Deregulation Committee.—[Mr. Betts.]

A1 (Dualling)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
10.15 pm
Mr. John Home Robertson: The debate—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Will Members leaving the Chamber do so quickly and quietly, please?
Mr. Home Robertson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The debate is primarily about road safety on the A1, but, before speaking about that, I must mention the tragic deaths of two young children crossing the B 1348 from Seton Sands holiday centre on Saturday. That makes the point that road safety must be our overall concern in all aspects of transport planning. The accident was tragic, and there may well be a point that needs to be addressed on that spot, too.
It is extremely disappointing to have to come to the House tonight to repeat the case for dualling the remaining single carriageway sections of the A1 trunk road. The local case in East Lothian, the borders and Northumberland has been made conclusively on the fundamental grounds of safety and economic impact, and the national case for completing that missing link in the United Kingdom's strategic highway network is blindingly obvious.
I have been involved in the A1 Safelink campaign for nearly 10 years, and it was my understanding that the debate about whether to dual the A1 had been concluded in 1992, when Malcolm Rifkind and Lord James Douglas-Hamilton accepted the overwhelming weight of the argument and the unanimous pressure of public opinion on both sides of the border.
The debate had moved on to questions of funding and phasing, because the Government at that time and all other parties, both political and non-political, had accepted that the road had to be upgraded. So it is disappointing, to put it mildly, to run into unexpected problems with another Minister, this time from my own party.
The Government have announced a review of all major road schemes. Mysteriously, the Scottish Office has gone much further than both the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Welsh Office, by imposing a comprehensive 12-month moratorium which has stopped the next phase of dualling between Haddington and Dunbar, which should be going out to tender now, for construction next year.
That delay is very bad news, and it will almost certainly cost lives. What on earth is there to be reviewed? The A1 has been reviewed to a standstill, with reams of surveys and reports since 1989—and it all leads to the same inevitable conclusion. We have a severely congested and extremely dangerous single-carriageway bottleneck in the national dual-carriageway network, and the only solution is a phased dualling programme to complete the link between Haddington and Morpeth.
I had a meeting with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary on 2 July, together with a delegation from East Lothian council and the hon. Member for

249
Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). My hon. Friend told us that the review was not a Treasury-driven exercise and that it was to be a genuine reassessment of transport priorities. Fair enough—the Labour Government were elected with a specific commitment to review a number of programmes. However, we have not stopped building hospitals just because we are reviewing the private finance initiative system and we have not imposed a moratorium on water and sewerage projects while we review the Scottish water quangos—of course not. I do not understand why there should be a moratorium on the roads programme.
The other territorial transport Departments are approaching their highways reviews according to sensible pragmatic criteria. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales announced the Welsh roads review in a written reply on 3 July, he said:
"The review will consider afresh all schemes currently in the Welsh roads programme with the exception of the A55 dualling across Anglesey. In that case, I have decided that the strategic importance of the improvement is so great that it must proceed without delay".—[Official Report, 3 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 218.]
I fully accept the strategic importance of traffic to and from Ireland via Holyhead, but I put it to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that the strategic importance of traffic between Scotland and the east of England is just as great.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Home Robertson: Very briefly.
Mr. Beith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for joining me and a delegation to English Transport Ministers about the English section of the road. Does he agree that as the A1 is also an important European route, it is absurd that we have to toil to persuade Ministers even to recognise that dualling projects already in the pipeline should go ahead?
Mr. Home Robertson: I am grateful to the right hon. Member. I was about to move on to the way in which the review is being approached south of the border.
When the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy), the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire and I met the Minister of Transport and the Minister for Roads in England last week, we were advised that the English review was split into two categories, with a comprehensive reappraisal for projects where there is any reasonable doubt, and an accelerated review, which was completed yesterday in very short order, for developments where a detailed review would be a waste of time and money.
I must put it to the Scottish Office again tonight that we could save a lot of aggravation and money, and probably several lives, too, if we were to adopt a similar accelerated review arrangement for projects such as the Haddington-Dunbar section of the A1.
At this stage, I should give a brief summary of the case for the phased completion of the A1 east coast highway. From 1978 to 1983, the whole of the Scottish section of the A1 was in my constituency, and I became increasingly worried about the toll of accidents and the increasing volume of traffic on a road that still followed the line of
250
the ancient Great North road. There was much correspondence with the Scottish Office about specific accident black spots.
By 1988, it was painfully obvious that we needed a co-ordinated approach to the problem from both sides of the border. We are not talking just about a local road south from Edinburgh to the borders and a local road north to Berwick-upon-Tweed from Newcastle upon Tyne. We are talking about one of the two major trunk roads linking Scotland and England.
I convened a meeting of the four hon. Members concerned, the seven local authorities and a wide range of other interests, which led to a detailed technical report produced by the three local highways authorities in 1989. That report was submitted to the Scottish Office and the then Department of Transport, and, after some fairly vigorous debates, including a massive public petition and powerful backing from the Edinburgh Evening News and the Newcastle Journal, the then Government accepted the case for completing the A1 link.
The Scottish Office has made a very good start by upgrading the road between Tranent and Haddington, and by completing all the preliminary procedures for the next section to Dunbar ready for work to start next year. Indeed, the first bridge has already been built, but today it looks depressingly like a bridge to nowhere. I hope that it does not remain like that for much longer.
I put on record my personal thanks to the Scottish Office staff and, perhaps surprisingly, to Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, the former Minister with responsibility for Scottish roads, for the excellent work that has been done, and for the two small sections that are under construction further south in my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, who I hope will be able to take part in the debate briefly. Lord James took a long time to grasp the case for the A1—that was so on other issues as well—but when he did accept the case, he certainly got on with the job in style.
Meanwhile, the volume of traffic is still increasing and the road will get even more congested as the economy improves and trade between Scotland and other parts of the European Union increases because the A1 is the main Euro-route to the east coast ports. Perhaps because of that, there is an abnormally high proportion of commercial traffic on the road.
Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Home Robertson: Very briefly, please.
Mr. Morgan: I totally accept the case for the A1 dualling, both on safety and strategic grounds. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that an equal case can be made for the A75, which is on a strategic Euro-route from Northern Ireland to western Europe? We are waiting not only for dualling, but for the drawing up of a route action plan and for the action that would follow from that plan.
Mr. Home Robertson: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about the road in his part of the world. He must make his own case in his own way. The point is made that we need a different type of review of priorities for roads in Scotland.

251
I was referring to the proportion of heavy goods vehicles on the A1. The abnormally high proportion of commercial traffic on that road tends to accumulate into convoys; and not just little convoys. These days, convoys of 60 to 70 vehicles are not uncommon on the single carriageway section of the A1. The situation gets far worse with even slower traffic such as caravans in summer time, exceptional loads, farm vehicles and traffic diverting from the A68 and other routes in severe winter weather.
It does not take much to bring the whole road to a standstill: that happens quite frequently nowadays. When it is at a standstill or very slow-moving, reckless attempts are made to overtake. All too often, that leads to violent, head-on collisions. There were 828 casualties, including 42 deaths, on the single carriageway sections of the A1 on both sides of the border between 1992 and 1995.
We do not need a review to analyse the situation: it is a severely congested bottleneck in the national highway system which will remain a running sore until it is dualled. There is no other way of resolving the problem, because there is nowhere else for the traffic to go. I should love to see more freight carried by rail, but it would be barmy to suggest that lorries should tranship their loads on to railway wagons between Prestonpans and Morpeth: it is just not feasible.
Speaking of lorry traffic, the Minister may know that I was a volunteer driver on Edinburgh Direct Aid convoys to Bosnia during the war there, and I found it rather embarrassing that one can drive from south of Ljubljana in Slovenia to Morpeth in Northumberland on dual carriageway roads, but Europe seems to come to an end when the road degenerates into an overloaded country track near the Scottish border. Foreign visitors must think that they are approaching a third-world country when they get to north Northumberland.
The economic case and the road safety case for completing the A1 are conclusive and overwhelming. The Government have inherited a phased scheme for upgrading the road, which specifically includes a fully prepared project for the section between Haddington and Dunbar, with £40 million in the budget to pay for it. We now face the threat of a delay of at least 12 months while the Scottish Office goes through the motions of reviewing the project again. That is absolutely dire news for everybody who has to use the road, and in particular for my constituents in the Dunbar area
There is worse to come, because a massive new landfill site will start operating this autumn just east of Dunbar. The Oxwellmains site will take all Edinburgh's domestic rubbish. Happily, most of that material will be transported by rail, but the Minister confirmed in a written reply on 17 July that the dump will generate 400 more lorry movements each week, which is 800 each-way journeys, on the single carriageway between Haddington and Dunbar, including the long, slow haul up Pencraig Hill.
East Lothian Council reluctantly gave planning consent for that road traffic on the understanding that the road was about to be dualled, and the Secretary of State has just amended the Lothian structure plan to confirm that dualling "is now in hand". Well, apparently it will not be in hand for at least another year, and I put it to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that he is adding insult to
252
injury for my constituents and for many other people by stopping the upgrading of the road and sending convoys of trucks with rubbish from his constituency in Edinburgh to aggravate the congestion on the A1 in East Lothian. If the road is not to be dualled in short order, perhaps consent for road haulage to that dump should be suspended until the road is dualled.
Obviously the principal issues are traffic management and road safety, but there is also the small matter of keeping promises. I have been fighting for a safe A1 road for years, and I am not going to stop now that we have a Labour Government. I told my constituents before the election that the phased dualling of the A1 would not be delayed by Labour's roads review. When I made that statement, I was not speaking off the cuff; I was confident that I had authority from the relevant members of the shadow Cabinet to say that the A1 was one of a handful of roads that did not need to be reviewed again.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who was then shadow Secretary of State for Transport, wrote on 1 August 1994:
"I have made it clear that the moratorium should not stop progress on some much needed schemes. Amongst those falling into this category I have specified … dualling the A1 between Morpeth and the border (Scottish roads being outside my brief). You can rest assured of my support—I have already explained this to George who shares my view".
That was a reference to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Robertson), then shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, who wrote to me on 29 August 1994 to confirm that,
"as far as I am concerned from Berwick-on-Tweed northwards dualling is a major priority on the grounds of communication and safety".
My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), then shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, wrote in similar terms in 1994, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Dewar), now Secretary of State for Scotland, had written to me at length as long ago as September 1991 to state his support for the completion of the dualling of the A1, I felt that I was on safe ground.
I repeat the case for the A1 and to remind my hon. Friend the Minister that clear assurances were given before the general election. I have already had a meeting with him in the Department, as well as private discussions, and I very much regret having to raise the matter in this way. This is one of those cases in which duty to constituents has to take precedence over party loyalty.
I make a final appeal to the Minister to conduct the Scottish roads review according to the same criteria as those applied in England and Wales. By all means let us have a full review of roads schemes where there is any doubt or controversy, but in cases such as the next phase of the A1, where there is neither doubt nor controversy, he should allow an accelerated review to avoid an expensive and disruptive delay which would certainly cost lives.
10.31 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and the Minister for allowing me two minutes to speak in the debate.

253
I pay sincere tribute to my hon. Friend and constituent the Member for East Lothian, who took the lead in co-ordinating the Safelink campaign, of which I have been aware for 10 years. He deserves the credit for the considerable impact of that campaign, which was the single most important factor that led the Government in 1992 to accept the principle of dualling the road from Edinburgh to Newcastle in due course. He is therefore right to feel disappointed. He is also courageous, in that he has not spared the Labour Government's blushes, and has put his constituents' interests first tonight.
The problem is not local to East Lothian, but international. It has impact south of the border and in Berwickshire. The A1 is a European route, and for that reason, if for no other, it deserves special treatment, as is given to the A55 in the Wales review and to some English roads in the accelerated review. The hon. Member has made a powerful case over 10 years. I shall be disappointed if he does not get better consideration from the Minister tonight than he has had from Ministers since the general election. He deserves better, as do people in the Borders and south of the border.
10.33 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Chisholm): I join the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) in acknowledging the zeal and tenacity of my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) in his continued efforts to secure the upgrading of the A1. I welcome the opportunity to set out what has been done and to reiterate the Government's commitment and approach to the development of an integrated transport system in Scotland.
My hon. Friend's efforts have been remarkably successful. Since 1991, about £55 million has been spent on five new construction projects on the A1, the latest being the dualling of the Tranent to Haddington section, which was opened to traffic in November last year. Two further dualling schemes are under construction: Oswald Dean to Innerwick, and Lemington to Howburn, at a combined cost of more than £7 million.
The movements of lorries carrying waste to which my hon. Friend referred will be allowed only when the road improvements associated with the former scheme have been carried out. The vast majority of movements of waste will be, and indeed ought to be, by rail, and any changes to the consent are purely a matter for East Lothian council.
A route accident plan has been carried out over the past few years, costing a total of £180,000 to date. The plan has provided a number of engineering measures, such as junction improvements, signing and lining and the introduction of speed cameras. All those measures have resulted in a dramatic reduction in the accident rate on the route, particularly within the Scottish borders area. There is, of course, no room for complacency, but accident statistics show that the average accident rate on the A1 is now half the rate for trunk roads.
Further schemes are being prepared. Four minor schemes, for all of which draft statutory orders have been published, will continue. A major scheme between Haddington and Dunbar—to which my hon. Friend referred—has been the subject of a public local inquiry, whose report is awaited. Further procedural work on the
254
scheme will, in common with other major schemes, be suspended to await the outcome of the review of the trunk road programme that I announced on 19 June.
The review is an important part of our approach to the development of an integrated transport system in Scotland. The trunk road programme inherited from the previous Government was not soundly based, and was unaffordable given the significant reductions made by them to roads expenditure over recent years.
Since announcing the Government's plans to conduct a review of priorities on the trunk road network, I have had the pleasure of hearing views, and learning about priorities, in relation to potential schemes in constituencies across Scotland. Only this afternoon, I met my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) to discuss the A77/M77. I have also had meetings with others to discuss a number of schemes, including schemes involving the A830, the A96 and the A75. In fact, I think I could say that I have received more representations on roads than on any other subject since I became a Minister, although I deal with local government, housing and many other controversial matters.
My hon. Friend mentioned the decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales in relation to the A55. That decision clearly reflects his judgment in regard to all the factors that were relevant to the case, but let me establish what seems to me to be a simple fact and a fundamental difference. In Scotland, no one road stands out as everyone's No. 1 priority. It is different in Wales.
Mr. Alasdair Morgan: I doubt whether the people in south and central Wales would see the A55 as a strategic priority.
Does the Minister agree that the dualling of the A55 has a severe effect on the traffic through Stranraer? Freight hauliers operating through Stranraer have already admitted that they are losing traffic to the north Wales route.
Mr. Chisholm: I do not want to be dragged into a debate about Welsh roads. I have quite enough to be going on with in regard to Scottish roads.
I have noted all the views that have been presented to me, but it is clear that the continued pressure for progress on all those routes—set against a background of the mismatch between the expectations that the previous Government encouraged, and the public expenditure plans that we inherited from them—underlines the need for a review of priorities.
My hon. Friend rightly said that it was not Treasury-driven, but the simple fact is that the previous Government's sums did not add up, and we must replace their make-believe road programme with a real one. Before any scheme is implemented in the future, it will have to demonstrate its viability against the criteria of accessibility, safety, economy, environmental impact and integration with other transport plans. It must be recognised that the previous policies of predicting traffic growth and providing roads to meet such predictions are, in the long term, financially, socially and environmentally unsustainable.
Mr. Home Robertson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Chisholm: I will take some interventions later, but, because there were two speeches, I should like to make some progress—I have a great deal of material to cover.

255
At an appropriate stage of the review, we will seek the views of a wide range of bodies including the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, local authorities, the Confederation of British Industry and other transport and environmental interest groups on revised criteria for setting priorities. We shall aim to reach decisions on priorities as soon as possible.
Until then, work will continue on a number of major schemes that are already under construction and on the A75 the Glen and the A828 Creagan bridge schemes, which are at such an advanced stage of preparation that work was due to start on them this financial year. Even the scheme to complete the M8 motorway, which was scheduled for this year's programme, is being reviewed, although the advanced stage of tendering requires an early decision on whether it should proceed on that timetable or be deferred for consideration as part of the main review process.
No further statutory procedural work will be carried out on any of the remaining major schemes in the trunk roads programme inherited by this Government. The programme of minor schemes that deliver cost-effective safety improvements and the trunk road maintenance programme will not be affected by the review.
Mr. Home Robertson: My hon. Friend mentioned the M74: the A74 is already a dual carriageway, so to upgrade that to motorway standard is to ice the cake. My specific question is, what has happened to the money that was in the budget for the next phase of dualling for the A1? We understood that money was allocated and committed for the next phase of work between Dunbar and Haddington—obviously not the full £40 million, but the first bit of it at least. What has happened to that money? What is to be done with it during the 12-month delay?
Mr. Chisholm: Clearly, a lot of work needs to be done on the roads programme. This year, for example, there were massive cuts in the work for minor roads improvements, and we could easily spend all the money on that—I am not saying that we will, because final decisions have yet to be made about next year's budget. The money will be in the transport budget and I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that there is much work that can be done under that budget.
The dualling of the Haddington to Dunbar scheme will be examined within the context of the review. I know that my hon. Friend would like the Government to make an exception, and our reasons for not doing so do not imply any discrimination or prejudice against the scheme. The Government have a clear obligation to ensure that the review treats all roads in the same way. To make exceptions would seriously prejudice the conduct, validity
256
and outcome of the review. We have departed from that approach in only one case—the long-term plans for the Kincardine bridge—because of the special nature of the operational concerns that arise.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has given an assurance that preparatory work within the Scottish Office will continue on the Haddington to Dunbar scheme, with the aim of allowing it to proceed without unnecessary delay should it be identified by the review as a priority. That work will cover issues that may arise as a result of the public local inquiry. In programming terms, there will inevitably be a delay in publishing the decision letter resulting from that inquiry and the confirming of the draft orders should that be the approved way forward. The preparation work within the Scottish Office will, however, aim to minimise that delay should the outcome of the review favour the early implementation of the scheme.
I can confirm the indication given to my hon. Friend that we consider that it remains a possibility that work could begin on the scheme in the next financial year, if it is confirmed as a top priority in the review.
As for finance, I have made it clear that the inherited roads programme was simply unsustainable. It would therefore be quite wrong to make assumptions regarding allocation of funds to major projects in coming years, or to anticipate the outcome of future public expenditure decisions and priorities. I am sure that my hon. Friend fully supports the Government's initiative in developing a coherent, affordable and environmentally sustainable roads strategy for Scotland, which will contribute to a properly integrated transport policy.
I stress that the review is not founded on an automatic assumption about cutting public expenditure on roads. For many people, especially in rural areas, the car is, and will continue to be, an essential form of transport. It is vital, however, that an integrated transport strategy is developed to offer the public real choices and protect the environment. The Government intend that the review will produce a future programme that is environmentally and financially sustainable, and integrated with our wider policies to reduce traffic growth and manage transport and traffic more effectively. Clear criteria for setting priorities for long-term road planning will result, and the application of those criteria will enable us to plan a roads programme based on an up-to-date assessment of Scotland's needs.
I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that the fair and correct course of action is to review the A1 within that context. I am sure that he will continue to remind us of the serious claims of the A1, of which I am also well aware.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Data Protection
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will require(a) MI5, (b) MI6 and (c) GCHQ to register under the Data Protection Act 1984. [10686]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 25 July 1997]: The Government are considering this matter.

  Joint Consultative Cabinet Committee
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will define the terms of reference of the new Joint Consultative Cabinet Committee. [10580]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 25 July 1997]: Terms of reference will be announced to the House in due course.

  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Prime Minister what are the precedents for the new Joint Consultative Cabinet Committee; what will be its membership; who will provide the secretariat; what charge it will make on public funds; how often it will meet; to whom it will report, and at what intervals; and if he intends that it should serve for the duration of this Parliament. [10582]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: There are several precedents for the new Committee, including the 1931 Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence. A later example was the Sub-Committee on Air Defence Research (1935–37). The membership of the Committee will be announced in due course. The secretariat will be provided by the Cabinet Secretariat. Costs related to the Committee are expected to be small and will be met from existing resources. The Committee will meet on a regular basis and, like other Cabinet Committees, its deliberations will be reported to Cabinet as necessary. I expect it to continue indefinitely.

  Yemen
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on UK—Yemen relations. [11339]

  The Prime Minister
  We enjoy good relations with the Yemen. At their meeting in London on 17 July, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed with the Yemeni Foreign Minister ways in which we might improve co-operation between our two countries.

  Ministers (Complaints about the Media)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions since 2 May on which Ministers or persons acting on behalf of Ministers have complained to the media about the reporting of the Government's activities, indicating in each case the name of the Minister or person concerned. [10779]
  114
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: No central record exists.

  Minister without Portfolio
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what account was taken of the relative priority of the responsibilities of the Minister without Portfolio for(a) Labour party and (b) Government matters in calculating his remuneration from public funds. [10774]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: Account was taken only of his responsibilities within the Government.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the meetings and events since 2 May at which the Minister without Portfolio has represented the Government. [10780]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: Since 2 May my hon. Friend has had a wide range of meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the Adjournment debate on Wednesday 23 July,Official Report, columns 994–1022, whether he will ask a Scottish Lord Justice of Appeal in Ordinary to consider the validity or otherwise of the Crown Office information concerning two Libyans connected with the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, and report to him. [11073]

  The Prime Minister
  No. Consideration of the evidence in a criminal case is a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to ensure that animals exported from the United Kingdom receive(a) the mid-journey break and (b) the 24-hour break, required by directive 95/92/EC, after they have left the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [10280]

  Mr. Morley
  Enforcement of the rest period requirements of EU directive 95/29 is the responsibility of the authorities of the member state in which a rest is required to take place. For our own part, the Government will not hesitate to use the sanctions provided by the directive against transporters who are shown to have made false declarations about the journeys they have undertaken.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the animal welfare implications of importing exotic animals into the United Kingdom for commercial purposes; and if he will make a statement. [10788]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: This Government give high priority to the welfare of all animals, whatever their origin.
  115
  The Protection of Animals Act 1911 protects domestic and captive animals from cruelty. Exotic animals kept for farming purposes are further protected by the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 which makes it an offence to cause or allow unnecessary pain or unnecessary distress. The keeping of certain exotic species is also subject to the licensing requirements of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976.

  Calf Slaughter Scheme
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has made to the Commission on ending the current calf slaughter scheme. [11323]

  Mr. Rooker
  The UK has made a number of representations to the Commission about the future operation of the calf processing aid scheme and the early marketing scheme for veal, which were introduced by the Commission with the objective of reducing beef production. Under EU law, member states are obliged to operate one or both of the schemes. In May, the Commission undertook to provide the Council of Agriculture Ministers with a further report on the effectiveness of both schemes in the light of experience. I understand that the report is likely to be submitted to the Council of Agriculture Ministers in September.

  Regional Panels
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what method of communicating with farmers will be adopted by his Department to replace the regional panels. [11333]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on 25 June 1997,Official Report, column 540.

  Set-aside Land
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has made to the European Commission on increased flexibility on non-food crops to be grown on set-aside land which qualifies for integrated administration and control system, IACS, payments. [11334]

  Mr. Rooker
  A wide range of crops may be grown on set-aside land for specific non-food uses. The European Commission has recently amended the detailed rules which apply to this aspect of the arable area payments scheme to make them more flexible in some respects. The Commission regulation concerned is expected to be published shortly and interested parties have been advised of the changes to the rules.

  Cattle Slaughter Scheme
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of(a) the backlog of cattle awaiting slaughter under the over-30-months scheme as a result of the reduction in the number of designated abattoirs and (b) the total loss to farmers through being unable to get cattle slaughtered before the new price and weight regime applies in August. [11252]
  116
  Dr. John Cunningham
  There is no backlog of over-30-months scheme cattle awaiting slaughter as a result of the reduction in the number of abattoirs. In the months of July and August, around 15,000 over-30-months cattle are normally slaughtered each week, and the Intervention Board has made available the capacity to handle 16,000 OTMS cattle a week in the scheme abattoirs.

  The reduction in the rate of compensation and the introduction of a weight limit, which are effective from 4 August, has resulted in significantly increased demand for the scheme because some farmers have brought forward their cull plans to try and benefit from the existing compensation arrangements. The Intervention Board has increased the amount of scheme slaughtering capacity by around 20 per cent. in the two weeks immediately preceding the rate change to assist producers, and has also issued instructions to scheme abattoirs to ensure, as far as possible, that producers are treated equitably and fairly. It is inevitable that some producers will be disappointed, but it would have been self-defeating for the Government to support a reduction in the scheme rate, and at the same time, take steps to minimise the number of cattle adversely affected by it.

  The effect of the change in the scheme rate and the introduction of a weight restriction will reduce the return for a dairy cow weighting 560 kg by around £40, and for a suckler cow weighing 620 kg by around £80.

  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many abattoirs are authorised in England and Wales to carry out slaughtering of cattle under the over-30-months scheme; and if he will list the abattoirs which charge for haulage and the amounts charged in each case. [11246]

  Dr. Cunningham
  Following a recent tender, the Intervention Board has let contracts to 22 abattoirs in England and Wales to slaughter animals under the over-30-months scheme. The contracted abattoirs collectively carry more than sufficient capacity for the number of animals expected to enter the scheme, with reserve capacity available to deal with seasonal fluctuations.

  The fee paid to the abattoirs covers the slaughter and subsequent dressing of the animals to the agency's specification, and the administration costs involved in handling OTMS animals. It does not include the cost of transporting cattle to the point of slaughter, which remains the responsibility of the farmer. Most abattoirs provide a chargeable service, on request.

  Information about these charges is currently being collated as part of the contract process and the chief executive of the Intervention Board will write to the right hon. Member shortly to provide the information requested.

  Tuberculosis
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to announce the outcome of the Krebs inquiry. [11123]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on 17 July,Official Report, column 277.

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the annual report and accounts for the Veterinary Laboratories Agency is due to be published. [11624]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Veterinary Laboratories Agency's annual report and accounts was published on 29 July 1997. Copies are available in the Library of the House. The report demonstrates the continuing progress and success of the organisation as a next steps agency.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many civil servants there are on each pay band in his Department. [8969]

  Mr. Morley
  In the Department, only staff in the senior civil service are currently paid within pay bands. The number of SCS staff in each pay band is as follows:

  Pay band number

  Number of core maff senior civil service staff

  Total including agencies senior civil service staff

  1

  26

  31

  2

  32

  37

  3

  8

  9

  4

  7

  11

  5

  4

  5

  6

  6

  8

  7

  1

  1

  8

  2

  2

  9

  0

  0

  Permanent secretary

  1

  1

  The pay for other staff in MAFF and the Pesticides Safety Directorate is currently determined by reference to 195 pay ranges and pay spines for individual grades. These are to be rationalised into 13 main pay ranges as part of the Department's 1997 pay offer, which has yet to be agreed.

  As pay and grading arrangements are different in the other MAFF agencies, I have asked the chief executives of the agencies to reply direct about their staff other than SCS staff.

  Letter from P. I. Stanley to Mr. Keith Vaz, dated 29 July 1997:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply, in respect of the Central Science Laboratory (CSL), to your question concerning the number of civil servants there are on each payband.
  Excluding the Senior Civil Service, to which a separate reply has been given, the numbers of staff in CSL who fall into each of the CSL paybands is as follows:

  Payband number

  Number of staff

  CSL Level 1

  217

  CSL Level 2

  273

  CSL Level 3

  66

  CSL Level 4

  36

  CSL Level 5

  17

  118
  Letter from T. W. A. Little to Mr. Keith Vaz, dated 29 July 1997:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question about the number of Civil Servants in each pay band.
  The details of those members of VLA who are in the Senior Civil Service have already been given in the response to your original PQ.
  VLA currently has 30 grades and details of the numbers of staff in each grade are attached. These grades will be rationalised into seven main pay bands shortly as part of the Review of Pay and Grading undertaken at VLA.

  Number of VLA staff by grade

  Grade

  Number

  Grade 6

  11

  Grade 7

  13

  Senior Research Officer II (SROII)

  12

  Senior Veterinary Investigation Officer (SVIO)

  14

  Veterinary Research Officer (VRO)

  25

  Veterinary Investigation Officer (VIO)

  45

  Senior Scientific Officer (SSO)

  46

  Senior Executive Officer (SEO)

  7

  Senior Librarian (S. Lib)

  1

  Farm Manager (FM)

  1

  Higher Scientific Office (HSO)

  67

  Higher Executive Officer (HEO)

  9

  Librarian (Lib)

  1

  Higher Photographic Officer (HPO)

  1

  Deputy Farm Manager (DFM)

  1

  Scientific Officer (SO)

  126

  Executive Officer (EO)

  27

  Stores Officer Grade D (SOG.D)

  1

  Assistant Librarian (ALib)

  1

  Photographic Officer (PO)

  1

  Process and General Supervisory Grade "D"

  7

  Typing Manager (TM)

  1

  Assistant Scientific Officer (ASO)

  260

  Administrative Officer (AO)

  55

  Personal Secretary (PS)

  7

  Support Grade Band 1 (SGB1)

  36

  Process and General Supervisory Grade "E"

  1

  Administrative Assistant (AA)

  89

  Typist (Typ)

  34

  Support Grade Band 2 (SGB2)

  158

  Total

  1,058

  Figures include permanent and casual staff at 18 July 1997.

  Letter from J. M. Rutter to Mr. Keith Vaz, dated 29 July 1997:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question about the number of civil servants on each payband in his Department, insofar as it relates to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD), which is a Next Steps Agency of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  As the Minister explained in his reply, only staff in the Senior Civil Service (SCS) are paid on paybands. The VMD employs two SCS Staff in payband 1, and one in payband 4. These three staff were included in the Minister's reply.
  The pay for all other VMD staff is currently determined by reference to the same pay ranges and pay spines used within core-MAFF. These will be rationalised in line with the Department's 1997 pay offer, which has yet to be agreed.

  Letter from P. J. C. Holden to Mr. Keith Vaz, dated 29 July 1997:
  I am replying on behalf of the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency (FRCA) and its Chief Executive who is absent from the office on leave.
  The Parliamentary Secretary (Commons) has asked Chief Executives to reply to your question about how many civil servants, other than Senior Civil Service (SCS) staff there are on paybands in

  119
  MAFF Agencies. I can confirm that like core-MAFF only SCS staff in FRCA are currently defined within paybands. The remainder of the Agency's staff are currently paid within 22 pay ranges.

  Letter from Johnston McNeill to Mr. Keith Vaz, dated 29 July 1997:
  As Chief Executive of the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) your Parliamentary Question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food enquiring how many civil servants there are on each pay band has been passed to me to reply; with regard to this Executive Agency.
  As you may be aware the MHS was established on 1 April 1995 as an Executive Agency of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF). It took over responsibility from local authorities for enforcing meat hygiene, inspection and animal welfare at slaughter legislation in licensed fresh meat premises in England, Scotland and Wales.
  The MHS employs over 1,000 meat inspection and veterinary staff. The majority of these staff transferred to the MHS from local authorities under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Legislation. The MHS does not have paybands equivalent to those in the Civil Service. I therefore list below the number of staff employed by the MHS according to various salary bands. This also includes the administrative and management staff of the Agency.

  Salary band

  Number of MHS staff

  £0–5,000

  1259

  £5,001–10,000

  52

  £10,001–15,000

  618

  £15,001–20,000

  467

  £20,001–25,000

  31

  £25,001–30,000

  11

  £30,001–35,000

  16

  £35,001–40,000

  6

  £40,000+

  8

  1 This includes casual staff.

  I hope that this is helpful.

  Letter from P. W. Greig-Smith to Mr. Keith Vaz, dated 29 July 1997:
  I refer to your Parliamentary Question to the Minister.
  I have been asked to reply separately concerning the staff in this Executive Agency who are not in the Senior Civil Service.
  Apart from the two members of the Senior Civil Service, staff rates of pay are determined by pay ranges and spines relating to grades. Details of the numbers of staff and the pay for the grades are enclosed with this letter.

  CEFAS grades and salary bands

  Salary

  Current grade/science group

  Total

  Minimum (£)

  Maximum (£)

  Grade 6

  10

  28,975

  49,474

  Grade 7

  32

  25,392

  40,268

  Senior executive officer

  1

  19,215

  26,200

  Senior scientific officer

  52

  16,650

  30,706

  Higher executive officer

  3

  15,363

  21,377

  Higher professional and technical officer

  1

  13,491

  24,266

  Librarian

  1

  13,491

  24,266

  Higher scientific officer

  58

  13,491

  24,266

  Professional and technical officer

  5

  11,606

  20,741

  Graphics officer

  1

  11,606

  20,471

  Scientific officer

  73

  11,606

  20,741

  Technical grade 1

  2

  10,977

  18,439

  Assistance scientific officer

  51

  9,723

  18,439

  Support grade band 1

  1

  9,621

  11,731

  Executive officer

  14

  9,229

  17,090

  120

  CEFAS grades and salary bands

  Salary

  Current grade/science group

  Total

  Minimum (£)

  Maximum (£)

  Personal secretary

  3

  9,287

  13,046

  Administrative officer

  35

  7,988

  12,613

  Shore industrial

  26

  7,825

  9,531

  Support grade band 2

  7

  7,685

  10,596

  Typist

  9

  7,247

  10,650

  Administrative assistant

  16

  6,304

  10,650

  Marine staff

  Marine superintendent

  1

  28,975

  49,474

  Master

  4

  30,903

  38,544

  Chief engineer

  3

  28,572

  35,676

  1st officer

  4

  23,299

  26,750

  Senior fishing mate

  3

  23,299

  26,750

  2nd engineer

  1

  21,921

  25,335

  Junior fishing mate

  2

  20,540

  23,342

  Chief steward

  2

  188.03

  1210.79

  Cook/steward

  2

  165.19

  1188.03

  Leading hand

  2

  165.19

  1188.03

  3rd engineer

  2

  165.19

  1188.03

  4th engineer

  1

  160.02

  1160.2

  Deck hand

  10

  145.93

  1151.66

  Assistant cook

  1

  145.93

  1151.66

  Assistant steward

  1

  145.93

  1151.66

  Total

  442

  1 Weekly pay.

  Cattle Carcase Incineration Sites (Kent)
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many proposals he has been notified of for cattle carcase incineration sites in Kent. [10357]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Intervention Board, which administers the over-30-months slaughter scheme, has issued one letter of intent for cattle carcase incineration in Kent following a tender last autumn. Contracts will depend on the operators obtaining all necessary licences and consents.

  Four bids for cattle carcase incineration in Kent have been received under a subsequent tender which is at evaluation stage.

  Food Advisory Committee
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the members of(a) the Food Advisory Committee and (b) the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, indicating the qualifications for membership and the relevant remunerated interests of each member. [10516]

  Mr. Rooker
  Both the Food Advisory Committee and the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, which is appointed by the chief medical officer, publish annual reports which give information on the wide range of work carried out during the year. These reports contain details of the committees' full membership and list the relevant remunerated interests of each member. Copies of the committees' most recent reports are available in the Library of the House.

  Beef Imports
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he plans to lay the statutory instruments to give powers to exclude European beef from sale in this country, if it has not been processed with specified bovine material removed. [11322]

  Mr. Rooker
  At the July Agriculture Council, a simple majority of member states supported Commission proposals for EU-wide controls on specified materials from cattle, sheep and goats. As a result, the way is now clear for the Commission, acting on its own competence, to adopt the measure which will come into force on 1 January. It is therefore no longer necessary for the UK to introduce any unilateral measures in this area as all European beef will be subject to rigorous controls similar to those that we already have in the UK.

  Halal Slaughter (Poultry)
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what estimate he has made of the number of poultry slaughtered according to halal tradition other than in licensed premises in the United Kingdom; and what assessment he has made of the health risk associated with unregulated slaughter; [11254]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of poultry being slaughtered by halal traditional methods in the United Kingdom. [11253]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  Data are not held separately for poultry slaughtered by traditional halal methods.

  I am concerned about the possible health risks associated with the production of poultry meat in unlicensed premises. That is why we have undertaken a review of the exemptions under the Poultry Meat, Farmed Game Bird Meat and Rabbit Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995, as announced on 19 June 1997, Official Report, column 443.

  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to meet representatives of the Halal Food Authority to discuss poultry slaughter methods. [11245]

  Dr. Cunningham
  The Halal Food Authority wrote to me on 3 June about, among other things, the law as it relates to slaughter by the halal method. It has been invited to set out in more detail the nature of its concerns.

  Computer-related Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of total departmental expenditure on computer-related current and capital work for(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98, (d) 1998–99 and (e) 1999–00; and if he will make a statement. [11383]

  Mr. Morley
  Total departmental expenditure on computer-related current and capital work is as follows:

  (a) 1995–96: £35,150,000

  (b) 1996–97: £39,260,000

  The estimate of future years expenditure is as follows:

  (c) 1997–98: £34,425,000

  (d) 1998–99: £26,027,000

  (e) 1999–00: £25,765,000

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what have been the savings to the United Kingdom per capita as a result of reforms to the CAP during the past three years. [11238]

  Mr. Rooker
  There have been no reforms to the CAP during the past three years which were designed to reduce budgetary expenditure. However, reforms to the rice regime in 1995 and to the fruit and vegetables regime in 1996 will progressively reduce price support, with consequent benefits for consumers.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Gazumping
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans his Department has to outlaw the practice of gazumping in the property market. [10240]

  Mr. Hoon
  We are determined to tackle the problems of gazumping and gazundering. Work is in hand across a number of Departments, steered at ministerial level, to improve the home-buying process generally, and specifically to address the issue of gazumping. This work will lead to detailed proposals which will be in the interests of everyone involved in the sale and purchase of homes.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Indonesia (Arms Exports)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will publish his legal opinion in the case of arms exports to Indonesia. [11079]

  The Attorney-General
  It is the established convention that the advice of the Law Officers is not disclosed, nor whether they have advised on a given question.

  Departmental Payroll
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list each of the functions relating to the payroll for which his Department is responsible, indicating the management systems purchased, all sub-contractors involved in the work, co-operative arrangements with other Departments and the costs of the systems and processes in the last year for which figures are available. [10741]

  The Attorney-General
  The personnel branch of the Treasury Solicitor's Department handles the payroll for that Department and for the legal secretariat to the Law Officers. It calculates the pay entitlement of staff including basic pay, allowances, overtime, voluntary deductions and deductions under court orders. Payments are made by Chessington Computer Services Ltd. which also processes statutory deductions and the deductions of properly authorised trade union subscriptions.
  123
  Similar functions are carried out for the Crown Prosecution Service, the Serious Fraud Office and the Government Property Lawyers by those departments' pay sections and by Chessington.

  The standard payroll input and retrieval system—SPIRE—is used.

  Payments to Chessington for payroll services and approximate in-house staff costs in the financial year 1996–97 were as follows (in £000):

  Chessington

  In-house costs

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  20.4

  38.2

  Legal Secretariat

  1.7

  1—

  Crown Prosecution Service

  380

  415

  Serious Fraud Office

  20.5

  33.1

  Government Property Lawyers

  6.9

  18.9

  1 Included in figure for Treasury Solicitor's Department.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Members' Dining Room
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the President of the Council for what reasons the hot and cold buffet was not available in the Members' Dining Room on Thursday 24 July; and who was responsible for this decision. [11198]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  This is a matter for the Catering Committee once it is set up.

HEALTH

  Hospital Procedures
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department collates on costs per hospital procedure in each trust. [10420]

  Mr. Milburn
  A limited amount of information is available on average specialty costs but this is not attributable to individual procedures or individual trusts.

  Information on the prices of extra-contractual referrals has been collated at regional level for several years and is available on a trust by trust basis from the relevant regional office. The current year—1997–98—is the first year that this information has been collected nationally. The prices for surgical activity are based on costed health care resource groups—HRGs—which are a way of categorising patient treatments below specialty level. Each HRG contains a set of treatments that are clinically similar and should use roughly the same level of resources.

  Extra-contractual referrals account for a small percentage of the overall activity of the national health service. These prices do not necessarily reflect the costs of activity provided through purchaser/provider agreements. In general, it is expected that ECR costs would be higher.

  On occasions, procedure-based information is requested on a sample basis, to support specific initiatives.

  Hospital Waiting Times
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department has collated in respect of individual trusts' plans for hospital waiting times. [10421]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information is not collated by the Department on individual trusts' plans for hospital waiting times. The Government have inherited a situation where 39 of 100 health authorities have contracted for longer maximum waiting times in 1997–98 than in 1996–97, whereas only three have contracted for shorter maximum waiting times. The Government have made clear the priority they attach to waiting lists, and to safeguarding emergency admissions.

  Medical Negligence
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what date the national health litigation authority has compiled on medical negligence cases and claims. [10411]

  Mr. Milburn
  The National Health Service Litigation Authority holds data on all cases reported to it in respect of the clinical negligence scheme for trusts and on cases falling within the existing liabilities scheme where approval has been sought from the authority to settle claims. The information is principally concerned with the handling of claims, but the authority has commissioned work to provide a comprehensive database system which will contain individual claims by type, size and level of legal costs.

  NHS Employees (Contracts)
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide a breakdown by NHS trust of the number of NHS employees who have employment contracts with waiver clauses. [10591]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is not collected. The specific terms and conditions of individual employment contracts of staff working in national health service trusts are negotiated by the employer and the employee. NHS trusts have the power to offer local terms and conditions to new staff and to existing staff employed under General Whitley Council national terms and conditions. General and senior managers with short-term rolling contracts are excluded from the redundancy and premature retirement provisions in General Whitley Council agreements.

  Clinical Services
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on which services are to be defined as clinical services in respect of proposed private finance initiative schemes. [10482]

  Mr. Milburn
  As part of the review of the private finance initiative, we will be considering what services may be included in PFI projects and are aiming to produce a list of these by the end of the year.

  Community Unit (Knaresborough)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that the community unit for the elderly in Knaresborough is built without further delay; and on what date it will be completed. [10472]

  Mr. Boateng
  The national health service executive is maintaining close contact with Harrogate Health Care national health service trust about the Knaresborough community unit for the elderly. Work on site is expected to begin in August, with completion in June 1998. It is expected that the unit will open in summer 1998.

  Hyperkinetic Disorder
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate his Department has made of the number of children identified as suffering from hyperkinetic disorder; and what percentage this is of his estimate of the total number of persons suffering from this disorder. [10549]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information on the number of children identified as suffering from hyperkinetic disorder is not collected centrally.

  Tobacco Advertising and Sponsorship
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the 10th annual report of the committee for monitoring agreements on tobacco advertising and sponsorship. [11517]

  Ms Jowell
  Shortly. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's latest assessment of the effectiveness of dopamine-releasing agents with special reference to Ritalin, in the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; if he will assess the use currently made of such treatment in the United States of America; and if he will make a statement. [10550]

  Mr. Boateng
  We recognise that the more severe forms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder can be treated with Ritalin or other appropriate medication. Such medication should be part of a comprehensive treatment programme which may also include psychological, educational and social measures designed to stabilise children with the condition. There is a widespread view among clinicians in this country that a higher percentage of such children are treated with medication in the United States than is desirable or necessary.

  Skin Transplants
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made towards(a) the establishment of a national skin bank and (b) the inclusion of skin on donor cards. [10765]

  Mr. Boateng
  Recent research has shown that most people do not like the idea of putting "skin", "bone" or other specified tissues—as distinct from internal organs—on the donor card or national health service organ donor register form because of fears about disfigurement of the body. However, we are very much aware that in the 126
  sensitive area of transplantation approaches to donation must command public confidence. We shall continue to review all aspects of organ and tissue donation to see how improvements in supply may be achieved.

  Computer-related Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of total departmental expenditure on computer-related current and capital work for(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98, (d) 1998–99 and (e) 1999–00; and if he will make a statement. [11380]

  Ms Jowell
  The estimated total expenditure on computer-related current and capital work in the Department of Health headquarters and its agencies for the years requested is as follows:

  (a) £39,044,000

  (b) £29,559,000

  (c) £29,606,000

  (d) £29,449,000

  (e) £30,355,000

  Beta Interferon
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department has issued to health authorities on the use of beta interferon for multiple sclerosis sufferers. [11113]

  Mr. Milburn
  Management guidance—executive letter EL(95)97—on the introduction of beta interferon into the national health service was issued in November 1995, together with clinical guidance approved by the standing medical advisory committee. Copies are available in the Library.

  Hearing Checks
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department provides to health authorities on the screening programmes for detecting hearing impairments among babies; and what information his Department collates by(a) health authorities and (b) hospitals in respect of such programmes. [11125]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Department of Health does not currently give guidance to health authorities on neonatal screening for hearing impairment, nor does it collect information centrally. We are aware that there is scope for considerable improvement in neonatal screening procedures for hearing impairment and will be examining the latest research evidence on this subject.

  NHS Finances
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the present cumulative deficit of all hospital trusts, health authorities and other NHS bodies for 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [11394]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information on the 1997–98 income and expenditure positions of trusts and health authorities will be provided in due course.

CABINET OFFICE

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio (1) if(a) lead, (b) cadmium and (c) organo-tins will be used as heat stabilisers for the construction of the millennium dome; [10688]

  (2) what stabilisers will be used in the PVC used on the millennium dome; [10690]

  (3) if phthalate softeners will be used in the construction of the millennium dome. [10687]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 25 July 1997]: PVC-coated polyester is the safest and most environmentally sound fabric available for the dome covering. The covering will use phthalate plasticisers and the heat stabilisers will primarily be zinc and barium salts. The New Millennium Experience Company is still negotiating with PVC suppliers but has confirmed that an order will be placed only when it is satisfied that all European and UK environmental and safety standards will be met or exceeded.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  State Education Expenditure
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the average level at current prices of state education expenditure per pupil in each of the regions of Great Britain in(a) 1979 and (b) 1997. [11197]

  Mr. Byers
  The average net institutional expenditure per pupil in 1997–98 prices in LEA-maintained schools, excluding special schools, in England was £1,388 in 1979–80 and £1,909 in 1995–96, the latest year for which data are available.

  £ million

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–00

  DfEE departmental expenditure

  Current

  22.9

  24.9

  21.1

  21.0

  21.0

  Capital

  7.4

  5.5

  5.5

  5.5

  5.5

  Employment Service expenditure

  Current

  134.9

  88.3

  69.4

  70.2

  71.0

  Capital

  52.9

  29.5

  11.3

  8.6

  8.3

  The current expenditure of both DfEE and the Employment Service include staff costs. The significant change in expenditure in the Employment Service from 1995–96 to 1996–97 reflects the introduction of JSA and the resultant changes in expenditure patterns.

  Computer-related expenditure in schools is not reported separately. Since 1995–96 support for expenditure on information technology has been available through the school effectiveness component of the GEST programme. However, it is mainly for schools to determine how much to spend on information technology in the light of their own needs and priorities. In further education none of the funding provided by the Department is hypothecated to
  128
  Information on expenditure per pupil in Scotland and Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales respectively.

  Higher Education Funding
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Eeducation and Employment if it is his policy that all of the additional money raised by the proposed changes in higher education(a) tuition fees and (b) maintenance arrangements will be made available for the financing of higher education, in addition to planned budgets; and if he will make a statement. [11187]

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the additional resources raised by the proposed changes to the higher education funding system will be specifically directed to this sector. [11051]

  Dr. Howells
  It will take time for the Government's proposals to begin to generate additional money because the increase in the cost of loans will initially offset the yield from the introduction of fees but, as my right hon. Friend said in his statement to the House on 23 July,Official Report, columns 949–62, the Government will ensure that savings are used to improve quality, standards and opportunity for all in further and higher education.

  Computer-related Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his estimate of total departmental expenditure on computer-related current and capital work for(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98, (d) 1998–99 and (e) 1999–00; and if he will make a statement. [11385]

  Dr. Howells
  Not all computer-related expenditure is separately identified. Identified expenditure and plans for expenditure include:

  IT, but the Further Education Funding Council has announced two initiatives this year: through the QUILT programme of staff development the FEFC will contribute £1.9 million over the five-year period from February 1997. For networking and other technical developments broadly recommended by the Higginson committee, the FEFC will contribute £575,000 over three years from October 1997. The Higher Education Funding Council for England gives higher education institutions a block grant for both recurrent and capital purposes; it is for it to decide how much to spend on computer-related current and capital work. However, the HEFCE has also provided specific grants on computer-related current and capital

  129
  work of over £100 million in the three years ending 1997–98. There is also computer-related expenditure in training and enterprise council programmes and careers libraries, but this is not separately identified.

  The Department is currently undergoing a comprehensive review of all its spending, and plans for future years may therefore change as a result of its findings.

  Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will require the assessment for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder of children suspended from school more than three times; and if he will make a statement. [10551]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Decisions on whether to assess children for statements of special educational need are for schools and local education authorities. In the autumn we shall consult on guidance to LEAs on their duty under the Education Act 1997 to draw up, consult upon and publish a plan setting out the arrangements they make for pupils with behavioural difficulties. We will also consult on revised guidance to LEAs and schools on exclusions. This will confirm that, when deciding whether to exclude, head teachers should consider whether a child's disciplinary problems might be a sign of an emerging emotional and behavioural difficulty giving rise to special educational need. There are no plans to advise head teachers to look for particular disorders.

  Teachers' Pension Scheme
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of responses to the further consultation exercise on proposals for changes to the early retirement provisions of the teachers' pension scheme; and if he will make a statement. [11695]

  Mr. Byers
  After considering the responses to the consultation exercise, my right hon. Friend has decided to introduce with effect from 1 September 1997 two improvements to the existing provisions of the teachers' scheme. The first will improve the arrangements for teachers who step down to posts of lower responsibility to preserve the level of their retirement benefits. A particularly useful feature of the new provisions is that they will apply where an individual changes employer.

  The second improvement is to the calculation of pension benefits for regular part-time teachers. These arrangements will mean that the average salary on which the pension is based is the same as it would have been if the teacher had been employed in a full-time capacity.

  In the autumn, we shall invite representatives of teachers and their employers to join us in an examination of the teachers' pension scheme for the longer term, looking at a range of issues suggested by teachers' unions, teachers' employers and others.

  We have decided not to introduce at this time the option of actuarially reduced pensions for teachers as a new form of retirement. This proposal will be looked at again in the longer-term examination.

  Copyright
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures his Department is taking to ensure compliance with copyright law; and if he proposes to take out a photocopying licence with the Copyright Licensing Agency. [10991]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: The Department has a number of procedures within its library service and reprographic centres to ensure compliance with copyright law and librarians and photocopying staff receive formal instruction on the need to operate within the copyright law. The Department has no plans at present to take out a photocopying licence with the Copyright Licensing Agency.

TREASURY

  Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what informal meetings the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe attended on Budget matters in the Treasury before the Budget statement. [10456]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 25 July 1997]: No informal meeting took place to make Budget decisions that involved the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe.

  Windfall Tax
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will change the calculation of the windfall tax liabilities by entity in order to put these on a constant price basis; and if he will make a statement. [11370]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  No. The Chancellor gave very careful consideration to the tax base in framing his proposals for the windfall tax.

  Departmental Payroll
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list each of the functions relating to the payroll for which his Department is responsible, indicating the management systems purchased, all sub-contractors involved in the work, co-operative arrangements with other Departments and the costs of the systems and processes in the last year for which figures are available. [10736]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The payroll service for the Treasury is provided by Chessington Computer Services Ltd. using the standard payroll input and retrieval system—SPIRE. The costs to the Treasury of the Chessington service for 1997–98 is £57,000 inclusive of VAT. Monthly salary changes are processed and input to SPIRE within the Treasury by two payroll clerks and one payroll administration manager at an annual salary cost for the three staff of £48,079. Under the terms of the contract, Chessington Computer Services Ltd. is responsible for making payments to staff using the bankers automated clearing service—BACS—and for making deductions such as tax and national insurance contributions.
  131
  The Treasury does not have any co-operative arrangements with other Departments for the provision or administration of payroll services.

  Bank of England
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals to implement the transfer to the Treasury of the Bank of England's responsibilities for debt management, the sale of gilts, oversight of the gilts market and cash management. [11625]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government today published a proposal for consultation on the arrangements for Government debt and cash management. We propose to establish an agency of the Treasury to implement the annual borrowing programme, to liaise and deal with participants in the gilts market and to manage the Exchequer's cash position. Copies of the document have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Unpaid Work
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what statistics the Office for National Statistics compiles on the value of unpaid work to the economy. [10660]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mrs. Jackie Ballard, dated 29 July 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) to your recent question on statistics ONS compile on the value of unpaid work to the economy.
  ONS publishes no direct estimates of unpaid labour. It plans, however, to publish an experimental account of household production in the ONS publication Economic Trends in the next few months, based on time use surveys. An article describing the approach was published in Economic Trends in July 1996.
  The above publication is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Strikes
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many working days were lost as a result of strikes in each year between 1974 and 1997. [11348]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. John Bercow, dated 29 July 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on how many working days have been lost as a result of strikes in each year between 1974 and 1997.
  Annual data are only available up to 1996. Data for 1974 to 1996 are shown in the attached table.
  132

  Number of working days lost in the United Kingdom due to labour disputes

  Working days lost (thousands)

  1974

  14,750

  1975

  6,012

  1976

  3,284

  1977

  10,142

  1978

  9,405

  1979

  29,474

  1980

  11,964

  1981

  4,266

  1982

  5,313

  1983

  3,754

  1984

  27,135

  1985

  6,402

  1986

  1,920

  1987

  3,546

  1988

  3,702

  1989

  4,128

  1990

  1,903

  1991

  761

  1992

  528

  1993

  649

  1994

  278

  1995

  415

  1996

  1,303

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many working days have been lost as a result of strikes in each year since 1974. [10887]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Philip Hammond, dated 29 July 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on how many working days have been lost as a result of strikes in each year since 1974.
  The data requested are in the attached table.

  Number of working days lost in the United Kingdom due to labour disputes

  Working days lost (thousands)

  1974

  14,750

  1975

  6,012

  1976

  3,284

  1977

  10,142

  1978

  9,405

  1979

  29,474

  1980

  11,964

  1981

  4,266

  1982

  5,313

  1983

  3,754

  1984

  27,135

  1985

  6,402

  1986

  1,920

  1987

  3,546

  1988

  3,702

  1989

  4,128

  1990

  1,903

  1991

  761

  1992

  528

  1993

  649

  1994

  278

  1995

  415

  1996

  1,303

  Health Authority Populations
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the(a) male and (b) female population of each health authority by gender. [10663]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mrs. Jackie Ballard, dated 29 July 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply, as the Director of the Office for National Statistics, to your recent question asking for the population of each health authority by gender. The data you requested are attached.
  It is the ONS' policy to publish population estimates rounded to at least the nearest 100 persons. When estimates are provided as they are here, in units, this is in order to facilitate further calculations e.g. mortality rates. Unit estimates cannot be accurate to that level of detail.

  Estimated population mid-1995 Health areas that come into effect on 1 April 1996

  Regional office health authority

  Total persons

  Total male

  Total female

  Bradford

  482,694

  237,678

  245,016

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  580,963

  284,484

  296,479

  County Durham

  607,670

  297,874

  309,796

  East Riding

  576,993

  283,581

  293,412

  Gateshead and South

  Tyneside

  358,118

  174,512

  183,606

  Leeds

  724,967

  357,634

  367,333

  Newcastle and North

  Tyneside

  477,068

  231,970

  245,098

  North Cumbria

  318,081

  156,638

  161,443

  Northumberland

  307,296

  149,979

  157,317

  North Yorkshire

  730,636

  355,352

  375,284

  Sunderland

  295,829

  144,201

  151,628

  Tees

  559,160

  273,839

  285,321

  Wakefield

  317,148

  156,868

  160,280

  Northern and Yorkshire

  6,336,623

  3,104,610

  3,232,013

  Barnsley

  226,711

  111,395

  115,316

  Doncaster

  292,877

  144,511

  148,366

  Leicestershire

  923,001

  458,290

  464,711

  Lincolnshire

  611,846

  299,089

  312,757

  North Derbyshire

  371,084

  183,103

  187,981

  North Nottinghamshire

  391,738

  193,815

  197,923

  Nottingham

  640,201

  315,722

  324,479

  Rotherham

  255,751

  126,469

  129,282

  Sheffield

  528,518

  262,356

  266,162

  Southern Derbyshire

  555,060

  275,647

  279,413

  South Humber

  312,198

  153,495

  158,703

  Trent

  5,108,985

  2,523,892

  2,585,093

  Bedfordshire

  545,660

  272,079

  273,581

  Berkshire

  783,231

  392,439

  390,792

  Buckinghamshire

  665,878

  330,396

  335,482

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  442,390

  219,457

  222,933

  East Norfolk

  614,669

  301,149

  313,520

  Northamptonshire

  599,284

  296,459

  302,825

  North West Anglia

  409,177

  202,314

  206,863

  Oxfordshire

  598,354

  298,904

  299,450

  Suffolk

  565,809

  323,142

  333,667

  Anglia and Oxford

  5,315,452

  2,636,339

  2,679,113

  Barking and Havering

  385,789

  188,654

  197,135

  Barnet

  312,431

  151,757

  160,674

  Brent and Harrow

  455,401

  224,815

  230,586

  134

  Estimated population mid-1995 Health areas that come into effect on 1 April 1996

  Regional office health authority

  Total persons

  Total male

  Total female

  Camden and Islington

  359,402

  174,496

  184,906

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  652,162

  321,046

  331,116

  East and North Hertfordshire

  491,050

  243,330

  247,720

  East London and The City

  600,575

  299,359

  301,216

  Enfield and Haringey

  474,679

  233,717

  240,962

  Hillingdon

  245,295

  121,379

  123,916

  Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster

  349,165

  170,768

  178,397

  North Essex

  878,770

  430,861

  447,909

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  448,411

  219,644

  228,767

  South Essex

  698,739

  341,951

  356,788

  West Hertfordshire

  520,167

  256,229

  263,938

  North Thames

  6,872,036

  3,378,006

  3,494,030

  Bexley and Greenwich

  431,653

  210,300

  221,353

  Bromley

  293,385

  142,045

  151,340

  Croydon

  330,933

  162,133

  168,800

  East Kent

  587,118

  283,360

  303,758

  East Surrey

  411,163

  200,057

  211,106

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  730,864

  346,600

  384,264

  Kingston and Richmond

  315,756

  153,722

  162,034

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  733,397

  357,216

  376,181

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  618,657

  300,743

  317,914

  West Kent

  964,143

  474,528

  489,615

  West Surrey

  633,195

  311,454

  321,741

  West Sussex

  731,482

  350,533

  380,949

  South Thames

  6,781,746

  3,292,691

  3,489,055

  Avon

  982,343

  484,177

  498,166

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  482,688

  234,051

  248,637

  Dorset

  678,668

  326,998

  351,670

  Gloucestershire

  552,731

  272,525

  280,206

  Isle of Wight

  125,111

  60,163

  64,948

  North and East Devon

  468,749

  225,973

  242,776

  North and Mid Hampshire

  543,260

  269,400

  273,860

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  539,007

  265,029

  273,978

  Somerset

  481,041

  234,626

  246,415

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  534,407

  264,376

  270,031

  South and West Devon

  590,030

  286,160

  303,870

  Wiltshire

  590,610

  292,677

  297,933

  South and West

  6,568,645

  3,216,155

  3,352,490

  Birmingham

  1,017,458

  502,404

  515,054

  Coventry

  303,555

  149,969

  153,586

  Dudley

  312,453

  154,916

  157,537

  Herefordshire

  164,519

  80,551

  83,968

  North Staffordshire

  472,199

  233,834

  238,365

  Sandwell

  293,701

  144,148

  149,553

  Shropshire

  419,880

  207,676

  212,204

  Solihull

  202,882

  99,220

  103,662

  South Staffordshire

  584,249

  290,662

  293,587

  Walsall

  262,770

  130,045

  132,725

  Warwickshire

  498,662

  246,411

  252,251

  Wolverhampton

  244,335

  120,342

  123,993

  Worcestershire

  529,759

  260,644

  269,115

  West Midlands

  5,306,422

  2,620,822

  2,685,600

  Bury and Rochdale

  389,489

  191,519

  197,970

  East Lancashire

  512,864

  252,206

  260,658

  135

  Estimated population mid-1995 Health areas that come into effect on 1 April 1996

  Regional office health authority

  Total persons

  Total male

  Total female

  Liverpool

  470,826

  229,214

  241,612

  Manchester

  432,641

  213,111

  219,530

  Morecambe Bay

  308,403

  149,808

  158,595

  North Cheshire

  311,196

  153,654

  157,542

  North West Lancashire

  466,713

  226,720

  239,993

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  333,880

  163,160

  170,720

  Salford and Trafford

  448,798

  221,029

  227,769

  Sefton

  290,971

  138,791

  152,180

  South Cheshire

  666,893

  327,403

  339,490

  South Lancashire

  310,255

  152,098

  158,157

  Stockport

  290,569

  141,810

  148,759

  West Pennine

  473,287

  232,244

  241,043

  Wigan and Bolton

  575,228

  283,776

  291,452

  Wirral

  331,518

  158,557

  172,961

  North West

  6,613,531

  3,235,100

  3,378,431

  Bro Taf

  726,893

  356,784

  370,109

  Dyfed Powys

  475,558

  233,078

  242,480

  Gwent

  556,322

  272,751

  283,571

  Morgannwg

  500,911

  244,521

  256,390

  North Wales

  657,098

  318,360

  338,738

  Wales

  2,916,782

  1,425,494

  1,491,288

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the(a) percentage increase and (b) average annual increase in the retail prices index between (i) March 1974 and April 1979 and (ii) May 1979 and April 1997. [10892]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Christopher Fraser, dated 29 July 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question about the increase in the Retail Prices Index.
  Between March 1974 and April 1979 the percentage increase in the Retail Prices Index was 108.8 per cent for the period. This compares with 185.6 per cent for the period May 1979 to April 1997.
  The average annual increase in the Retail Prices Index for the period March 1974 to April 1979 was 15.3 per cent per annum. This compares with 6.0 per cent for the period May 1979 to April 1997.

  Illegal Drugs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of(a) casualties and (b) fatalities caused by the interaction between prescribed and illegal drugs in each of the last three years. [11016]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  136
  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 29 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 drug casualties and fatalities. However, this information is not held centrally.
  The ONS collects and compiles information on the cause of all deaths registered in England and Wales. In the case of deaths due to any form of poisoning by drugs or drug abuse, the death will be certified by a coroner following an inquest. The coroner's certificate of cause of death, used to register these deaths, includes a short section on the cause (in the format of the medical certificate of cause of death recommended by the WHO), the verdict and certain details about the circumstances of accidental deaths. The level of information therefore normally received by the ONS would include the names of all the drugs known to have been taken or found in toxicological analyses. When more than one drug is mentioned on the certificate, it is not usually stated which was responsible for the death, nor whether any interaction between them was suspected or proven.
  Whether a drug was prescribed for the deceased or another person, bought over the counter or obtained illicitly is not normally recorded on the death certificate. The coroner's verdict may state that the death was due to dependence on or abuse of a drug or drugs. However. many certificates of deaths due to poisoning with controlled drugs do not mention abuse or dependence, and may have accidental, suicidal or open verdicts. Many controlled drugs can be legitimately prescribed for therapeutic purposes. A very small number of deaths are certified as due to adverse reactions to therapeutic drugs in normal use, with either an accidental or therapeutic misadventure verdict. In addition to controlled and prescription only drugs, those taken therapeutically may include over the counter preparations.
  A greater level of detail may be recorded in the coroner's inquest reports, but these are not routinely collected, coded or analysed nationally.
  The ONS does not collect figures on admissions to hospital, patients seen in accident and emergency departments or cases notified to poisons advice centres.

  Life Span
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the expected life span of a child born in(a) 1979 and (b) 1997. [10906]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Nick Gibb, dated 29 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 the expectation of life at birth in the United Kingdom.
  The data you requested, according to the mortality rates experienced in the year in question, are as follows:

  Males

  Females

  1979

  70.0

  76.2

  19951

  74.0

  79.3

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

  Unemployment
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the change in unemployment levels in each former parliamentary constituency in Great Britain between(a) December 1992 and (b) December 1997. [11244]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Peter Luff, dated 29 July 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on the change in unemployment levels in each former parliamentary constituency in Great Britain.
  The measure of unemployment, derived from the quarterly Labour Force Survey (LFS), is defined on a consistent and internationally recognised basis set out by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and counts as unemployed people who are: a) without a job; b) available to start work within the next two weeks and c) have either looked for work in the last four weeks or are waiting to start a job already obtained. However, largely because it is a sample survey, information is not available from the LFS in as much geographical detail as from the claimant count measure described below.
  ONS also publishes the monthly claimant count, which is based on the administrative system and includes all people claiming unemployed-related benefits (i.e. Jobseekers Allowance, Income Support or National Insurance credits) at Employment Service offices on the day of the monthly count, who on that day had signed on as unemployed and available to do any suitable work. Essentially, all people who attend an Employment Service office to sign are counted, irrespective of whether they are actually receiving benefit.
  The information you have requested is only available from the claimant count, as the Labour Force Survey does not give details down to constituency levels as explained.
  Information on the levels of claimant count by former Parliamentary Constituency are based on the 1981 Census which are only available up to March 1996. Parliamentary Constituency data from April 1996 were based on the new 1991 Census. All this information can be obtained from the NOMIS database at the House of Commons Library.

  Temporary Contracts
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the proportion of people currently employed on temporary contracts in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) France, (c) Spain and (d) Italy; and to what extent this has changed since (i) 1987 and (ii) 1992. [10891]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Christopher Fraser, dated 29 July 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on the proportion of people currently employed on temporary contracts in the United Kingdom, France, Spain and Italy.
  Numbers of temporary employees and all employees are published in the Eurostat publication Labour Force Survey Results which is available in the House of Commons Library. The most recent edition is for 1995. The proportions for spring of each of the years 1987, 1992 and 1995 are shown in the table below. The latest figure for the United Kingdom, for winter 1996/7, is also shown.
  138

  Heading employees as a proportion of all employees (per cent.)

  United Kingdom

  France

  Spain

  Italy

  Spring 1987

  6.2

  7.1

  15.6

  5.4

  Spring 1992

  5.4

  10.4

  33.5

  7.6

  Spring 1995

  6.8

  12.2

  35.0

  7.2

  Winter

  1996–97

  7.4

  —

  —

  —

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the changes in levels of(a) manufacturing productivity and (b) overall productivity between (i) March 1974 and April 1979 and (ii) May 1979 and April 1997. [10888]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Philip Hammond, dated 29 July 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question regarding changes in levels of manufacturing and whole economy productivity.
  Information is not available for the dates requested but is given for the nearest period in the table below.

  Sector

  Period

  Percentage change

  Manufacturing

  Q1 1974 to Q1 1979

  5.7

  Q2 1979 to Q1 1997

  83.5

  Whole economy

  Q1 1974 to Q1 1979

  9.4

  Q2 1979 to Q1 1997

  36.7

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was manufacturing output in the United Kingdom in each year between 1979 and 1997 in terms of(a) volume and (b) value at current prices. [10959]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Dominic Grieve, dated 29 July 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on manufacturing output in the United Kingdom in each year between 1979 and 1997.
  The index of the volume of manufacturing output at constant prices for each year between 1986 and 1996 can be accessed as Series DVZK on the ONS databank by the House of Commons Library. Data for 1997 is not yet available. The indices for the years 1979 to 1985 are given in the table below:

  Year

  Volume of manufacturing output at constant prices

  1979

  90.6

  1980

  82.8

  1981

  77.7

  1982

  77.6

  1983

  79.2

  1984

  82.2

  139
  Data on the value of manufacturing output at current prices is available for the complete range of years between 1979 and 1996 and can be accessed as series CFLV on the ONS databank by the House of Commons Library. Data for 1997 is not yet available.

  Exports
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total value at current prices of United Kingdom exports of(a) goods, (b) services and (c) all items in each year since 1979. [10961]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Dominic Grieve, dated 29 July 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on the total value at current prices of United Kingdom exports.
  Estimates for imports and exports of goods and services, investment income, transfers and the total balance of payments current account back to 1975 will be published in Table 1.4 of the 1997 edition of United Kingdom Balance of Payments: The Pink Book to be published by The Stationery Office on 8 August, a copy of which will be available in the House of Commons Library. The data to be published in the Pink Book is already available through the ONS databank which can be accessed by the House of Commons Library.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Next Steps Agencies
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will ensure that the definition of the relationship between operational and policy decisions is made according to the function and framework brief of each next steps agency. [10522]

  Dr. David Clark
  It is the responsibility of the departmental Minister, having set the framework within which the Department's executive agencies operate, to ensure that this is reflected, as necessary, in the conduct of business. The framework documents for next steps agencies seek to set out as precisely as possible those matters assigned by Ministers to chief executives and for which the chief executives are responsible to Ministers, recognising that it is impracticable to predict every eventuality that may arise in the life span of individual framework documents.

  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to review the regional operation of next steps agencies following the publication of proposals on the regional development agencies; and if he will make a statement. [10520]

  Dr. Clark
  This is a matter for the departmental Ministers responsible for individual executive agencies.

  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will introduce guidelines requiring next steps agencies to produce key performance indicators which are comparable between agencies; and if he will make a statement. [10521]
  140
  Dr. Clark
  I have asked colleagues to pay particular attention to selecting the most appropriate key performance indicators for their agencies and to setting stretching targets for them. However, most agencies produce outputs which are not directly comparable with those of other agencies. Even where similar outputs are produced, for example in those concerned with prisons, social security and public records, direct comparisons may be misleading because the agencies concerned have different customers, operate in differing social or economic environments, or work within different legislative frameworks. The Minister concerned is best placed to decide the key performance indicators taking into account individual circumstances.

  Departmental Payroll
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list each of the functions relating to the payroll for which his Department is responsible, indicating the management system purchased, all subcontractors involved in the work, co-operative arrangements with other Departments and the costs of the systems and processes in the last year for which figures are available. [10738]

  Dr. David Clark
  For this purpose, I have responsibility for the Cabinet Office, including the Prime Minister's Office and the Office of Public Service and its agencies and the Central Office of Information.

  Pay for non-industrial staff 1996–97

  The collation and processing of pay data, including rates of basic pay, overtime and allowances—by internal pay sections.

  Method of transfer of pay data from internal pay section to subcontractor—computer link known as SPIRE.

  Tax, national insurance and other deductions are net payments to staff made by subcontractor—Chessington Computer Services Ltd.

  Departmental internal costs—£201,000.

  Cost of service level agreement with subcontractor—£217,000.

  Pay for industrial staff 1996–97

  The collation of pay data, including rates of basic pay, overtime and allowances—by internal pay sections.

  Method of transfer of pay data from internal pay section to subcontractor—computer disk or paper-based systems where numbers are small.

  Processing of pay data. Tax, national insurance and other deductions and net payments made to staff by subcontractor—Ministry of Defence, Pay and Personnel Agency.

  Departmental internal costs—£115,000.

  Cost of contact with subcontractor—£74,000.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the monthly changes in total civil service numbers for each month since 1 January. [11155]

  Mr. David Clark
  Civil service staffing figures are compiled quarterly. Information for the latest available four quarters is as follows:

  Permanent staff

  Casual staff

  All staff

  1 July 1996

  492,100

  21,800

  513,900

  1 October 1996

  486,800

  22,300

  509,100

  141

  Permanent staff

  Casual staff

  All staff

  1 January 1997

  482,800

  23,400

  506,200

  1 April 1997

  475,700

  19,600

  495,300

  Figures for 1 July 1997 will be published at the end of August.

  Computer-related Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his estimate of total departmental expenditure on computer-related current and capital work for(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98, (d) 1998–99 and (e) 1999–00; and if he will make a statement. [11387]

  Dr. David Clark
  Estimates of the total departmental expenditure on computer-related work by the Cabinet Office, the Office of Public Service and its agencies and the Central Office of Information are:

  £ million

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Current

  3.25

  4.78

  5.56

  Capital

  4.15

  4.89

  3.55

  Total

  7.40

  9.67

  9.11

  Expenditure plans for 1998–99 and 1999–00 have not yet been finalised.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Ashford Great Park Development Project
  Mr. Stuart Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received the reports from the audit committee of the Church Commissioners about the commissioners' involvement in the Ashford Great Park development project. [11515]

  Mr. Straw
  I have received these reports and have placed copies of them in the Library.

  Juveniles
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the incidence of physical and sexual abuse by inmates in respect of juveniles in detention in the last year. [9279]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 23 July 1997]: In the last financial year, there were 292 cases of assault where the victim was a juvenile. Only four of these assaults were of an alleged sexual nature.

  Immigration
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has issued on the target waiting time for calls to the telephone inquiry bureau of the immigration directorate; and what steps he has taken to reduce waiting times. [10483]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Waiting time and staff productivity targets are reviewed regularly. Productivity targets are either met or exceeded but the need to divert staff to deal with personal callers in the public inquiry office has resulted in some failure to meet waiting time targets. Priority at busy times will continue to be given to 142
  personal callers but extra staff are being recruited to cover the telephones. Immigration applicants are being encouraged to make telephone inquiries to the case worker handling their case.

  Mohammed Riaz and Quayyun Raja
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the tariffs to be served by Mohammed Riaz and Quayyun Raja were last reviewed; and what was the outcome of the review. [10875]

  Ms Quin
  The tariffs for these two mandatory life sentence prisoners were last reviewed by Ministers in 1995–96. The outcome of that review was that the tariffs were set afresh at the same level as they had been before they were quashed by the divisional court in December 1994–20 years for Mohammed Riaz and 25 years for Quayyun Raja. Following recent representations, we have agreed to look again at the circumstances of these cases.

  Sunlight
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the variations in the duration of sunlight in the United Kingdom since 1977. [10951]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Following a preliminary survey in 1987, the Home Office commissioned a survey of interest groups in 1988 into options for summer time arrangements. The views of respondents and the arguments that were advanced were reviewed in the 1989 Green Paper "Summer Time: A Consultation Document", Cm 722.

  Responses to the Green Paper showed that there was a lack of consensus about the merits of the United Kingdom moving to central European time, also known as single/double summer time. A private Member's Bill, The British Time (Extra Daylight) Bill, which would have achieved such a move did not attract enough support for a Second Reading when it was debated on 19 January 1996. The debate illustrated the strength of feeling and diversity of opinion on the issue.

  Special Secure Units
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the recommendations made by Sir Donald Acheson in his report on special secure units indicating which have been implemented; and if he will make a statement. [11098]

  Ms Quin
  Sir Donald Acheson's report contained nine recommendations. Action has been taken on these as follows:"1. Given the short duration of the present regime, it is premature to come to a firm conclusion on its impact on prisoners' health. We therefore advise that the general health of prisoners detained in special secure units (SSUs) be reviewed at regular intervals, taking into account their degree of susceptibility to psychological symptoms.

  Response
  The SSU Operating Standards have been amended to require that medical officers should undertake formal reviews of the health of prisoners detained in SSUs every three months.

  143
  2. A standard set of procedures applicable to all SSUs should be devised, circulated to all parties and enforced to ensure the most expeditious transfer of prisoners requiring emergency treatment to National Health Service hospitals.

  Response
  The Operating Standards have been amended to emphasise the importance of prompt action.
  3. SSUs should be provided with the same level of first aid and emergency aid equipment as other wings in the prison. Personnel trained in using this equipment should be on duty in the SSU at all times.

  Response
  Healthcare in SSUs is comparable to that elsewhere in the Prison Service. Arrangements exist to ensure that first aid be administered immediately to prisoners in SSUs.
  4. Prisoners should be held in SSUs for as short a period as possible.

  Response
  This is existing policy.
  5. Prisoners should be informed when their cases are coming before the SSU committee and be given the opportunity to submit written representations. When feasible, an indication as to how long prisoners will be required to stay in the SSU system should be given.

  Response
  This is existing policy.
  6. Sentence planning should be introduced as with other long term prisoners.

  Response
  The overriding consideration is determining the length of time a prisoner spends in a special unit must be security. However, the Operating Standards have been amended to provide that regular reviews are undertaken of prisoners' behaviour, attitude and other relevant issues. Review arrangements ensure that the necessary information is collected on the prisoner to inform my future sentencing planning.
  7. More opportunities for mental stimulation and physical exercise should be provided, including the provision of meaningful activity.

  Response
  This is existing policy. Opportunities for constructive activity have increased.
  8. It is the unanimous view of the group that, in the interests of health, prisoners in the SSUs should have access to open visits with members of their immediate family. We believe that it should be possible for the Prison Service to devise visits which prevent the passage of unauthorised items whilst at the same time retaining the advantages to the prisoners of physical contact possible only in open visits. Given the logistics involved in conducting secure open visits, it is for the Prison Service to determine their frequency and management.

  Response
  This recommendation has not been accepted although the policy is under review.
  9. Staff should be encouraged to form relationships with prisoners, yet remain sufficiently detached to maintain objectivity and resist being compromised.

  Response
  This is existing policy."

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what disciplinary action was taken against Metropolitan police officers involved in a disturbance outside minicab offices on the Holloway road in north London on 17 March 1996. [9963]
  144
  Mr. Michael
  The commissioner informs me that two Metropolitan police officers are to face a disciplinary board on charges of abuse of authority and two other officers were admonished as a result of the investigation.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were employed by the Metropolitan police in each year since 1979. [11156]

  Mr. Michael
  I am advised by the Metropolitan police service that the number of officers employed by it from 1979 is as follows:

  1979: 22,786

  1980: 23,691

  1981: 25,161

  1982: 26,350

  1983: 26,806

  1984: 26,844

  1985: 26,783

  1986: 27,005

  1987: 27,438

  1988: 28,009

  1989: 28,267

  1990: 28,364

  1991: 28,455

  1992: 28,229.7

  1993: 28,045.3

  1994: 28,070.6

  1995: 27,719.4

  1996: 27,420.4

  These figures are as at 31 December—end of year figures—and do not include any officers on secondment to or from the Metropolitan police service. Figures for 1992 onwards show a full-time equivalent figure and take account of part-time work; there were no part-time workers prior to 1992.

  HMP Belmarsh
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress towards providing prisoners detained in the special secure unit at Her Majesty's prison Belmarsh with four hours of education a day on request. [9964]

  Ms Quin
  Prisoners in the special secure unit at Belmarsh prison can, if they wish, attend formal education classes for up to three hours a day. This exceeds the number of hours of education available in the main prison and, given the extremely low take-up of education by SSU prisoners, there are no plans at present to increase further the number of hours available.

  In addition to formal education classes, prisoners can study in their cells if they so wish. In the past, a number of SSU prisoners have participated in Open university courses in this way.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on provision of adequate ventilation for cells and recreation areas within the special secure unit at HMP Belmarsh. [9965]
  145
  Ms Quin
  Adequate ventilation is available in cells in the special secure unit at Belmarsh. It has, however, been accepted by Belmarsh that the ventilation of the association areas needs to be improved during periods of hot weather.

  To facilitate this, Belmarsh has recently changed procedures to allow prisoners to keep open cell doors and windows at times when they are out of their cells. It has also installed large fans. These measures have greatly increased the ventilation of the association areas, improving matters significantly.

  Diarmuid O'Neill Investigation
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Police Complaints Authority has completed its investigation into the shooting of Diarmuid O'Neill on 23 September 1996; and if he will make a statement. [9962]

  Mr. Straw
  The Police Complaints Authority's investigation is continuing. I understand that some of the evidence in the case may also be relevant to the forthcoming trial of the men arrested with Mr. O'Neill and that the Police Complaints Authority's investigation will not be completed until their trial is over, lest its inquiries prejudice the trial.

  Disabled People (Access to Polling Stations)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for making an assessment of the recommendations in the SCOPE report, "Polls Apart 2", with specific reference to(a) increasing the grant to local authorities for providing temporary ramps for polling stations and (b) increasing the grant for low-level accessible polling booths. [10471]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Government are considering SCOPE's report, which we welcome. At present, 50 per cent. grants are available towards the cost of purchasing temporary ramps and 80 per cent. grants are available for polling screens adapted for use by electors in wheelchairs. Funds for such grants are not capped and since 1992 a total of £213,000 has been spent towards the provision of temporary ramps. Separate figures are not kept on the purchase of specially adapted polling screens.

  We are looking very carefully at the arrangements for future funding for this equipment.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter dated 11 June, ref. No. 9675/97, regarding a constituent. [11081]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I am writing today to my hon. Friend.

  Prison Places
  Mr. Malin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison places were available in each year since 1979. [11250]

  Ms Quin
  The information required is given in the table.
  146

  Certified normal accommodation—CNA—30 June

  CNA

  1979

  37,881

  1980

  38,472

  1981

  38,747

  1982

  38,653

  1983

  38,783

  1984

  39,033

  1985

  39,804

  1986

  40,811

  1987

  41,994

  1988

  44,179

  1989

  45,427

  1990

  42,804

  1991

  43,875

  1992

  46,239

  1993

  46,646

  1994

  48,291

  1995

  50,239

  1996

  53,152

  1997

  56,329

  Source:

  Prison statistics England and Wales 1989 and 1995.

  Figures for 1996 and 1997 strategic planning section, HM Prison Service.

  Note:

  Accommodation excludes places taken out of use for refurbishment. It represents the total number of uncrowded places estimated to be available in the prison estate.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the percentage change in recorded crime in the last four years. [11127]

  Mr. Michael
  Between 1992 and 1996, total recorded crime fell by 10 per cent.

  However, over the same period, total recorded violent crime rose by 21 per cent. and total recorded crime today is 31 per cent. higher than it was 10 years ago. We have begun a determined onslaught on crime and the causes of crime. Our strategy places the victim at the heart of the criminal justice system and aims to tackle what has become an unacceptable level of crime and neighbourhood disorder.

  Firearms Compensation
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of departmental expenditure on firearms compensation and related costs in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–00 and how these figures differ from those assumed in the departmental spending plans contained in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1997–98"; and if he will make a statement. [11248]

  Mr. Michael
  The expected costs of the compensation for firearms and ancillary equipment was set out at the time of the parliamentary debates on the compensation scheme and the current Firearms (Amendment) Bill.

  The present estimate of expenditure on compensation and related costs arising from the implementation of the

  147
  Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 and the Firearms (Amendment) Bill is as follows:

  £ million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Compensation payments

  115

  45

  Administrative costs

  5

  1

  Total

  120

  46

  No expenditure is expected in 1999–00.

  No specific provision was made for firearms compensation in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1997–98" although the cost of compensation was identified as a potential claim on the reserve.

  New Technology
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been invested at current prices by the Government in each year since 1979 in new technology to help the police deal with crime. [11355]

  Mr. Michael
  The information is not available in the form requested. In the years 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98 respectively, the Home Office budget for central scientific and technical support for the police is £48.9 million, £51.9 million and £59.4 million at 1997–98 prices. It should be noted that these are aggregate figures and will cover such items as the general operating costs of the police national computer.

  One of its next steps agencies, the Forensic Science Service, has invested or will invest the following over the same period: £3 million, £3.1 million and £3.4 million on capital investment in new technology, and £3.5 million, £2.9 million and £3 million on research and development activity, excluding equipment, all at 1997–98 prices.

  Police (Staff)
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the number of(a) police officers and (b) police civilian staff workers in each year since 1979. [11157]

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

  As at March

  Police

  Civilians

  1979

  111,133

  34,598

  1980

  114,543

  35,420

  1981

  118,102

  37,143

  1982

  119,973

  37,170

  1983

  121,003

  37,373

  1984

  121,053

  37,818

  1985

  120,116

  38,497

  1986

  120,848

  39,351

  1987

  122,236

  40,592

  1988

  124,080

  41,786

  1989

  125,631

  42,767

  1990

  126,777

  44,525

  1991

  127,495

  46,361

  1992

  127,627

  47,336

  1993

  128,290

  49,518

  1994

  127,897

  50,229

  148

  As at March

  Police

  Civilians

  1995

  127,222

  51,096

  1996

  126,878

  52,933

  1997 (Provisional)

  127,158

  53,011

  Prison Officers
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison officers were in post in each year since 1979. [11251]

  Ms Quin
  The information required is given in the table.

  Prison officers in post each year since 1979

  Number

  1979

  11,138

  1980

  11,225

  1981

  12,192

  1982

  12,198

  1983

  12,312

  1984

  12,713

  1985

  13,022

  1986

  13,336

  1987

  119,072

  1988

  18,039

  1989

  19,629

  1990

  20,785

  1991

  21,421

  1992

  23,029

  1993

  23,994

  1994

  23,756

  1995

  24,237

  1996

  24,398

  1997

  223,058

  1 The increase between 1986 and 1987 reflects the change in prison officer working practices and the reduction in their hours worked.

  2The reduction from 1996 to 1997 can be partly explained by the fact that prison officers left under the voluntary early severance scheme.

  Prisons
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) new prisons have opened and (b) prisons have closed in each year since 1979. [11249]

  Ms Quin
  Table A details new prison establishments that have been brought into use—short-term conversions of, for example, Army camps are not included—since 1979. Table B details those which have been taken out of use since 1979.

  Table A: New prisons opened by year since 1979

  Year

  Name of prison

  Current role

  1979

  Wymott

  C

  1980

  —

  —

  1981

  —

  —

  1982

  Frankland

  Dispersal

  1983

  Castington

  YOI

  1984

  —

  —

  1985

  Featherstone

  C

  Lindholme

  C

  Wayland

  C

  Stocken

  C

  Thorn Cross

  Open YOI

  149

  Table A: New prisons opened by year since 1979

  Year

  Name of prison

  Current role

  1986

  —

  —

  1987

  Full Sutton

  Dispersal

  1988

  Littlehey

  C

  The Mount

  C

  Swaleside

  B

  Garth

  B

  1989

  Downview

  C

  1990

  —

  —

  1991

  Belmarsh

  Local/Dispersal

  Moorland

  YOI/Audit Male Trainer/Audit

  Remand

  Whitemoor

  Dispersal

  Brinsford

  YOI

  1992

  Elmley

  Local/Trainer

  Bullingdon

  Local

  Wolds

  Remand Centre

  Holme House

  Local

  Woodhill

  Local

  High Down

  Local

  1993

  Lancaster Farms

  YOI

  Blakenhurst

  Local

  Doncaster

  Local

  1995

  Buckley Hall

  C

  YOI: young offenders institution.

  Table B: Prisons taken out of use since 1979

  Year taken out of use

  Name of prison

  1981

  Appleton Thorn

  1982

  Moor Court

  1983

  Gaynes Hall

  1987

  Medomsley

  1988

  Gringley

  1989

  Ashford

  1989

  Buckley Hall

  1991

  Campsfield House

  1992

  Lowdham Grange

  1992

  Northeye

  1996

  Finnamore Wood

  1996

  Oxford

  1996

  Pucklechurch

  Three of locations—Appleton Thorn, Buckley Hall and Gaynes Hall—are now the sites of new prisons; HMYOI Thorn Cross, HMP Buckley Hall and HMP Littlehey respectively. In addition, Lowdham Grange is currently being rebuilt and another, Pucklechurch, is to be rebuilt during 1998–99. Planning clearance also exists to build a new prison on the site of what was Ashford remand centre.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the level of public spending in current prices on the Prison Service was in each year since 1979. [11356]

  Ms Quin
  Expenditure by the Prison Service in England and Wales for each year from 1979–80 is set out in the table at 1996–97 prices. These figures include expenditure borne on the Property Services Agency vote up to 1987–88 for the capital costs of new prisons. Because of the nature of the Government accounting system, some other costs attributable to the running of the prison system, for example superannuation, rates and common services, were charged to other votes during some of the earlier years in the table.
  150

  £ million

  1979–80

  790.5

  1980–81

  898.6

  1981–82

  900.2

  1982–83

  949.5

  1983–84

  1,002.0

  1984–85

  1,022.7

  1985–86

  1,070.6

  1986–87

  1,105.0

  1987–88

  1,167.9

  1988–89

  1,284.1

  1989–90

  1,482.4

  1990–91

  1,640.1

  1991–92

  1,680.3

  1992–93

  1,621.6

  1993–94

  1,617.1

  1994–95

  1,687.1

  1995–96

  1,712.9

  1996–97 (provisional)

  1,604.9

  Police Force (Government Spending)
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by how much in real terms Government spending on the police force has changed since 1979. [11158]

  Mr. Michael
  On the basis of the latest gross domestic produce deflator figures issued by the Treasury, total spending on the police in England and Wales will have increased in real terms by 100.4 per cent. between 1978–79 and 1997–98.

  Police (Wales)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent on each of the four Welsh police forces in each year since 1979. [11191]

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

  Expenditure

  £ million

  Dyfed Powys

  Gwent

  North Wales

  South Wales

  1978–79

  7.615

  8.511

  11.672

  26.219

  1979–80

  10.016

  10.971

  15.362

  35.086

  1980–81

  11.698

  12.826

  17.233

  41.527

  1981–82

  13.709

  15.014

  20.060

  49.634

  1982–83

  15.052

  16.379

  22.314

  55.399

  1983–84

  16.301

  18.455

  25.200

  59.667

  1984–85

  19.134

  20.120

  27.838

  66.756

  1985–86

  18.813

  20.619

  27.567

  68.001

  1986–87

  20.699

  22.213

  30.257

  72.723

  1987–88

  23.831

  24.096

  32.961

  78.957

  1988–89

  25.293

  27.170

  36.812

  86.312

  1989–90

  29.522

  30.444

  41.084

  97.275

  1990–91

  30.878

  33.286

  44.725

  106.257

  1991–92

  35.150

  36.682

  50.700

  118.537

  1992–93

  38.896

  38.965

  55.897

  127.300

  1993–94

  41.518

  41.406

  58.387

  130.885

  1994–95

  44.381

  42.951

  61.156

  130.371

  1995–96

  46.534

  49.907

  66.185

  154.710

  1996–97

  48.813

  62.752

  69.339

  151.524

  1997–98

  50.481

  65.162

  72.039

  156.800

  Information from police grant claim forms, except: 1995–96 and 1996–97—Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy estimates. 1997–98—revenue budgets and additional police grant.

  Firearms Consultative Committee
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will lay before Parliament the eighth annual report of the Firearms Consultative Committee. [11516]

  Mr. Michael
  I have today placed a copy of the annual report of the Firearms Consultative Committee in the Library.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received the annual report for 1996 of the complaints audit committee of the immigration and nationality directorate; and if he will make a statement. [11623]

  Mr. Straw
  A copy of the report, publication of which was delayed by the election, has been placed in the Library. It is a wide-ranging and informative document and I am grateful to the committee for its comments and recommendations. These are already receiving careful consideration.

  Probation Officers
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for the future qualifications and training arrangements for new probation officers. [11816]

  Mr. Straw
  I hope to proceed quickly to develop a diploma in probation studies, located in higher education and combined with a national vocational qualification, which will become the qualification for new probation officers. I intend that the new arrangements should be employment led and delivered by a consortium of probation services that will manage the recruitment and selection of trainee probation officers.

  The combined diploma and NVQ will offer a mixture of academic teaching and work-based supervised practice, all based on the occupational standards that will be developed for probation officers. The new qualification should be delivered through flexible teaching methods that take account of trainees' previous work, academic qualifications and experience so that a wide range of recruits can be attracted to the probation service.

  I have decided that training for new probation officers should no longer be linked to social work education. I will be supporting the development of a new and separate diploma in probation studies, which will equip the probation officers of the future to play their full part in this Government's plans for an integrated approach to working with offenders. It will focus on probation's top priority role of protecting the public and reducing crime through effective work with offenders. There will, therefore, be no further funding or support from the Home Office for the diploma in social work.

  These arrangements will be developed in partnership with probation service organisations and higher education institutions to provide high-quality training for high-quality recruits.

  EU Framework and Workplace Directives
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the implementation of the general fire safety aspects of the EU framework and workplace directives. [11817]

  Mr. George Howarth
  After consulting my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, I announced on 16 July that we proposed to implement the outstanding fire safety elements of the European community framework and workplace directives. Today, I have signed and laid before Parliament the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997 made under the European Communities Act 1972 to apply throughout Great Britain. A compliance cost assessment is attached to the regulations showing that the estimated costs to employers attributable to these regulations will be less than £30 million. I have placed copies of these documents in the Library. To assist employers, there will be a package of user-friendly guidance comprising a handy, free card summarising the regulations and employers' rights and a short booklet, both of which will be widely available.

  The regulations take into account the views expressed in the many responses received during the consultation exercise carried out last year and the representations received since then from business interests and the fire service. I am grateful to business and fire service representatives for the assistance they have given to my officials during the drafting of the regulations and supporting guidance.

  Where appropriate, the regulations have been drafted using copy-out language. This ensures that there is full compliance with the directives but that no unnecessary costs are imposed on business.

  The regulations put the primary responsibility for fire safety in the workplace on employers. It is for them to determine and provide the measures they believe to be necessary to meet the risk from fire identified in their premises. In this way, what is provided will be appropriate to the risks and tailored to the specific circumstances of the workplace. The regulations incorporate a new approach to fire safety enforcement. Most significant breaches of the regulations can be dealt with by civil sanctions with the onus of proof on the fire authority rather than the employer.

  However, to emphasise the importance of fire safety, criminal sanctions will remain for serious risks.

  The regulations include some of the user-friendly enforcement safeguards of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. They will be enforced by the fire authority, who will use the employer's own assessment of the risk from fire as a starting point. The fire service have an important role to play. It will offer employers advice and assistance in meeting their obligations and avoiding over-provision.

  The Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations will come into effect in England, Scotland and Wales on 1 December 1997 and will make explicit what is already implicit in United Kingdom law. In light of the existing general duties of care employers owe to their staff, business should, for the most part, already have in place what these regulations require of them. As standards of fire safety in the workplace are already generally high in

  153
  Great Britain, most businesses will have little to do and this is reflected in the total estimated compliance costs of less than £30 million. This is significantly lower than the previous estimate—more than £1.7 billion—associated with earlier drafts of the regulations.

  Forensic Science Service
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will lay before Parliament the annual report and accounts for the Forensic Science Service. [11818]

  Mr. Straw
  I have today laid before Parliament copies of the Forensic Science Service annual report and accounts for 1996–97.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Defence Sales
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the results of the review of defence sales criteria before the House rises for the summer Adjournment. [10388]

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to publish his policy statement on defence exports. [10642]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave to my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms) on 28 July 1997,Official Report, columns 26–29.

  Venezuela
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the Venezuelan Government took in response to the British ambassador's request for medical checks for Paul Loseby on 10 April and 10 July. [10436]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Mr. Loseby had a routine medical examination on 5 May. He has not yet seen a doctor about the specific medical concern which prompted our ambassador to write to the Venezuelan authorities. The Venezuelan court has issued an order for Mr. Loseby to be seen by a doctor, but the visit has not yet taken place.

  Our consular staff will continue to press the Venezuelan authorities to organise a medical visit.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if James Miles has received medical checks since his detention in Venezuela in November. [10437]

  Mr. Lloyd
  James Miles received a medical check on 5 May 1997. When he was last visited by our consular staff on 9 July, Mr. Miles had no complaints about his health.

  Sudan
  Rev. Martyn Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations between Her Majesty's Government and the Sudanese Government following the peace agreement signed in April 1997. [11122]
  154
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The April 1997 agreement contains positive elements, notably the commitments to self-determination and to respect for human rights, but the main southern group, the Sudan People's Liberation Army, is not a party. We remain concerned about Sudanese policies in three main areas; human rights, support for terrorism and the civil war, but we welcome the Sudanese Government's acceptance of the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development's declaration of principles as the basis for talks with the SPLA and look forward to early negotiations. We and our EU partners fully support IGAD' s efforts to bring peace to Sudan and are ready to consider any way to help that process.

  Chechnya (Kidnapped Britons)
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the whereabouts of Camilla Carr and Jon James, kidnapped in Chechnya; and what steps are being taken to ensure their safety. [10957]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We are concerned about the safety of Camilla Can and Jon James. Since their abduction in Grozny on 3 July, no one has claimed responsibility. Their whereabouts are unknown. We are in touch with the Russian and Chechen authorities, who have undertaken to do what they can to help. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary expressed our concern to the Russian Foreign Minister on 14 July. Consular division is in daily contact with the families of the couple, to keep them informed of developments.

  Conciliation and Arbitration Convention
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) when the Government will ratify the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe convention on conciliation and arbitration; [10754]

  (2) for what reasons the United Kingdom has not yet ratified the OSCE convention on conciliation and arbitration; and what objections it has raised to the convention. [10756]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Possible UK accession to the OSCE convention on conciliation and arbitration will be considered shortly. I shall write to my hon. Friend with a considered response as soon as possible thereafter.

  Somali Nationals (Family Reunion)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Somali nationals applied for family reunion at the British embassy at Addis Ababa in(a) 1994, (b) 1995, (c) 1996 and (d) 1997; and how many of these applications were (i) successful and (ii) refused. [10876]
  155
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The number of Somali nationals who applied for family reunion at the British Embassy in Addis Ababa in 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997 were as follows:

  Applications received

  Granted

  Refused

  1994

  1—

  1,228

  1—

  1995

  1—

  654

  1—

  1996

  670

  359

  21,020

  1997

  366

  207

  2402

  1 The number of applications received and refused in 1994 and 1995 are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  2 In 1996 and 1997 the refusal numbers exceed the applications received due to the build up of a large backlog from previous years.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many OSCE participating states have ratified the convention on conciliation and arbitration. [10755]

  Mr. Lloyd
  As at 24 July 1997, 22 of the 54 OSCE participating states had ratified or acceded to the convention on conciliation and arbitration.

  Russia (Baby Seal Cull)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the British embassy in Moscow last contacted the Russian authorities about the cull of baby seals in the White sea. [10946]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The British embassy in Moscow last contacted the Russian authorities about the number of Greenland seal pups taken from the White sea on 28 May. It was advised then that the quota for the 1997 cull was broadly the same as for 1996–31,000—but that the final figure was not yet available. The embassy will approach the Russian authorities again in September.

  Scientific Equipment Exports
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ban exports of scientific equipment to research institutes in(a) India, (b) Pakistan, (c) China, (d) Russia and (e) Israel suspected of nuclear weapon development; and if he will make a statement. [11015]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: It is not the intention of the present Government to embargo the export of scientific equipment to any country, other than to fulfil a binding commitment made in an international forum.

  It is our policy not to grant licences for the export of items of scientific equipment controlled under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, Council Regulation (EC) 3381/94, and related Council decision 94/942/CFSP as amended, or the Dual Use and Related Goods (Export Control) Regulations 1996 as amended, where to do so would risk the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or of missiles capable of delivering them.

  Russia (Religious Freedom)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what 156
  representations he (a) has made and (b) proposes to make to the Russian Government about the restrictions of religious freedoms in Russia. [10764]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We are acting in concert with our EU partners.

  The EU troika ambassadors in Moscow carried out a démarche on Mr. Sidorov, the Deputy Foreign Minister, on 9 July. The démarche called upon President Yeltsin not to allow the law to come into effect in its present form. He vetoed it on 22 July.

  We shall consider any further action in the light of developments.

  Rwanda and the Congo
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy towards the entry of Rwanda into the Commonwealth. [10797]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Decisions on membership are taken by Commonwealth Heads of Government on the basis of consensus. The Heads of Government meeting in Edinburgh will consider a report on Commonwealth membership criteria and look at Rwanda's application in the light of this. We believe that among other conditions, it is important for any applicant to the Commonwealth to have had a former constitutional link with a Commonwealth country and to comply with the Harare declaration on human rights and democracy.

  Mr. Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy towards military assistance to(a) Rwanda and (b) the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [10796]

  Mr. Lloyd
  We do not at present provide any military assistance to Rwanda or to the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

  Mr. Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's military assistance to(a) Rwanda and (b) the Democratic Republic of the Congo during the last three years. [10798]

  Mr. Lloyd
  We have provided no military assistance to Rwanda or the Demcratic Republic of the Congo in the last three years.

  Mr. Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support the Government have given to private companies investing in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the last two months. [10799]

  Mr. Lloyd
  I met a number of UK private companies who have experience of the great lakes region on 17 June, to discuss commercial prospects in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. This Department and the Department of Trade and Industry continue to advise British business on possible commercial opportunities.

  British Council
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the real terms change in the Government grant in aid to the British Council between 1979 and 1997. [11260]
  157
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The real terms change in this Department's grant in aid to the British Council between 1978–79 and 1997–98 was an increase of 21 per cent. This does not take into account the grant in aid received by the British Council from the Department for International Development—formerly the Overseas Development Administration—during this period.

  European Union Legislation
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the change in volume of EU legislation since 1990 as a result of application of the principle of subsidiarity. [11235]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The number of proposals for primary legislation has fallen from 61 in 1990 to 16 in the pipeline for 1997. It is clear that the principle of subsidiarity is now widely accepted, including by the Commission.

  UN Arms Control Reports
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he proposes to take to make known to(a) hon. Members and (b) others details of progress reports on the UN conventional arms register and the UN small arms panel which are expected to be available during the summer Adjournment. [11309]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The recommendations of the panel of experts on the UN register of conventional arms and the UN small arms panel are expected in August and will be presented to the UN Secretary-General in time for the 52nd UN General Assembly in September. We shall place a copy in the Libraries of the House as soon as they have been published.

  We shall need to consider their recommendations of the panel carefully and will inform the House how we propose to take these forward.

  BBC World Service
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the change in spending in real terms on the BBC World Service between 1979 and 1997. [11161]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Funding for the World Service has increased by approximately 50 per cent. in real terms since 1979.

  Computer-related Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of total departmental expenditure on computer-related current and capital work for(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98, (d) 1998–99 and (e) 1999–00; and if he will make a statement. [11389]
  158
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Estimates are given in the table. They include staff and related costs. Those for 1997–98 are based on present budgets. Figures for 1998–99 and 1999–00 are provisional.

  Expenditure on information systems

  £ million

  Financial year

  Current

  Capital

  1995–96

  116.1

  118.7

  1996–97

  114.8

  111.2

  1997–98

  215.2

  226.7

  1998–99

  215.8

  214.5

  1999–2000

  216.4

  215.6

  Total

  278.4

  286.8

  1 Actual.

  2 Planned.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Parades and Marches
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what provision she will make to ensure that residents whose streets have been blocked to enable church parades, are themselves able to attend their own churches. [8775]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 15 July 1997]: It is of course most regrettable if on any occasion those who wish to go to and from their chosen place of worship by their chosen route are unable to do so. It is for the Royal Ulster Constabulary to do its best to ensure that worshippers are able to get to and from their church unhindered. There are occasions, however, when the security situation in Northern Ireland causes disruption to these plans. When this happens, the RUC endeavours to keep these disruptions to the minimum necessary to meet the security requirement.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many marches were applied for in(a) 1996 and (b) 1997 up to 12 July 1997 by (i) the Orange Institution, (ii) the Black Institution, (iii) the Apprentice Boys of Derry, (iv) the Ancient Order of Hibernians and (v) the Legion of Mary; and how many took place. [9976]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information is not readily available in the format requested and would incur disproportionate cost to provide. I can, however, give details of the number of marches held during that period which are described as either loyalist, nationalist or other:

  Marches held in 1996 and from 1 January 1997 to 12 July 1997

  1 January 1996 to 31 December 1996

  1 January 1997 to 12 July 1997

  Loyalist

  2,405

  1,495

  Nationalist

  230

  112

  Other

  527

  248

  The 1997 statistics may be subject to minor adjustment.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications to march were received in(a) 1996 and (b) 1997 up to 12 July 1997 for the purposes

  159
  of band parades; and how many were perceived to be (i) unionist/loyalist, (ii) nationalist/republican and (iii) neither. [9977]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information is not readily available in the format requested and would incur disproportionate cost to provide.

  Fishery Harbour Authority
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reasons no appointments were made following interviews for places on the Northern Ireland Fishery Harbour Authority; and when appointments will be made. [10297]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The appointment process did not comply fully with the guidance within the code of practice for public appointments and the interviews are being rescheduled with the involvement of an independent panel member.

  The Department of Agriculture hopes to fill the vacancies by early September 1997.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on Government policy on the future of the Northern Ireland Fishery Harbour Authority. [10299]

  Mr. Murphy
  The Government continue to regard the Northern Ireland Fishery Harbour Authority as the appropriate body to operate, maintain and develop the three fishery harbours at Ardglass, Kilkeel and Portavogie. There are no plans to alter the statutory position of the authority.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons representing fishing interests are represented on the Northern Ireland Fishery Harbour Authority. [10298]

  Mr. Murphy
  There are two persons from the fishing community on the Northern Ireland Fishery Harbour Authority.

  Crime and Disorder Bill
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the provisions of the proposed Crime and Disorder Bill will extend to Northern Ireland and if she will make a statement. [10274]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government are currently finalising the content of the Crime and Disorder Bill. An assessment is being made of the applicability of its provisions to Northern Ireland and the most appropriate legislative means of introducing those considered suitable.

  I will ensure that hon. Members are informed when we have reached a considered view.

  Judicial Reviews
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the cases of judicial review taken against her Department in 1996, indicating the name of the plaintiff, the subject, if legal aid was granted and how much in each case, and the result of the review. [10276]
  160
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  This information is not readily available in the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments as no central record is kept of applications for judicial reviews.

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will estimate(a) the number of mis-sold personal pensions in Northern Ireland and (b) the number of members in public sector schemes who took out such pensions; and what steps are being taken to ensure reinstatement for those who transferred out of public sector schemes. [10312]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  For the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments, the information is as follows:

  (a) The numbers are not available.

  (b) The details requested are not held centrally, but the number of members who have opted out of public service occupational pension schemes is somewhere in the region of 2,000 to 2,500. It is not possible to be more specific nor is it possible to identify what proportion of this number switched or transferred out to personal pension providers.

  In keeping with Government policy, Departments responsible for public service schemes have introduced, or are in the process of introducing, amendments which allow current employees who were victims of mis-selling to re-enter their occupational pension schemes. The amendments will also facilitate members' restoration to a financial position equivalent to what would have been the case if mis-selling had not occurred.

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements have been made to carry out reviews of the Driver and Vehicle Testing and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Northern Ireland agencies. [11696]

  Dr. Mowlam
  Under the arrangements for quinquennial reviews for next steps agencies, it has been decided to carry out a combined review of both agencies together with the associated functions carried out by the transport licensing and enforcement branch of the Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland). Consultants will shortly be invited to tender for this combined review.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Lottery
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful national lottery bids from the parliamentary constituency of Selby, indicating for each successful bid the value of the award, since the inception of the national lottery. [9971]

  Mr. Banks
  To date, more than £3.7 billion has been awarded to 24,631 projects throughout the UK. Of these 23 awards worth £1,557,916 have been made to projects in Selby. Details of these are set out in the table. The second table lists successful applications where it is possible to do so, though not all distributing bodies keep such records.
  161

  Table A: Successful applications

  Distributing body

  Award date

  Recipient

  Project title/Desc.

  Award Amount £

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  15 May 1996

  Yorkshire Wildlife Trust

  Askham Bog, South West of York

  16,750

  5 February 1997

  St Matthews Church, Naburn PCC

  St Matthews Church, Naburn—Restoration

  165,000

  12 February 1997

  Yorkshire Air Museum and Allied Air Forces Memorial

  World War II T2 Hangar, Elvington

  135,800

  Heritage Lottery Fund total

  317,550

  Sports Council

  5 June 1995

  Selby Rugby Union Football

  New archery range

  7,820

  6 June 1995

  North Yorkshire County Council

  Tadcaster Grammar School floodlit artificial pitch

  60,000

  7 June 1995

  West Selby Miners Welfare Scheme

  Multi-sport hard surface area and sand filled, floodlit artificial grass

  32,136

  20 September 1995

  Selby Bowling Club

  Provision of two additional indoor bowling rinks and ancillary facilities

  184,138

  8 January 1996

  Copmanthorpe and District Recreation Centre

  Proposal to build a 1 badminton court sports hall (16.5m x 9m x 8.3m) with MF indoor and outdoor changing rooms; activity room; 2 store rooms

  70,000

  11 January 1996

  Tadcaster Lawn Tennis Club

  Complete re-building 2 hard courts which are currently not level or safe

  13,779

  6 February 1996

  Selby District Council

  Upgrade of Tadcaster Leisure Centre (sports hall; changing facilities; fitness suite; reception; to include full access for disabled users)

  206,790

  11 March 1996

  Woodhouse Grange Cricket Club

  Pavilion extension to include extra changing rooms; umpires room; new toilets; kitchen extension and new equipment store plus gang mowers for 2nd ground

  18,452

  20 March 1996

  Dunnington and Grimston Playing Fields

  Extension to sports club facilities including pavilion and changing facilities

  210,592

  22 April 1996

  Cawood Parish Council/Cawood Tennis Club

  Up-grading 3 courts for bitmac to playdeck. Up-grading/additional floodlighting 2 courts and practice wall area.

  14,000

  27 November 1996

  Bolton Percy Cricket Club

  Upgrade of existing pitch and a new practice pitch

  14,060

  5 February 1997

  Selby Lawn Tennis Club

  Upgrading of tennis courts and replacement of fencing

  17,184

  Sports Council total

  848,951

  National Lottery Charities Board

  20 November 1995

  Cygnet Housing Group

  Resettlement Community Support for Ex Residents, Rent/Bond Guarantee Scheme.

  44,850

  11 August 1996

  Copmanthorpe Pre-School Playgroup

  To purchase a versatile, collapsible playhouse to encourage communication and social development through play.

  1,000

  11 August 1996

  Hambleton Luncheon Club

  Running costs and purchase of items used by a luncheon club for pensioners.

  3,914

  17 December 1996

  Multiple Sclerosis Society, Selby Branch

  This one year grant will be used to purchase a specially adapted replacement mini-bus for people with multiple sclerosis who live in Selby.

  29,158

  17 December 1996

  Selby District Crossroads

  The project is to expand the group's home-based respite care service and provide training for care attendants.

  87,823

  162 163

  Table A: Successful applications

  Distributing body

  Award date

  Recipient

  Project title/Desc.

  Award Amount £

  17 December 1996

  Brunswick Organic Nursery

  This group provides horticultural and craftwork daytime activities and training to adults with learning difficulties.

  196,500

  17 December 1996

  Selby Fuller Life Action Group

  This group provides a social club for people with disabilities and their carers.

  2,720

  17 December 1996

  York Coronary Support Group Trust

  The project will improve the physical condition and general health of coronary patients following a heart attack or heart surgery.

  25,450

  National Lottery Charities Board total

  391,415

  Table B: Unsuccessful applications

  Distributing body

  Unsuccessful applicant

  Arts Council of England

  Burton Salmon County Primary Friends of Selby Music Centre University of York Music Press

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  Streeton Hall, South Milford St. Mary the Virgin, Hemingbrough Hemingbrough Minster Restoration

  English Sports Council

  North Yorkshire County Council Copmanthorpe Bowls Club

  North Yorkshire County Council/Fulford School

  Whitley Bridge Cricket Club

  Millennium

  1—

  Commission

  Charities Board

  224 Unsuccessful bids

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

  2 The Charities Board does not release details of unsuccessful bids.

  Theatres
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of Government funding for theatres will be given to theatres outside London next year; and if he will make a statement. [10488]

  Mr. Fisher
  It is a matter for the Arts Council of England, with the 10 regional arts boards, to take decisions on the balance of funding between art forms and the support of individual arts organisations.

  Live Performances
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what are the terms of reference of the Arts Council's inquiry into how to disseminate live performances from lottery funded projects to wider audiences. [10088]

  Mr. Fisher
  Following a review of the lottery capital programme undertaken by Adrian Ellis Associates in 1996, the Arts Council of England decided to explore the scope for wider access to performances as a result of the recording and subsequent transmission of performances in lottery funded venues.
  164
  The Arts Council commissioned a study to explore the recording of live performances of drama, music, opera and lyric theatre and dance, relating to the following issues:

  Legal:

  ownership of rights to recordings;

  the treatment of income generated by recordings;

  the impact of existing union agreement.

  Technical and design issues:

  design specifications for performing arts spaces;

  current best practice in design guidelines;

  future trends in recording.

  Artistic issues:

  capturing live performance through recording;

  sources of artistic and production values.

  Hydra Associates was commissioned by the Arts Council of England to carry out this study and it is expected to report its findings in August.

  Tourism Industry
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what share of United Kingdom gross domestic product the tourism industry accounted for in(a) 1978–79 and (b) 1996–97. [10833]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: Expenditure by tourists was equivalent to between 5 and 6 per cent. of GDP in both 1978 and 1996.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people were employed in the United Kingdom tourism industry in(a) 1979 and (b) 1996. [10834]

  Mr. Clarke
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: In September 1979 there were 1.3 million people employed in tourism-related industries in Great Britain. In 1996 this figure was 1.8 million.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many films for theatre distribution were made in Britain in each year since 1979. [10823]
  165
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: The number of films made for theatrical release in the United Kingdom for the years 1979–96 was as follows:

  Year

  Number of films produced

  1979

  61

  1980

  31

  1981

  24

  1982

  40

  1983

  51

  1984

  53

  1985

  54

  1986

  41

  1987

  55

  1988

  48

  1989

  30

  1990

  60

  1991

  59

  1992

  47

  1993

  67

  1994

  84

  1995

  78

  1996

  128

  Source:

  BFI/Screen Digest.

  Mr. Fabricant:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what was the level of cinema admissions in the United Kingdom in each year since 1979. [10829]

  Mr. Clarke
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: The levels of cinema admissions in the United Kingdom in the film industry for the years 1979–96 were as follows:

  Year

  Admissions (millions)

  1979

  112

  1980

  101

  1981

  86

  1982

  64

  1983

  66

  1984

  54

  1985

  72

  1986

  78

  1987

  79

  1988

  84

  1989

  95

  1990

  97

  1991

  100

  1992

  103

  1993

  114

  1994

  124

  1995

  114

  1996

  124

  Source:

  BFI/Screen Digest.

  Overseas Visitors
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many overseas visitors came to Britain in each year since 1979. [10835]
  166
  Mr. Clarke
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: The number of visits made by overseas residents to the United Kingdom in each year from 1979 is as shown in the following table.

  Year

  Visits made to the UK by overseas residents

  1979

  12,486,000

  1980

  12,421,000

  1981

  11,452,000

  1982

  11,636,000

  1983

  12,464,000

  1984

  13,644,000

  1985

  14,449,000

  1986

  13,897,000

  1987

  15,566,000

  1988

  15,799,000

  1989

  17,338,000

  1990

  18,013,000

  1991

  17,125,000

  1992

  18,535,000

  1993

  19,863,000

  1994

  21,034,000

  1995

  24,008,000

  1996

  26,070,000

  Source:

  International Passenger Survey, Office for National Statistics.

  Association of Business Sponsorship of the Arts
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much the arts received from the ABSA partnership scheme in current prices in each year since its establishment. [10825]

  Mr. Fisher
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: The amount of public funding made available to the arts through the national heritage arts sponsorship scheme since its inception, in cash terms and at current prices, is as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  Pairing scheme grant (Cash)

  Pairing scheme grant (1996–97 prices)

  1984–85

  0.40

  0.69

  1985–96

  1.25

  2.04

  1986–87

  1.75

  2.78

  1987–88

  1.85

  2.79

  1988–89

  2.50

  3.53

  1989–90

  3.00

  3.96

  1990–91

  3.50

  4.28

  1991–92

  3.50

  4.02

  1992–93

  4.50

  4.96

  1993–94

  4.50

  4.82

  1994–96

  4.80

  5.07

  1995–96

  5.55

  5.70

  1996–97

  5.05

  5.05

  The business sponsorship incentive scheme was launched on 1 October 1994. It was relaunched in February 1995 as the national heritage arts sponsorship scheme—the "pairing scheme".

  Department Name Change
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is his estimate of the total cost of renaming his Department in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99; what sums have been paid for new departmental logos or designs; and if he will make a statement. [11184]
  167
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To date, costs of £400, plus VAT, have been incurred in amending the existing logo for use on departmental computers and in altering signs in the Department's headquarters. Designs for a new departmental logo and other materials are being sought with the help of the Design Council. Value for money will of course be a prime consideration in adopting new designs later this year. I do not expect any additional expenditure as a result of the name change in 1998–99.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what were the costs of changing the title of the Department of National Heritage to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. [11180]

  Mr. Smith
  To date, costs of £400, plus VAT, have been incurred in amending the existing logo for use on departmental computers and in altering signs in the Department's buildings.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport for what reasons he did not include a reference to tourism in the new title of his Department. [11177]

  Mr. Smith
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has a large number of responsibilities, not all of which could be included in the name of the Department. The tourism industry is a very important contributor to the economy of this country, and central to my Department's interests.

SCOTLAND

  Pre-payment Prescriptions
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many annual prescription pre-payment certificates were purchased in Scotland in each year since 1989; how many of these were refunded during the first month of validity during each year(a) in total and (b) as a percentage of the total; and if he will make a statement. [7763]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 10 July 1997]: The information requested is available for the years 1994–95 to 1996–97 only and is set out in the table below. This information is not held centrally as responsibility for the sale of prepayment certificates and any refunds claimed lies with health boards.

  All aspects of Government expenditure are being scrutinised as part of the comprehensive review of Government spending. Prescription charges will be examined as part of the review process.

  Year

  Number of a annual prescription prepayment certificates purchased

  Number of annual prescription prepayment certificates refunded

  Per cent.

  1994–95

  45,525

  209

  0.46

  1995–96

  45,602

  233

  0.51

  1996–97

  33,928

  154

  0.45

  Obesity
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what new initiatives his Department is planning in respect of obesity; and if he will make a statement. [8744]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 14 July 1997]: The association of obesity with cardiovascular disease and other diseases was recognised in "Eating for Health—A Diet Action Plan for Scotland", implementation of which is now in train. Further action to improve diet in Scotland will be informed by data from the Scottish health survey, which will be published shortly.

  Domestic Home Care
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what provision each council has made for new clients to receive domestic home care in the current year expressed as hours of support available. [9614]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Homosexuals (Age of Consent)
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce legislation to create an equal age of consent for heterosexual and homosexual relationships. [9220]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 21 July 1997]: The Government have long held the view that this is a matter for Parliament to decide on the basis of a free vote.

  Asthma
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the net ingredient cost for preparations used in treatment of asthma, in total and per health authority, for each of the last four years. [10224]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information by health board and Scotland for financial years 1993–94 to 1996–97 is set out in the table. The costs shown are based on the value of ingredients before the addition of dispensing fees or deduction of any discount or patient charges.

  The cost relates to inhaled and oral adrenoceptor stimulants, inhaled steroids, inhaled antimuscarinic bronchodilators and theophylline preparations.

  Cost £ million

  Health board

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Argyll and Clyde

  3.206

  3.575

  3.867

  4.120

  Ayrshire and Arran

  3.470

  3.972

  4.373

  4.665

  Borders

  0.880

  0.949

  0.999

  1.036

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1.078

  1.195

  1.293

  1.412

  Fife

  2.377

  2.627

  2.892

  3.122

  Forth Valley

  2.004

  2.275

  2.490

  2.697

  Grampian

  3.546

  3.960

  4.337

  4.643

  Greater Glasgow

  7.198

  8.099

  8.841

  9.251

  Highland

  1.248

  1.401

  1.557

  1.752

  Lanarkshire

  4.448

  5.074

  5.706

  6.050

  Lothian

  5.237

  5.652

  6.091

  6.461

  Orkney

  0.109

  0.130

  0.144

  0.149

  Shetland

  0.100

  0.111

  0.128

  0.141

  Tayside

  3.435

  3.936

  4.388

  4.741

  Western Isles

  0.142

  0.172

  0.201

  0.215

  Scotland

  38.478

  43.128

  47.307

  50.455

  169
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of prescriptions for the treatment of asthma, in total and per health authority, for each of the last four years. [10225]

  Mr. Galbraith
  This information by health board and Scotland for the financial years 1993–94 to 1996–97 is set out in the table.

  The numbers relate only to inhaled and oral adrenoceptor stimulants, inhaled steroids, inhaled antimuscarinic bronchodilators and theophylline preparations.

  Number of prescription items

  thousands

  Health board

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Argyll and Clyde

  292

  307

  319

  324

  Ayrshire and Arran

  294

  312

  321

  322

  Borders

  79

  83

  85

  86

  Dumfries and Galloway

  107

  116

  119

  123

  Fife

  220

  231

  239

  246

  Forth Valley

  190

  199

  205

  209

  Grampian

  314

  331

  343

  349

  Greater Glasgow

  675

  709

  736

  747

  Highland

  123

  130

  136

  139

  Lanarkshire

  413

  434

  459

  467

  Lothian

  449

  465

  481

  482

  Orkney

  10

  11

  12

  12

  Shetland

  13

  13

  14

  14

  Tayside

  274

  286

  293

  298

  Western Isles

  16

  17

  18

  18

  Scotland

  3,469

  3,644

  3,780

  3,836

  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what was the cost to the NHS of providing acute care to adults suffering from occupational asthma attacks in each of the last five financial years; [10226]

  (2) what was the cost to the NHS of treating adult occupational asthma sufferers, in each year since 1989–90; [10227]

  (3) what was the NHS expenditure on the treatment of asthma, in the last year for which figures are available; and what proportion of the total NHS budget this represents; [10231]

  (4) if he will provide a breakdown of NHS expenditure on the treatment of asthma in the last year for which figures are available; and what proportion of this expenditure was on prescriptions. [10232]

  Mr. Galbraith
  I regret that the information currently available from health boards and NHS trusts does not separately identify the cost of treating patients suffering from occupational asthma. The statistics we do collect indicate that the estimated cost of hospital care for asthma to be in the region of £7.5 million for the year 1995–96. This is 0.17 per cent. of the total NHS budget. Unfortunately, there is no information available on the cost of treating asthma in the community/primary care setting. Expenditure on ingredient cost for drugs used in the treatment of asthma is £47.3 million, again for the year 1995–96.
  170
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the estimated loss of time from work caused by asthma in the last year for which figures are available. [10228]

  Mr. Galbraith
  This information is not collected by The Scottish Office. However, of some 25,000 employed adults from every part of the UK who responded to a survey conducted for the National Asthma Campaign in 1996, about time off due to asthma in the last 12 months, the following percentages were:

  Per cent.

  Not able to work at all

  9.0

  More than five weeks off work

  4.0

  Three-four weeks off work

  4.5

  One-two weeks off work

  7.5

  Four-seven days off work

  9.0

  One-three days off work

  15.0

  Never off due to asthma

  51.0

  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the expenditure on general practitioner prescribed anti-asthma medication and preparations in each health authority broken down to show(a) net ingredient costs and (b) net ingredient costs per capita in the last year for which figures are available. [10229]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information by health board and for Scotland for the financial year 1996–97 is set out in the table. The costs shown are based on the value of the ingredients before the addition of dispensing fees or the deduction of any discount or patient charges.

  The cost relates only to inhaled and oral adrenoceptor stimulants, inhaled steroids, inhaled antimuscarinic bronchodilators and theophylline preparations.

  Health board

  Cost of medication £ million

  Cost per patient on GP list (£)

  Argyll and Clyde

  4.120

  9.39

  Ayrshire and Arran

  4.665

  11.91

  Borders

  1.036

  9.56

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1.412

  9.21

  Fife

  3.121

  8.80

  Forth Valley

  2.697

  9.27

  Grampian

  4.643

  8.59

  Greater Glasgow

  9.251

  9.33

  Highland

  1.752

  8.15

  Lanarkshire

  6.050

  10.32

  Lothian

  6.461

  7.93

  Orkney

  0.149

  7.38

  Shetland

  0.141

  6.12

  Tayside

  4.741

  11.57

  Western Isles

  0.215

  7.27

  Scotland

  50.455

  9.40

  Kidney Transplants
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of patients awaiting kidney transplants on NHS lists in Scotland in each of the last 10 years. [10599]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Because of the way the data are collected by the United Kingdom Transplant Support Service Authority, it is not possible to give the
  171
  information in exactly the form requested. The table shows the number of patients on the active waiting list at hospitals in Scotland for a kidney transplant at the end of each year from 1990 onwards:

  Year

  Number on waiting list

  1990

  386

  1991

  416

  1992

  412

  1993

  442

  1994

  413

  1995

  442

  1996

  482

  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many kidney transplant operations were undertaken in each of the last 10 years. [10600]

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

  Year

  Number of transplants

  1987

  75

  1988

  119

  1989

  170

  1990

  184

  1991

  139

  1992

  161

  1993

  155

  1994

  170

  1995

  146

  1996

  142

  Intensive Care Beds
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many intensive care beds were available in NHS hospitals in Scotland in each of the last 10 years. [10597]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Year ending 31 March

  Number of intensive care beds1

  1988

  166

  1989

  182

  1990

  189

  1991

  198

  1992

  219

  1993

  230

  1994

  250

  1995

  247

  1996

  266

  19972

  303

  1 Figures for the years 1988 to 1996 show the average available staffed beds in the specialty of intensive therapy unit. The figure for 1997 shows the average staffed beds in facilities of intensive care unit and cardiac care unit and is not fully comparable with those shown for earlier years.

  2 Provisional.

  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the degree of correlation between the number of intensive care beds available within the NHS in Scotland and the number of organs available for transplant. [10598]
  172
  Mr. Galbraith
  The relationship between intensive care beds and organ donation is complex, but there is no evidence to suggest that the number of intensive care beds in Scotland is a constraint on organ transplantation programmes. As one of a number of issues designed to increase organ donation awareness amongst staff in intensive care units, The Scottish Office Department of Health has funded publication and dissemination to ITUs of the protocols for retrieval of organs. In recognition of the current shortage of organs for transplantation, the acute services review being undertaken by The Scottish Office Department of Health is investigating organ donation and kidney transplantation.

  Quangos
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the quangos within his Department's responsibility which he has to date announced his intention(a) to abolish and (b) to make subject to a significant element of democratic accountability. [9676]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 25 July 1997]: My Department will be participating in the review of quangos, with a view to reducing their number, which was announced to the House on 4 June, Official Report, column 192, and in consideration of measures towards greater democratic accountability which will be addressed in the forthcoming White Paper on better government to be published by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I have already announced a review of the Scottish water industry with a view to returning the Scottish water authorities to local democratic control.

  Scottish Parliament White Paper
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the measures relating to the environment contained in the White Paper on the powers of a Scottish Parliament. [9374]

  Mr. McLeish
  As my right hon. Friend made clear in his statement to the House on 24 July,Official Report, columns 1041-63, matters relating to the environment will be devolved.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the Adjournment debate of 23 July,Official Report, columns 994–1022, how many senior officials of the Crown Office have been involved in the Lockerbie case since (a) 1989, (b) 1991, (c) 1993 and (d) 1995. [11076]

  Mr. McLeish
  Different officials of the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service have been involved at different times. Between 1989 and 1991 not less than three, but at one stage four, senior officials were involved in the case and between 1993 and 1996 two senior officials were involved in the case on a day to day basis. At present three senior officials are involved in the Lockerbie case on a day to day basis.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the Adjournment debate of 23 July,Official Report, columns 994–1022, how many visits have been

  173
  made in (i) May, (ii) June and (iii) July (a) to Frankfurt and (b) to the office of the public prosecutor by the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary. [11075]

  Mr. McLeish
  None.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the Adjournment debate of 23 July,Official Report, columns 994–1022, if the reference by the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution to sundry third parties covers (i) the Scottish Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, (ii) Judge David Edward QC, (iii) judges of the Court of Appeal in England and (iv) judges in the European Community. [11074]

  Mr. McLeish
  I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend on 23 July 1997,Official Report, columns 994–1022.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Aid and Trade Provision
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what information is collated by her Department as to the geographic allocations of ATP. [9695]

  Clare Short
  All projects are listed under the relevant recipient country. Other headings include the project title, the company undertaking the project, the year the agreement was concluded, the export value and the ATP value. Lists of all projects since the inception of ATP have been deposited in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will ensure that the interaction of changes in the allocation of ATP arising from any review with adverse sterling exchange rate movements is assessed prior to final decisions being taken on the ATP programme. [9697]

  Clare Short
  We will ensure that any effects of sterling exchange rate movements are taken into account during the review on the aid and trade provision currently being undertaken.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many ATP allocations and at what cost have been made in each of the last two years banded by amount. [9694]

  Clare Short
  Eight ATP agreements were concluded in 1995 with a total ATP value of £48.018 million. Another eight agreements were concluded in 1996 with a total ATP value of £30.518 million. A list of relevant projects has been deposited in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the nature of the projects by type which were supported by ATP in the last two years. [9696]

  Clare Short
  In 1995, agreements were concluded for three power, four transport and one water sector projects supported under ATP. In 1996, agreements were concluded for two education, four transport and one water sector projects and one project with a number of components involving more than one sector. A list of all projects has been deposited in the Libraries of the House.

  Departmental Payroll
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list each of the functions relating to the payroll for which her Department is responsible, indicating the management systems purchased, all sub-contractors involved in the work, co-operative arrangements with other Departments and the costs of the systems and processes in the last year for which figures are available. [10747]

  Clare Short
  My Department has on-line payroll system supplied under contract by the Ministry of Defence's Pay and Personnel Agency. The total cost in 1996–97 was £47,400.

  We have an in-house payroll system which processes the pay and allowances of technical co-operation officers serving under the aid programme in overseas countries. The cost of the systems and processes in 1996–97 was £64,500.

  Wild Animal Habitats
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what policies her Department has to promote the protection of habitats for wild animals in the developing world. [11006]

  Clare Short
  My Department aims to improve the livelihoods of the rural poor through the sustainable use and management of wildlife resources and habitats. Our conservation and wildlife activities are therefore developed with particular reference to rural people and their needs in the context of sustainable resource management.

  We assist developing countries to maintain wildlife reserves and protect habitats and wildlife through better management and training. Recently we have also encouraged the management by local communities of habitats and wildlife.

  We work with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on the convention on biological diversity and assistance to other countries on their plans, strategies and activities for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. We provide support through the bilateral development assistance programme and are responsible for UK contribution to the global environment facility, which is the interim financial mechanism for the biodiversity convention.

  We have also recently agreed to help the European Commission to develop guidelines on the conservation of wildlife and management of protected areas in co-operation with the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.

  Fresh Water Management
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she will take to facilitate progress in international co-operation on a policy for fresh water management. [9349]

  Clare Short
  We fully recognise the importance of sustainable fresh water management, the rapidly increasing pressure on the resource and that water is a basic requirement for life.
  175
  My Department, with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is actively involved in an EU initiative to promote a more strategic approach to fresh water management, which will be considered during the next session of the UN commission on sustainable development in 1998. We will use the UK's EU presidency to promote this initiative. The UK also plays a leading role in the global water partnership, which promotes co-operation and improved water management as well as in other international forums.

  We recognise that the critical actions must be at the basin level, be that local, national or regional, and that international co-operation needs to focus on promoting and supporting sound management principles and raising awareness.

  Rwanda and Congo
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what are the levels of UK Government aid to(a) Rwanda and (b) the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the current financial year. [10800]

  Clare Short
  Since April 1997, we have disbursed £1 million to Rwanda and almost £0.5 million to the Democratic Republic of the Congo in bilateral emergency and rehabilitation assistance. We expect to provide a further £4.9 million to Rwanda in 1997–98 to help fulfil a pledge of £8 million made in 1996. We shall continue to provide emergency assistance to Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo as needs arise. Britain has also provided £95 million to the region since 1994 through the EU.

  £ million

  Year and amount

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–00

  Capital

  2.1

  6.1

  3.0

  3.0

  3.0

  Recurrent

  0.5

  1.8

  1.4

  0.6

  0.6

  Total

  2.6

  7.9

  4.4

  3.6

  3.6

  The development and maintenance of information systems is essential for the continued effective administration of the aid programme. Capital expenditure on computer-related work was relatively high in 1996–97 because of the need to replace obsolescent equipment, the introduction of Windows and the introduction of the systems required for resource accounting and budgeting. Recurrent expenditure in 1996–97 and 1997–98 is relatively high because of the costs of training staff in the operation of the new systems. Among other things, the new systems will facilitate improved communications and lead to better access to information.

  Central Europe (Flooding)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid her Department has given to central European countries in respect of the

  Computer-related Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what funding is presently committed from her departmental budget for(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–00 to resolve the year 2000 computer problem; and whether she will make a statement. [11377]

  Clare Short
  Funding committed to resolving the year 2000 problem is as follows:

  1997–98
  £145,000, consisting of £100,000 for purchasing assistance and £45,000 of departmental staff time working on year 2000 issues.

  1998–99
  £65,000 of departmental staff time testing changes.

  1999–00
  None.

  The Department for International Development has already commenced the task of making its corporate systems ready for the year 2000. These systems have been changed, or will be by November 1997, and changes tested by October 1998. Problems with other, smaller, departmental systems have been identified. Costs of correcting these will be met from the £100,000 in the 1997–98 budget. Estimates for external help in 1998–99 have not yet been made but they are unlikely to be significantly higher than in 1997–98.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is her estimate of total departmental expenditure on computer-related current and capital work for(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98, (d) 1998–99 and (e) 1999–00; and if she will make a statement. [11381]

  Clare Short
  The total actual and estimated future capital and associated administration costs of computer-related work for the years in question is as follows:

  recent flooding (a) for immediate relief and (b) for reconstruction; and what expert (i) military and (ii) civilian personnel Her Majesty's Government have provided. [11119]

  Clare Short
  The UK has provided £100,000 and £60,000 in response to the floods in Poland and the Czech Republic respectively for medical supplies, food, hygiene parcels, drinking water, blankets and detergents. We have no plans for bilateral assistance towards reconstruction in the flood affected countries of central Europe.

  The possible use of military and civil defence assets to assist the relief effort is being co-ordinated by the United Nations department of humanitarian affairs. Offers of UK civil support are being considered.

DEFENCE

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what directions he has given to the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency in respect of replies to parliamentary questions. [8009]

  Mr. Spellar
  The chief executive of the Defence Research Agency is required to answer parliamentary questions in accordance with Government policy and Departmental instructions and guidance. I am placing a copy of the departmental instructions in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Budgets
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, following the recent Budget, he will give his estimate of the total real level of his Department's budget, in 1995–96 prices, in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99; if he will estimate what such figures were for (1) 1997–98 and (2) 1998–99 following the November 1996 Budget on the basis of the estimates of the GDP deflator contained in that Budget; and if he will make a statement. [8301]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 14 July 1997]: The information is as shown in the following table:

  £ million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Current spending plans (cash)

  21,822

  22,276

  Plans at 1995–96 prices (July 1997 GDP deflators)

  20,668

  20,533

  Plans at 1995–96 prices (November 1996 GDP deflators)

  20,872

  20,889

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what new plans he has to introduce cuts and savings in his Department as a result of the effect on his Department's budgets for 1997–98 and 1998–99 of the upward revisions to the GDP deflator in the Budget on 2 July; and if he will make a statement. [8302]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 14 July 1997]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) on 28 July 1997, Official Report, column 14.

  UK-US Joint Strike Fighter Project
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if consideration of the continued participation in, and future purchase of, the United Kingdom/American joint strike fighter project will form part of the strategic defence review. [9517]

  Mr. Spellar
  Yes.

  Nuclear Accidents
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the procedures for informing foreign Governments if an accident involving British-controlled nuclear weapons had happened on their soil, or within their territorial waters, before 26 September 1986. [10402]
  178
  Dr. Reid
  If it had ever been necessary to inform a foreign Government of an accident involving a UK nuclear weapon we would have employed normal diplomatic procedures and bilateral defence contacts under the auspices of arrangements governing the stationing of UK forces. The ratification of the International Atomic Energy Agency convention on early notification of a nuclear accident on 26 September 1986 gave formal acknowledgement to the procedures which we would have adopted.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors led his Department to compile a central record of accidents involving nuclear weapons controlled by Britain or the USA on British territory in 1993. [10401]

  Dr. Reid
  The creation of such a record followed a specific recommendation contained in the report by Professor Sir Ronald Oxburgh on the safety of UK nuclear weapons, published in July, 1992. A copy of the report was placed in the Library of the House at the time.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which hospitals have been designated since 1967 to treat casualties following an accident involving British-controlled nuclear weapons(a) on Ministry of Defence land and (b) elsewhere. [10947]

  Dr. Reid
  There are and have been no hospitals specifically designated to receive casualties following a nuclear weapon accident. Decisions on the hospitals to be used would be a matter for the responding ambulance service in consultation with the hospitals.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under what circumstances staff from the atomic weapons establishment, Aldermaston are sent to investigate an accident involving British-controlled nuclear weapons. [10945]

  Mr. Spellar
  The atomic weapons establishment would deploy a team of technical, scientific and other support specialists to the area of an accident involving a British nuclear weapon in response to a request from the Ministry of Defence's nuclear accident response organisation.

  Armed Forces (Northern Ireland)
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the current levels of armed forces personnel will be maintained in Northern Ireland following the announcement of the IRA ceasefire. [10559]

  Dr. Reid
  Force levels are kept under regular review to ensure that they are matched to the degree of support the Royal Ulster Constabulary needs. For the time being they are being maintained at current levels.

  Services Museums
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the services museums are housed in his Department's properties. [10752]
  179
  Dr. Reid
  The following 33 regimental and corps museums are located on Ministry of Defence property:

  Royal Dragoon Guards

  King's Royal Hussars (Winchester)

  Royal Armoured Corps and Royal Tank Regiment

  Royal Regiment of Artillery

  Corps of Royal Engineers

  Royal Corps of Signals

  Foot Guards

  Royal Highland Fusiliers

  Black Watch

  Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment (Winchester)

  Royal Regiment of Fusiliers (Bury)

  Prince of Wales's Own Regiment of Yorkshire

  Devonshire and Dorset Regiment

  Cheshire Regiment

  Royal Regiment of Wales (Brecon)

  Royal Gloucester, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment (Gloucester)

  Staffordshire Regiment

  Light Infantry (Winchester and Bodmin)

  Royal Irish Regiment (Ballymena and Armagh)

  Royal Green Jackets

  Parachute Regiment

  Gurkhas

  Royal Army Medical Corps

  Royal Army Dental Corps

  Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps

  Corps of Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

  Royal Army Chaplains Department

  Adjutant General's Corps (Royal Military Police)

  Army Physical Training Corps

  Household Cavalry

  Royal Logistic Corps.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's continued funding for services museums. [10748]

  Dr. Reid
  My Department is acutely aware of the need to maintain a network of regimental and corps museums as instruments for projecting a positive image of the Army to the public and to underpin the Army's esprit de corps. An Army museums panel has recently been constituted whose responsibilities include reviewing the allocation of public funds that are applied to the operation of these museums.

  Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in which(a) scientific journals and (b) other open publications staff from the atomic weapons establishment at Aldermaston have published papers since 1992; and if he will list the dates on which the papers appeared in each of the journals and publications. [10948]
  180
  Mr. Spellar
  Since 1992 staff from the atomic weapons establishment at Aldermaston have published papers in the following scientific journals and other publications.

  1992

  Applied Radiation and Isotopes Volume 43 number 1–2

  Engineering Management Journal Volume 2, number 6

  Fusion Technology Volume 21 number 2

  Geophysical Journal International Volume 108 number 1, Volume 110 number 1

  IEEE Transaction on Nuclear Science Volume 39.5

  Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 97, B 10

  Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Volume A317

  Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion Volume 34 number 13

  Proceedings of IEEE Volume 80 number 6

  Science Progress Volume 76, number 299

  Thermochimica Acta Volume 221

  Proceedings—9th Topical conference on high-temperature plasma diagnostics

  Proceedings—Workshop, Physics of compressible turbulent mixing

  1993

  British Ceramics Transactions Volume 92 number 1

  Electronic Letters Volume 29 number 3

  Geophysical Journal International Volume 114 number 2

  Glass Technology Volume 34 number 3

  Journal of Materials Science Volume 27 number 28 number 11

  Journal of Phase Equilibria Volume 14 number 2

  Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiactive Transfer Volume 51 number 1–2

  Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry Volume 172:2

  Radiation Protection Dosimetry Volume 46 number 4

  Thermochimica Acta Volume 217

  1994

  Applied Radiation and Isotopes

  Journal of Materials Science Volume 29 number 24

  Journal of Nuclear materials Volume 28 number 1–2

  Journal of Vacuum Science and Technology Volume 12.5

  Laser and Particle Beams Volume 12 number 4

  Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Volume A339

  Optics Letters Volume 19 number 6

  Physical Review E Volume 49

  Proceedings of the SPIE (International Society for Optical Engineering) Volumes 2114, 2273

  Radiation Protection Dosimetry Volume 53 1–4, 55 1

  Radiological Protection Bulletin (UK) Volume 150

  AIP Conference Proceedings Volume 309

  Proceedings, 23rd DOE/NRC Nuclear Air Cleaning Conference

  Proceedings—Symposium on radiations and their effects on component and systems

  Proceedings—Symposium on the non-proliferation experiment results and implications for test ban treaties.

  1995

  Advances in Science and Technology Vol. 3c

  Applied Optics Vol. 34 no 20

  Fusion Technology Vol. 28 no 3

  IEE Proceedings—Microwaves, Antennas and propagation Vol. 142. No 1

  International Journal of Impact Engineering Vol. 17 no 1–3

  181

  Journal de Physique IV Vol. 5 No c4

  Journal of Materials Science Col. 30 no 4

  Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer Vol. 54 No 1–2

  Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry V 198:1

  Nuclear Materials Management Vol. 24

  Proceedings of the SPIE (International Society for Optical Engineering) Vol. 2633

  Radiochimcia Acta Vol. 69:4

  Proceedings 36th annual meeting, Institute for Nuclear materials Management

  Proceedings—IEE Colloquium, Pulsed Power

  Institute of Physics Conference series Vol. 140

  Key Engineering Materials Vol. 108–110

  Laser Interaction with Matter, 23rd European Conference Proceedings

  Proceedings, Conference on Electronics Beam Melting and Refining

  Proceedings, 5th International Conference, Nuclear Criticality Safety

  Proceedings 31st International MATADOR Conference

  Conference proceedings, Superplastics–60 years

  1996

  Geophysical Journal International Vol. 123. No 2

  Journal of the Chemical Society No 5

  Journal of Materials Science Vol. 31 No 5

  Journal of Radiological Protection Vol. 16:4

  Laser and Particle Beams Vol. 14 no 2

  Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Vol. A369

  Physical Review E Vol. 54:5

  Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors Vol. 96 no 4

  Proceeding of the SPIE (International Society for Optical Engineering) Vols. 2870, 2714

  Propellants, Explosives, Pyrotechnics Vol 21 no 1

  Proceedings 12th International Conference, Laser interaction and related plasma phenomena

  Proceedings 24th European Conference on laser interaction with matter

  AIP Conference Proceedings Vol. 370

  Proceedings—IEE Colloquium, Pulser Power

  1997

  Geophysical Journal International Vol. 128. No 3

  Geophysical Journal International Vol. 129, No 3

  Review of Scientific Instruments Vol. 68, no PTA

  Proceedings—IEE Colloquium, Pulsed Power

  Records
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will open for public inspection the file with the classmark AIR 2/16857 at the Public Record Office. [10949]

  Mr. Spellar
  AIR 2/16857 has recently been reviewed as part of the Ministry of Defence's on-going review of records closed for more than 30 years. Sensitivity having lapsed sufficiently, arrangements are at an advanced stage to transfer the file into the custody of the Public Record Office.

  Brigadier Michael Calvert
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the court martial of Brigadier Michael Calvert. [10941]

  Dr. Reid
  Major Calvert was tried by general court martial in Hanover in July 1952. He was found guilty of three charges relating to indecency and was dismissed from Her Majesty's service. The case was subsequently referred to the Court Martial Appeal Court, at which Major Calvert was represented by Queen's Counsel. The appeal was dismissed on 11 May 1953.

  Submarine Crews (Travel Arrangements)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what circumstances his Department has made bookings abroad for Royal Navy submarine crews via private travel agencies; and if such arrangements have been made in respect of Trident submarine crews. [10315]

  Dr. Reid
  When accommodation is required abroad for visiting submarine crews, including those of Trident submarines, arrangements are usually made through selected private travel agencies. An individual posing as a naval officer recently obtained unauthorised information from one such agency in Faslane. The incident was reported to the appropriate authorities and is being investigated.

  Conventional Submarines
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has for phasing out conventional submarines; and over what time scale. [10996]

  Dr. Reid
  We have no conventional submarines in service. The withdrawal from service of the RN's most recent class of conventional submarine, the Upholder class, was completed in 1994. The Royal Navy's submarine flotilla currently comprises 12 Swiftsure and Trafalgar class nuclear-powered submarines.

  Strategic Defence Review
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what present military deployments are as a result of international treaty obligations; and if these deployments form part of the strategic defence review; [10998]

  (2) what treaty obligations are exempt from the strategic defence review. [10938]

  Dr. Reid
  The strategic defence review is being conducted in accordance with the policies set out in the Government's election manifesto, including continuing co-operation with the United States, our European allies and other like-minded nations, and security built on the principle of collective defence. No United Kingdom forces are currently deployed on operations as a result of international treaty obligations. All deployments will, however, be examined during the review.

  Animal Experimentation (Gulf War Syndrome)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what tests will be conducted on animals during his Department's research into Gulf war syndrome; and which animals will be tested. [11000]
  183
  Dr. Reid
  A document outlining the strategy of the research and a proposed work programme has been drafted by CBD Porton Down. The programme of work has yet to be agreed with MOD and, therefore, it is not yet possible to detail precisely the tests that will be conducted using animals.

  Reserve Forces (Cost)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 21 July,Official Report, column 401, what is the current cost of the reserve forces, by type. [11023]

  Dr. Reid
  The information for financial year 1996–97 is in the table. These figures exclude provision for those items whose costs cannot be identified separately from those purchased for the regular services.

  £ million

  Cost

  Royal Fleet Reserve

  0.04

  Royal Naval Reserve

  17.51

  Royal Marines Reserve

  8.33

  Army Reserve

  0.58

  Territorial Army

  335.95

  Royal Air Force Reserve

  0.40

  Royal Auxiliary Air Force

  8.40

  Departmental Land
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much of the land held by his Department has not been used in the last year. [11001]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Aircraft Stationing (Germany)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what facilities the German Government have offered for the permanent stationing of RAF aircraft. [10997]

  Dr. Reid
  Accommodation requirements arising out of the stationing of the RAF, or indeed other British forces, in Germany are met by the German Government in accordance with the NATO status of forces agreement. Those requirements are notified to the German Government and agreement reached with them on the provision and use of that accommodation, which then remains at the disposal of British forces until it is no longer required. The responsibility therefore rests with the British forces to make the initial approach to the German Government. As reflected in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1996," Cm 3223, the RAF is to withdraw from RAF Laarbruch in 1999 and from RAF Bruggen in 2002, after which there will be no RAF aircraft permanently stationed in Germany.

  Gurkha Regiment
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his plans for the Gurkha regiment. [10999]
  184
  Dr. Reid
  Currently, the first battalion Royal Gurkha Rifles is serving as part of the joint rapid deployment force in 5 Airborne Brigade; other elements units support the Field Army in the United Kingdom. The second battalion Royal Gurkha Rifles is deployed as the Brunei garrison. The strategic defence review, launched on 28 May, will decide how our armed forces should be structured, equipped and deployed to meet out nation's interests and commitments. It would be premature to assess the likely outcome of the review before the process is complete.

  Military Bands
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel are members of military bands of the(a) Royal Navy, (b) Army, (c) RAF and (d) Royal Marines. [11169]

  Mr. Spellar
  The number of personnel who were members of military bands as at 1 July 1997—the latest figures available—was:

  Number

  (a) Royal Navy

  0

  (b) Army

  1,139

  (c) RAF

  204

  (d) Royal Marines

  295

  Total

  1,638

  Additionally, there are 864 personnel serving in Territorial Army bands. These are not fully funded, but receive grants from public funds.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military bands in the(a) Army, (b) Royal Navy, (c) RAF and (d) Royal Marines are fully funded by his Department. [11168]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are 30 Regular Army, five Royal Marines and four RAF bands that are fully funded by my Department. The Royal Navy as such does not have any fully funded bands, but uses the Royal Marines bands for ceremonial and other occasions.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost to his Department of maintaining the military bands of the(a) Navy, (b) Army, (c) RAF and (d) Royal Marines. [11170]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Worthy Down
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what was the cost of running the Worthy Down training centre in 1996–97; what is the projected cost for 1997–98; what types of training courses it offered; how many participants there were on these courses in 1996–97; and what are the projected numbers for 1997–98; [11300]
  185
  (2) what is the current asset value of Worthy Down; what is the cost per trainee of providing each type of training course at Worthy Down; what steps his Department has taken to market test the provision of training currently provided at Worthy Down; and if he will publish his Department's studies into the value for money of training at this establishment. [11301]

  Dr. Reid
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Computer-related Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of total departmental expenditure on computer-related current and capital work for(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98, (d) 1998–99 and (e) 1999–00; and if he will make a statement. [11393]
  186
  Mr. Spellar
  The estimated departmental expenditure on major and medium scale computer-related systems and their associated communications capabilities, including planned capital expenditure and operating costs, but excluding manpower costs, is:

  £ million

  1995–96

  Figures not centrally collated

  1996–97

  1,130

  1997–98

  941

  1998–99

  1,030

  1999–00

  997

  These figures do not include the cost of minor purchases made under local financial delegated powers, which are not collated centrally and could be obtained only through a major survey at disproportionate cost.

  The Department places great importance on the exploitation of computer-related systems to improve both military effectiveness and administrative efficiency.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the United Kingdom's share of the international arms export market in each year since 1979. [11264]

  Mr. Spellar
  Detailed records of the UK's share of the world defence export market have been maintained only since 1988. Defence export orders placed with British industry since then have represented the following estimated share of the world market:

  1988: 11 per cent.

  1989: 14 per cent.

  1990: 14 per cent.

  1991: 17 per cent.

  1992: 20 per cent.

  1993: 17 per cent.

  1994: 16 per cent.

  1995: 19 per cent.

  1996: 25 per cent.

  Armed Forces Pay Bill
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the real terms change in the armed forces pay bill between 1979 and 1997. [11255]

  Dr. Reid
  Measuring the movement in earnings in the armed forces between 1979 and 1997 by reference to real terms changes to the annual pay bill over the same period would not produce an appropriate comparison because of reductions in the strength of the armed forces. However, a comparison of the overall annual percentage increases in the total pay bill of the armed forces since 1979, with the corresponding increases in the retail prices index for 1979 to 1997, shows that in real terms the former has risen against the latter by 35.4 per cent. This takes account of staging of pay awards where they have occurred, but does not of course reflect a universally applicable figure for any given rank.

  Training
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many training establishments exist for initial training; at which locations; how many personnel have been trained at each in the last year; and at what cost. [10993]

  Dr. Reid
  The information requested is as follows. In all cases the costs quoted have been rounded to the nearest £ million.

  Royal Navy

  Training establishment and location

  Numbers trained in financial year 1996–97

  Cost £ million financial year 1996–97

  Britannia Royal Naval College

  Dartmouth

  Devon

  (New Entry RN Officer Training)

  229

  11

  HMS Raleigh

  Torpoint

  Cornwall

  (New Entry RN Recruit Training)

  2,077

  21

  1. The personnel figures are the number of new entrants who completed training successfully.
  188
  2. BRNC's and HMS Raleigh's activities are not confined to new entry training but include other training for their own personnel, foreign and Commonwealth service personnel and cadet forces. Separate identification of new entry training could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The costs given are the establishment costs which take account of receipts in respect of foreign and Commonwealth training.

  3. The costs exclude trainees' pay.

  Royal Marines

  Training establishment and location

  Numbers trained in financial year 1996–97

  Cost £ million financial year 1996–97

  Royal Marines School of Music

  Gibraltar block

  HMS Nelson

  Portsmouth

  Hampshire

  (RM New Entry Musician Training)

  40

  1

  Commando Training Centre Royal

  Marines

  Lympstone

  Near Exmouth

  Devon (RM Young Officer and Recruit Training)

  383

  23

  1. The personnel figures are the number of new entrants who completed their training successfully.

  2. The costs are presented at full cost level. The costs exclude trainees' pay but account for young officers and recruits who failed to meet the standard.

  3. Due to reductions in the size of the RM band service there was a temporary reduction in the requirement for trainees during 1996–97 at the Royal Marines school of music. The requirement during 1997–98 has risen to 58 trainees; 60 is the number which is normally budgeted for on an annual basis. It should be noted that the forecast requirement for 1998–99 is 75 trainees.

  Army

  Training establishment and location

  Numbers trained in financial year 1996–97

  Cost £ million financial year 1996–97

  ATR Pirbright

  3,023

  12

  ATR Glencorse

  979

  5

  ATR Bassingbourne

  2,075

  9

  ATR Lichfield

  1,133

  6

  ATR Winchester

  1,558

  7

  Army Apprentices College, Arborfield

  580

  7

  1. In addition, apprentices are trained at the Army school of catering, Aldershot where 148 apprentices passed out in financial year 1996–97, and the apprentices training wing, royal school of military engineering, Minley, where the numbers were 213. In both these last two cases, costs could be isolated from the general running costs of the establishments only at disproportionate cost.

  2. The costs shown are those for running the whole establishment, which will include some non-training costs.

  3. The costs exclude trainees' pay.

  Royal Air Force

  Training establishment and location

  Numbers trained in financial year 1996–971

  Cost £ million financial year 1996–972

  RAF Halton (Airmen/women initial training)

  2,537

  9

  RAF Honington (RAF regiment gunner)3

  225

  2

  RAFC Cranwell (Initial officer training)4

  5470

  15

  189

  Royal Air Force

  Training establishment and location

  Numbers trained in financial year 1996–971

  Cost £ million financial year 1996–972

  RAFC Cranwell (Airmen aircrew training)6

  93

  2

  1 The numbers of personnel quoted include recoursees.

  2 Excludes trainees' salaries.

  3 RAF regiment gunners undertake some initial specialist training during initial recruitment training.

  4 Includes recruited internally and externally.

  5 The numbers given include 15 non-RAF personnel trained on a spare capacity basis.

  6 Personnel, recruited internally and externally, to be NCO aircrew.

  Defence Sales Review
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the defence sales policy review covers all countries. [10365]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  Yes. The new criteria, announced by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 28 July, Official Report, columns 26–29, will apply to licence applications for conventional arms to all destinations.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for the medical and scientific review of qualifications for war pensions in respect of noise-induced hearing loss(a) the expected completion date and (b) the cost of conducting the review. [8247]

  Mr. Denham
  I have been asked to reply.

  The review will be chaired by the Government's Chief Medical Officer, Sir Kenneth Calman, and four independent experts on hearing loss. Due to availability, it will not be possible for the group to meet before September.

  The findings of the review will be published in due course and it is estimated that the cost of the review will be around £2,000.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Old Coalfield Areas
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a further statement about his proposals following his visits to the old coalfield areas. [9356]

  Mr. Prescott
  The nation owes a debt to the coalfield areas. We are looking urgently at what is being done in these areas and what more we can do. As a start, I intend to look at the problems and opportunities in and around my hon. Friend's constituency—to see which measures work and which are less successful. I want then to broaden the discussion to bring in other coalfield communities, with a view to a national conference next spring.

  Minimum Wage
  10. Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if Her Majesty's Government will take into account the likely cost to local authorities when setting a level for the minimum wage. [9357]

  Ms Armstrong
  The independent Low Pay Commission will be asked to take into account all economic circumstances, including the likely impact on employers, before reaching a recommendation on the level at which the national minimum wage might be set.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he proposes to reduce the gap between those benefiting most and least in respect of the standard spending assessment formula-funded mechanism to determine local authorities' revenue support grant levels. [9358]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This is a matter which will be discussed on 30 July when officials from my Department and local government representatives consider proposals from Barnsley metropolitan borough council and others. We shall carefully consider any views expressed on this issue.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to review the financial allocations for the unitary authorities. [9355]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Under the local government reorganisation costs scheme, resources in the form of supplementary credit approvals are made available to reorganising authorities to cover transitional costs. Final bids under the scheme for 1996–97 are being evaluated and I expect to announce my decisions before the end of September.

  We have invited bids for the mid-year review stage of the 1997–98 scheme, and expect to respond to these by the end of October.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from local authorities about the abolition of the advance corporation tax credit and its impact on revenue support grant levels. [9362]

  Ms Armstrong
  My hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received representations from the Local Government Association which represents local authorities in England and Wales. I have received correspondence from Cambridgeshire county council.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the effect of recent interest rates rises on local authorities. [9368]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In overall terms, the impact on local authorities will be small and will be more than offset by increased interest receipts. Changes in interest rates will be taken into account in the formula for distributing grant under the local government finance settlement for 1998–99.
  191
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what account has been taken of the effect on councils of the abolition of the advance corporation tax credit in his Department's spending plans. [9370]

  Ms Armstrong
  Steps are being taken to establish the impact on local authority pension funds following the next actuarial valuation of the fund in 1998. This information will be taken into account in determining the level of local authority provision for that and subsequent years.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate his Department has made of the effect of recent interest rate rises on local authorities. [9371]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In overall terms, the impact on local authorities will be small and will be more than offset by increased interest receipts. Changes in interest rates will be taken into account in the formula for distributing grant under the local government finance settlement for 1998–99.

  London Strategic Authority
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for which areas of current local government the strategic authority for London would have responsibility. [9360]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have today published a Green Paper setting out our proposals for a Greater London authority, which lists the range of functions the Greater London authority will have and considers how they can be delivered effectively. Copies of the Green Paper are available in the House Libraries.

  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the costs of establishing and running a strategic authority for London. [9363]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Our Green Paper, published today, sets out proposals and seeks views on a range of options for the nature and functions of the new strategic authority for London. It is not possible to make firm estimates of the cost of establishing and running the authority until we are clearer, following this consultation, on the final form that the new arrangements will take. Our overriding objective is that the new strategic authority should improve the efficiency with which pan-London activities are carried out. We intend that any additional spending on setting up the new authority will be offset by longer-term savings.

  Planning Policy
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will amend the general development order to extend those categories of development which are subject to planning application and public inquiries. [9361]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 grants a general planning permission for a variety of mostly minor 192
  developments, subject to limits and conditions designed to protect amenity and the environment. We have no immediate plans to amend the order by bringing certain classes of permitted development within full planning control.

  Asthma (Environmental Pollutants)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps are being taken to reduce those environmental pollutants which have been demonstrated to contribute to the incidence of asthma. [9364]

  Angela Eagle
  No pollutants have been demonstrated to contribute to the incidence of asthma, but sulphur dioxide, ozone, particles and possibly nitrogen dioxide may cause a worsening of symptoms in asthmatics. The Government recognise the health effects of air pollution and are committed to rapid implementation of the national air quality strategy in order to improve air quality across the United Kingdom.

  Water Charges
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with water companies on the subject of charging arrangements in substitution for the present system based on rateable values. [9365]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Deputy Prime Minister and I have met representatives of the water companies at the water summit and at other times. We shall consider their views alongside all others in the Government's review of the water charging system.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions under what arrangements the boards of directors of the regional development agencies will be appointed. [9366]

  Mr. Caborn
  In the short term, we expect the boards of the regional development agencies to be appointed by the Secretary of State for he will wish to be guided by the needs and wishes of the regions.

  Sustainable Development
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to extend the range of organisations placed under the requirement to take Agenda 21 on sustainable development as an instrumental part of their responsibilities. [9367]

  Mr. Meacher
  There is no mandatory requirement on any organisation to take on Agenda 21. However, a wide range of organisations, including central and local government, business and the voluntary sector, are committed to take forward the Agenda 21 agreement on sustainable development.

  The Government accept their leadership role and are determined to implement sustainable development

  193
  through their policies. We are introducing a new series of measures which will deliver this effectively throughout central Government Departments.

  In relation to local government, last month, at the UN special session on the environment in New York, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister acknowledged the pivotal role of local authorities in promoting Local Agenda 21 and called on all UK local authorities to adopt Local Agenda 21 strategies by 2000. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister followed this up at last week's Local Government Association conference by announcing that a joint central-local government document will be produced giving practical guidance on how to put such strategies in place.

  Businesses are subject to a range of environmental regulations which themselves are part of the UK Government's whole sustainable development package. We are working with them in other ways to promote sustainable development in the business sector. Extensive support to help companies improve their environmental performance is freely available through the Government's energy efficiency and environmental technology best practice programmes and network of regional contacts. The uptake of formal environmental management systems—that is International Standard Organisation 14001 and eco-management and audit scheme—has also been extensively promoted and leading companies are responding positively. We should like all UK businesses with over 250 employees to have a publicly declared environmental policy and report to their stakeholders on progress.

  Global Temperature Changes
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of global temperature changes. [9369]

  Mr. Meacher
  Information on global temperature changes is assessed and published regularly on behalf of the Government by the UK Meteorological Office in conjunction with the climatic research unit at the university of East Anglia. The latest data available for 1997 show that the global surface temperature for the first half of the year was approximately 0.33 deg C above the 1961–90 average. Global temperatures are, on average about 0.5 deg C warmer now that they were at the end of the last century.

  Preservation of the Countryside
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received concerning the preservation of the countryside. [9372]

  Angela Eagle
  We have received a large number of representations about a range of issues affecting the countryside. The countryside is one of our great national assets and we are carefully reviewing rural policy to ensure its improved protection and stewardship.

  Community Initiative Power
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will bring forward proposals for a power of community initiative in local government. [9373]

  Ms Armstrong
  We intend to consult the Local Government Association and all other interested parties on the proposed new duty for councils to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of their area as we implement our manifesto programme for good local government.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the regulation of Railtrack. [9382]

  Mr. Prescott
  The Government are reviewing the regulation of railways generally and of Railtrack in particular, with a view to establishing a more effective and accountable regime.

  London Underground
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how he proposes to increase the use of the private finance initiative on the London Underground. [9383]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We support use of private finance to improve the underground through projects like the proposed power PFI deal. We are determined to attract more private finance to tackle the investment backlog in the underground's key assets, such as track, signalling and civil engineering structures. That is why we are reviewing public-private partnership options for the underground as a matter of urgency.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress of private investment in London Underground. [9399]

  Ms Jackson
  London Underground is negotiating two PFI contracts—power and prestige—and awaiting bids for a third—connect. London Underground is also developing proposals for a number of other PFI projects. The Government are also considering public-private partnership options for London Underground as a matter of urgency.

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much funding at current prices the Government provided to London Underground in each year since 1979. [11297]

  Ms Jackson
  Government funding is provided to London Transport, rather than its constituent businesses. The distribution of grant by LT between London Underground Ltd. and its other businesses is a matter for LT, subject to the ring fencing of support for Jubilee line extension. Total annual grant in constant 1997–98 prices provided to London Transport since 1979 is shown in the table.
  195

  Grant to London Transport since 1979 (1997–98 prices)

  Year

  Total grant £ million

  1979

  396

  1980

  493

  1981

  447

  1982

  602

  1983

  629

  1984–85

  592

  1985–96

  536

  1986–87

  475

  1987–88

  310

  1988–89

  242

  1989–90

  332

  1990–91

  600

  1991–92

  669

  1992–93

  988

  1993–94

  754

  1994–95

  840

  1995–96

  943

  1996–97

  963

  1997–981

  759

  1 Estimated outturn.

  The table excludes Docklands light railway grant, but from 1996–97 onwards it includes Croydon tramlink grant.

  Channel Tunnel (Leeds Service)
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his estimated time scale for the introduction of a direct channel tunnel service from Leeds. [9386]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I understand that Eurostar (UK) Ltd. has no plans to introduce a direct international service from Leeds. However, a service between Glasgow and Paris should start later this year, and passengers from Leeds will be able to join that service at Doncaster.

  Passenger Comfort Standards
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will require public transport operators to improve standards of passenger comfort; and if he will make a statement. [9387]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The fundamental review of transport policy will consider measures to raise the quality of public transport. As my right hon. Friend said in answering an earlier question, encouraging greater use of public transport is a key objective and passenger comfort is an aspect of this.

  Liquid Petroleum Gas
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy towards the use of liquid petroleum gas in cars. [9389]

  Dr. Strang
  The Government recognise the potential of road fuel gases for significantly lowering emissions, as was demonstrated by the Chancellor's recent announcement of a freeze on duty on road gas fuels and 196
  his undertaking at least to maintain the current duty differential versus diesel for the lifetime of the current Parliament.

  National Air Traffic Control Service
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures his Department is taking to implement the Government's plans for the future of the national air traffic control service. [9390]

  Dr. Strang
  We are reviewing the options for the future of the National Air Traffic Services. We shall make an announcement of our intentions in due course.

  Traffic-free City Centres
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the viability of traffic-free city centres. [9391]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government believe that properly designed vehicle restricted areas can improve the local environment while sustaining or enhancing economic vitality. Decisions on whether to exclude traffic from town centres are a matter for the judgment of the local authority.

  Freight Transport
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans his Department has to encourage the transportation of goods by rail as opposed to road. [9392]

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how he intends to increase the proportion of freight carried by rail. [9398]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government want to see a greater proportion of freight go by rail rather than by road. Our White Paper on integrated transport policy, to be published next spring, will consider ways of achieving this objective.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list in percentage terms the movement of freight within the United Kingdom by(a) road, (b) rail and (c) water for each year from 1970 to 1996. [11117]

  Ms Jackson
  The information requested is given in the following table; full 1996 data are not yet available.

  Freight traffic by mode: Great Britain1

  Per cent. of billion tonne kilometres

  Year

  Road2

  Rail

  Water

  1970

  63

  18

  17

  1971

  64

  16

  16

  197

  Freight traffic by mode: Great Britain1

  Per cent. of billion tonne kilometres

  Year

  Road2

  Rail

  Water

  19723

  65

  15

  21

  1973

  63

  16

  22

  1974

  63

  15

  22

  1975

  66

  15

  20

  1976

  65

  14

  20

  1977

  58

  12

  24

  1978

  56

  11

  27

  1979

  55

  11

  30

  1980

  53

  10

  31

  1981

  54

  10

  31

  1982

  53

  9

  33

  1983

  52

  9

  33

  1984

  55

  7

  33

  1985

  55

  8

  31

  1986

  56

  9

  29

  1987

  58

  9

  28

  1988

  59

  8

  27

  1989

  62

  8

  26

  1990

  62

  7

  26

  1991

  61

  7

  27

  1992

  61

  7

  26

  1993

  64

  7

  24

  1994

  65

  6

  24

  1995

  66

  6

  23

  1 The percentages in the table do not add to 100 because of freight movements by other modes, notably pipeline.

  2 All goods vehicles, including those under 3.5 tonnes gross vehicle weight.

  3 Figures from 1972 onwards are not comparable with earlier years. From 1972, water includes all UK coastwise and one-port freight movements by sea and inland waterway traffic. Earlier years include only GB coastwise traffic and internal traffic on British Waterways Board waterways.

  Car Dependency
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken to encourage local authorities to take measures to reduce car dependency. [9393]

  Dr. Strang
  Government planning and transport guidance sets local authorities the objective of developing policies that encourage less reliance on the private car.

  A3 (Hindhead)
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received about the necessity of improving the A3 at Hindhead. [9394]

  Dr. Strang
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received representations both supporting and opposing an improvement of the A3 at Hindhead since preparatory work on that scheme stopped in November 1995. The scheme is included in the trunk road programme which is the subject of a fundamental review approved on 19 June.

  Mrs. Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if she will make a statement on measures taken to relieve traffic congestion on the A3 at Hindhead. [10294]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Preparation work on proposals to improve the A3 at Hindhead was stopped in November 1995. The scheme will be included in the trunk roads 198
  review announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport on 19 June. The aim is to announce a decision next year on the outcome of the review.

  Small Boat Safety
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure that small boat safety is improved. [9395]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Coastguard agency actively promotes the safe use of recreational craft through national campaigns and local publicity. A national education campaign, sea smart, which was launched on 21 July, is aimed at primary and secondary school children in a co-ordinated campaign along the south coast. A series of local coastguard initiatives will concentrate on the sea and shoreline safety problems in particular areas. The agency has invited comments from organisations in this field on a consultative document about measures to improve the safety of non-regulated pleasure vessels without legislation. The sea safety liaison group, set up by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and including the Coastguard and the Marine Safety Agency, also promotes this work. The group has produced a range of leaflets targeted at small boat safety and further literature and advertising campaigns are planned.

  West Coast Rail Services
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he next expects to meet officials of Railtrack to discuss improvements to west coast services. [9396]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I met Richard Branson of the Virgin Rail Group on 10 July and will be meeting the chief executive of Railtrack on 12 August. The Virgin Rail Group has committed to service improvements on the west coast main line through its franchise agreement with the franchising director, including improved reliability and increased capacity on the line from 2002. These depend to a great extent on the upgrading of the line on which the franchising director concluded an agreement with Railtrack in 1996. I understand that the Virgin Rail Group is currently discussing further upgrading options with Railtrack.

  Fenchurch Street Line
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received on the standard of service on the Fenchurch Street line. [9397]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Neither my Department nor the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising have received any representations about London, Tilbury, Southend Rail, the operators of the Fenchurch Street line, since this Government took office.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the Budget measures on carbon dioxide emissions. [9359]
  199
  Mr. Meacher
  The combined effect of increasing the road fuel duty escalator from 5 to 6 per cent. reducing VAT on domestic fuels to 5 per cent. and the reduction in the gas levy will be to reduce annual carbon dioxide emissions by about 0.2 million tonnes of carbon in 2000 and by 2.3 million tonnes in 2010.

  Central European Time
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effect on traffic accidents and casualties of the adoption of central European time. [9385]

  Dr. Strang
  The Transport Research Laboratory has estimated that there could be net savings in road casualties in Great Britain were central European time to be adopted. Further work is in progress to refine these estimates and I expect to receive a report shortly.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much at current prices has been awarded from the single regeneration budget; what was the total level of investment at current prices supported by the single regeneration budget; and how many jobs the single regeneration budget has created or safeguarded, in each United Kingdom region, in each year since the single regeneration budget was established. [11305]

  Angela Eagle
  The single regeneration budget was formed in 1994 by bringing together 20 regeneration programmes in England. Details of the expenditure and the outputs achieved under each programme are set out in the departmental reports issued each year—Department of the Environment annual report 1997, Cmd 3607. Since 1995–96, new regeneration schemes have been funded through the SRB challenge fund. The table gives the regional breakdown of expenditure and jobs created for 1995–96, the first year of the challenge fund, and provisional figures for 1996–97, its second year.

  1995–96 actual

  Region

  SRB challenge fund 1997–98 prices £000

  Total scheme expenditure 1997–98 prices £000

  Jobs created/preserved Number

  Eastern

  2,614

  16,455

  498

  East Midlands

  8,259

  57,341

  2,863

  London

  37,847

  105,517

  7,165

  Merseyside

  11,501

  76,661

  1,978

  North East

  18,296

  56,377

  2,729

  North West

  18,087

  116,993

  8,627

  South East

  5,541

  16,937

  1,624

  South West

  4,077

  17,380

  1,425

  West Midlands

  16,937

  86,183

  5,318

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  19,446

  123,946

  7,009

  England

  142,605

  673,790

  39,236

  200

  1996–97 Provisional

  Region

  SRB challenge fund 1997–98 prices £000

  Total scheme expenditure 1997–98 prices £000

  Jobs created/preserved Number

  Eastern

  5,712

  27,744

  600

  East Midlands

  16,524

  93,942

  6,500

  London

  69,972

  242,760

  16,800

  Merseyside

  21,828

  105,060

  1,400

  North East

  30,294

  117,402

  5,600

  North West

  38,046

  265,812

  13,800

  South East

  12,138

  86,088

  2,000

  South West

  7,956

  35,802

  1,900

  West Midlands

  39,168

  206,040

  16,200

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  41,412

  189,924

  13,000

  England

  283,050

  1,370,574

  77,800

  River Water Quality
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of river water was of good or fair quality in each year since 1987. [11159]

  Angela Eagle
  There has been a net upgrading in chemical quality of 25.8 per cent. of the total monitored length of rivers and canals in England and Wales between 1990 and 1996. The proportion of rivers and canals classified as good or fair quality under the Environment Agency's general quality assessment for the years in which surveys were carried out since 1987 is as follows:

  Good

  Fair

  1990

  47.0

  37.5

  1992

  52.6

  34.4

  1995

  59.5

  31.5

  1996

  58.6

  31.5

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimates he has made of the savings at current prices achieved in each year since the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering for local government services as a result of such tendering. [11303]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Research commissioned by the Department has looked at both the financial and service quality impact of CCT on blue-collar services covered by the Local Government Act 1988. This has shown average annual savings on contract prices of blue-collar services of 6 per cent. for the first round of tendering under the Act, and 9 per cent. for the second round. It also shows that the savings have been accompanied by only minor improvements in service standards, and that more attention needs to be given to the development of local performance indicators.

  Other research, commissioned outside the Department, suggests a wide variation on estimates of savings depending upon the way in which social costs and benefits are treated.

  Methyl Bromide
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the critical uses of methyl bromide which his Department has evaluated. [11106]

  Angela Eagle
  The phaseout date for methyl bromide, and the criteria for the critical use exemption after phaseout, will be considered at the ninth meeting of the parties to the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer, in September. Any evaluation of the critical uses of methyl bromide will depend on the criteria that are set, and the availability of suitable alternatives after phaseout.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list, by company, the alternatives to methyl bromide which his Department has evaluated. [11107]

  Angela Eagle
  In 1996, the Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food commissioned ADAS to review the use of methyl bromide in horticulture, and to consider what alternatives are available. Its report identifies a range of alternatives which are either being developed, or already being used in the UK, but does not identify the individual companies involved. In April 1997, the United Nations environment programme's technical and economic assessment panel and methyl bromide technical options committee produced a report on alternatives to methyl bromide worldwide. Copies of this report, and the ADAS report, will be placed in the Library shortly.

  Capital Challenge
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much funding at current prices has been attracted from the private and voluntary sectors under the pilot capital challenge funding scheme for local authorities in each year since it was introduced. [11160]

  Angela Eagle
  Support for local authorities' capital expenditure is available through the capital challenge pilot scheme in three financial years: 1997–98; 1998–99; and 1999–00. Estimates for support for successful projects from the private and voluntary sectors are available only for the three-year period as a whole, and are as follows:

  Voluntary Sector: £20 million

  Other Private Sector: £678 million.

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what performance targets he has set the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre executive agency for 1997–98. [11698]

  Network enhancement projects 1997–98

  Scheme

  Estimated cost (£ million)

  Start

  Completion

  North

  M5 Jct 16 (A38) Imp

  0.150

  January 1998

  March 1998

  M11 Jct 4 Sign Gantries

  0.065

  December 1997

  February 1998

  M25 Jct 24–25 Nearside Safety Fencing

  0.071

  August 1997

  September 1997

  M25 Jct 24–25 Nearside Safety Fencing

  0.071

  August 1997

  September 1997

  M25/M23 Southbound Merge

  0.095

  Autumn 1997

  Spring 1998

  M27 Moorlands/Moorgreen Drainage

  0.053

  Autumn 1997

  Spring 1998

  202
  Mr. Raynsford
  The agency's principal targets for 1997–98 are to achieve total revenue of £7.12 million and to achieve a minimum contribution to the Exchequer of £555,000.

  The agency's other main targets are:
  To achieve at least six out of the following seven targets:

  (a) to increase the proportion fo events with more than 200 delegates to 30 per cent.

  (b) to increase the proportion of target room hire revenue achieved six months in advance to 55 per cent.

  (c) an overall score for quality of service in client questionnaires of at least 77 per cent.

  (d) 98 per cent. of clients completing the client questionnaire to report that they would use the centre again;

  (e) the number of complaints to be received to be less than four per hundred events;

  (f) an average response time in dealing with complaints of less than eight working days;

  (g) an overall score for quality of service provided by the catering staff of at least 80 per cent.

  Road Projects
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the network enhancement schemes and control projects to be undertaken during the financial year 1997–98 indicating the likely cost, start and completion dates. [10131]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 29 July 1997:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, has asked me to reply to your request to list the trunk road enhancement schemes and network control projects to be undertaken during the financial year 1997–98, and to give an indication of the likely cost, start and completion dates.
  I have enclosed with this letter a copy of the Highways Agency's 1997–98 Business Plan which lists at Annex E the network enhancement projects (NEPS) and network control projects which the Highways Agency intends to undertake this financial year. I have attached a list showing the costs and seasonal start and finish dates for these schemes, as you requested.
  Network enhancement projects cover various improvements including local safety schemes, traffic calming measures and environmental schemes and start and finish dates can be affected by external matters, some of which are outside the Highways Agency's control, such as statutory procedures or urgent statutory undertakers works or the weather. In the circumstances, it is difficult to be precise with the actual timing.
  The Agency is also undertaking a number of smaller projects, and may add or substitute alternative schemes to the list published in the Business Plan as priorities change and where circumstances do not permit all the named schemes to proceed as planned.
  203

  Network enhancement projects 1997–98

  Scheme

  Estimated cost (£ million)

  Start

  Completion

  A1 Elkesley Lighting (Nottinghamshire)

  0.100

  January 1998

  March 1998

  North of Morpeth Route Action Plan

  0.100

  September 1997

  November 1997

  A1 Angel junction

  0.300

  March 1998

  Summer 1998

  A2(W) Little Chef, Cobham

  0.099

  March 1998

  April 1998

  A3 Wisley Cyclist Facilities

  0.070

  Autumn 1997

  Spring 1998

  A4 Thornbury Road

  0.119

  November 1997

  February 1998

  A5 Lilbourne Crossroads Lighting (Warkwickshire/Northamptonshire)

  0.070

  Winter/Spring 1998

  Winter/Spring 1998

  A52 Accident Reduction Trials

  0.190

  October 1997

  Spring 1999

  A12 Hatfield Peverel CRSF

  0.278

  October 1997

  December 1997

  A13/A406 Junction Resignalling (LB Newham)

  0.106

  September 1997

  December 1997

  A14 Levington Link Road

  0.700

  September 1997

  December 1997

  A19 Selby Town Centre Traffic Calming (LSS)

  0.076

  January 1998

  March 1998

  A20 Lydden Spout Layby

  0.080

  January 1997

  March 1997

  A27/B2144 Junction MOVA

  0.027

  Autumn 1997

  Spring 1998

  A27 Ranscome Lane

  0.080

  October 1997

  December 1997

  A27 Chichester, Bognor Bridge

  0.470

  December 1997

  May 1998

  A30 Cannonstown Phase 2

  0.010

  September 1997

  October 1997

  A30 Woodleigh Junction Phase 2

  0.092

  October 1997

  December 1997

  A31 St. Leonards Footbridge

  0.676

  January 1998

  July 1998

  A34 Cannock-Stoke on Trent Speed Cameras (Staffordshire)

  0.065

  Autumn 1997

  Winter/Spring 1998

  A34 Great Wryley Traffic Calming (Staffordshire)

  0.099

  Autumn 1997

  Winter/Spring 1998

  A36 West Wellow Calming Phase 2

  0.082

  Autumn 1997

  Spring 1998

  A41 Berryfield Right Turn (Aylesbury)

  0.160

  December 1997

  March 1998

  A41 Chester Road, Hootton

  0.175

  January 1998

  March 1998

  A43 Evenly Crossroads (Northants)

  0.350

  October 1997

  March 1998

  A45 Ryton to Tollbar End CRSF

  0.170

  November 1997

  march 1998

  A47 Toll Bar Junction at A1 (Cambridgeshire)

  0.158

  September 1997

  November 1997

  A49/A5 Bayleys Roundabout, Shrewsbury-Pelican Crossing (Salop)

  0.080

  October 1997

  Winter/Spring 1998

  A57/A618 Mansfield Road, Rotherham

  0.350

  February 1998

  June 1998

  A66 Penruddock, Kemplay, Threlkeld-County B'ry

  0.150

  October 1997

  November 1997

  A140 Route Treatment Phases I and II (Suffolk/Norfolk)

  0.409

  November 1997

  March 1998

  A259 Redoubt Way

  0.275

  October 1997

  January 1998

  A303 Burton Jct Imp (Wiltshire)

  0.101

  November 1997

  December 1997

  A312 Cranford High Street Improvement

  0.179

  January 1998

  March 1998

  A316 Whitton Roundabout Signalization

  0.149

  October 1997

  December 1997

  A449 Gorse Corner-Right Turn Lane (Staffordshire)

  0.090

  Winter 1997

  Winter/Spring 1998

  A585 Skipool Roundabout

  0.198

  October 1997

  December 1997

  A638/B6428 Offley Lane Roundabout, Wakefield

  0.432

  October 1997

  December 1997

  A663 Middleton Road

  0.666

  November 1997

  March 1998

  A5036 Switch Island Phase 1

  1.227

  September 1997

  September 1998

  A6120 Weetwood Lane Improvement

  0.210

  November 1997

  March 1998

  Red Light and Speed Cameras (1997–98 Programme)

  0.393

  April 1997

  March 1998

  Red Light and Speed Cameras (Balance of 1996–97 Programme)

  0.055

  April 1996

  March 1998

  Closed Circuit TV (Balance of 1996–97 Programme)

  0.051

  April 1996

  March 1998

  Closed Circuit TV Enforcement (1997–98 Programme)

  0.110

  April 1997

  march 1998

  Software Enhancements (Balance of 1996–97 Programme)

  0.005

  April 1996

  March 1998

  Urban Traffic Control systems (1997–98 Programme)

  0.270

  April 1997

  March 1998

  Variable Message Signs (Balance of 1996–97 Programme)

  0.025

  April 1996

  March 1998

  Network control projects

  Scheme

  Estimated cost (£ million)

  Start

  Completion

  M6 Staffs Comms. Upg.

  0.080

  November 1997

  December 1997

  Introduction of motorway control system at Leicester Police Control Office

  0.070

  November 1996

  October 1997

  Midlands Driver information System Phase 1

  0.213

  With QS

  Midlands Security System

  1.000

  Autumn 1997

  Midlands DIS (e)

  0.150

  September 1997

  January 1998

  MIDAS Phase 2

  2.820

  December 1997

  Summer 1999

  Stafford Control Office

  0.110

  November 1997

  December 1997

  Chigwell Police Control Office. Dynamic Display Equipment

  0.487

  Winter 1997

  Summer 1998

  0.090

  September 1997

  Phase 1-

  M4 Heston COBS Upgrade Associated Works

  November 1997

  M4/M5/M32/A48/A49 Avon and Somerset CCTV Upgrade

  2,340

  October 1996

  September 1997

  M4/M5/M32 NMCS2 Infrastructure and COBs

  7,000

  March 1995

  September 1997

  Shadow Tolling
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 22 July,Official Report, column 494, concerning shadow toll payment mechanisms, what factors are being considered in the development work on payment mechanisms. [10680]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The development work is exploring the feasibility of a refined payment mechanism, the reward structure, appropriate allocation of risk, and the implications for the value for money which might be on offer under a refined mechanism.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 22 July,Official Report, column 494, whether, if the development work on payment mechanisms is successful, such mechanisms can be applied to roads which have already been approved by him. [10679]

  Ms Jackson
  No. The terms of signed contracts cannot be modified in this way.

  Environmentally Conscious Driving
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the potential environmental benefits of advising motorists to turn their engines off when stationary; what estimate he has made of the relative benefits in respect of cars whose engines are(a) warm and (b) cold; what assessment he had made of the success of such advice in other European countries with particular reference to Germany; and if he will make a statement. [10562]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Advice is regularly given to drivers in official publications, particularly with regard to environmentally conscious driving. In general, benefits can be gained in terms of reduced emissions and savings in fuel by switching a vehicle's engine off if the vehicle is likely to be stationary in traffic for more than two minutes. The Department has drawn up research proposals to assess the benefits of instructing drivers to switch engines off while waiting at, for example, traffic lights. Under some circumstances, such as when an engine is still cold following a very short journey, it is possible that re-starting could result in higher emissions than would occur had the engine remained idling. The research will therefore identify the engine parameters under which emissions reductions will be achieved. No assessment has been made of the success of advice in Germany or other European countries.

  M25 Widening
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what(a) contracts have been let and (b) other liabilities entered into in respect of works, plans or surveys relating to or implementing the proposal to widen the M25 to 10 to 12 lanes between junctions 12 and 15; and if he will make a statement. [10644]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to my hon. Friend.
  206
  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, dated 29 July 1997:
  The Minister for Transport in London asked me to reply to your recent question about contracts let, and liabilities entered into, for the M25 Junctions 12 to 15 widening.
  The only contract existing for the M25 Junctions 12 to 15 Widening Scheme is the preliminary design commission with consultants Howard Humphreys and Partners.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the total tonnage of rail freight and the total net tonne miles carried by rail in Great Britain for the year up to 31 March 1997 and for each of the previous three years. [11330]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested is as follows:

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Goods lifted—million tonnes

  103

  97

  101

  101

  Goods moved—billion tonne kilometres

  13.8

  13.0

  13.1

  1—

  1 This figure is not yet available.

  Aston Clinton Bypass
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received about the proposed Aston Clinton bypass; and if 2002 remains the intended construction date. [10469]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: We have received a small number of representations about the A41 Aston Clinton bypass. This scheme will be considered in the strategic review of the roads programme. Pending the conclusions of the review, which we hope to announce next spring, it would be premature to indicate when the scheme might be constructed.

  Road Traffic Regulations
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to announce the conclusion of his consultations regarding road traffic regulation law as it affects rights of way across school premises. [10630]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: I hope to make a statement on what was a very wide-ranging review of road traffic regulation law later this year.

  Seat Belts
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and if he will extend the compulsory fitting of seat belts to vehicles(a) on normal scheduled services and (b) used mainly for providing transport for the general public which carry schoolchildren. [11321]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have no plans to extend the compulsory fitting of seat belts to vehicles used for these purposes. There are significant technical difficulties in fitting seat belts in buses, which are normally the type of
  207
  vehicle used to provide these services. In addition, the length and nature of passenger journeys on scheduled services is such that the likelihood of seat belts being used is far less than on faster long-distance journeys. However, it should be remembered that the existing requirements for seat belts to be provided for children on organised trips in minibuses and coaches will ensure that they are available in thousands of vehicles that otherwise would not have had them fitted.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what body is responsible for ensuring the seat belts in vehicles carrying schoolchildren have been correctly fitted. [11175]

  Ms Jackson
  Responsibility for ensuring that a seat belt assembly has been correctly fitted must ultimately rest with the seat belt installer. It is proposed that the Vehicle Inspectorate will include the condition of all minibus and coach seat belts in the random roadside inspections that it carries out. It is also proposed to include checks on minibus and coach seat belts in the annual MOT test. We hope to consult on details shortly.

  Air Transport (Nuclear Material)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the recommendations by the International Atomic Energy Agency that individual states stop the air transport of plutonium materials in type B packages pending the development of packages conforming to new standards; and if he will make a statement. [11230]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department is unaware of the IAEA making such a recommendation.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what studies his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the hazards of mixed oxide fuel in severe air transport accidents; and if he will provide details of such studies. [11231]

  Ms Jackson
  The Department contributed to the study, made by the Advisory Committee on the Safe Transport of Radioactive Materials—ACTRAM, an independent body charged with advising the then Secretary of State for Transport and the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission—and reported in "The Transport of Civil Plutonium by Air", ISBN 0 11 550871 6, 1988. ACTRAM concluded that"the health risk to people from the current transport of civil plutonium by air to and from the UK is [also] extremely remote and acceptable"
  and that
  "plutonium dioxide mixed with uranium dioxide in the form of ceramic pellets constitutes no significant inhalation hazard".
  A copy of ACTRAM's report is held in the Library.

  Rail Travel
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to encourage air passengers on domestic and short-haul flights to convert to rail travel. [11152]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The fundamental review of transport policy now under way will be considering how all modes of transport can contribute to a more 208
  environmentally sustainable integrated transport system. This will include consideration of ways of ensuring that there is a proper balance between modes.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the environmental impact of substituting 10 per cent. of domestic and shorthaul flights with rail travel over the next 10 years. [11154]

  Ms Jackson
  We have no readily available information on this question, which would require detailed study. Environmental aspects of changes in travel patterns will be an important part of the fundamental review of transport policy.

  Runway Slot Allocation
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will undertake a review of the system of allocating runway slots. [11185]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Slot allocation at European Community airports is governed by EC regulation 95/93. We are currently awaiting proposals from the Commission for revision of the regulation, which will then be the subject of discussion in Transport Council.

  National Airlines (Subsidies)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact on the competitive position of United Kingdom airlines of the provision by European Union Governments of state subsidies to their national airlines. [11178]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  State subsidies to national airlines are approved by the European Commission on a case-by-case basis. The impact of such aid on the competitive position of United Kingdom airlines is assessed by the United Kingdom Government following publication of the individual Commission decision in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to encourage other European Union countries to end state subsidies to their national airlines. [11179]

  Ms Jackson
  Approval of state subsidy to national airlines is a matter for the European Commission. The United Kingdom has consistently opposed such aid since it threatens to distort competition and penalise efficient operators. The Commission has stated that its recent approval of aid to Alitalia is likely to be the last for a state-owned airline.

  Regional Airports
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy in respect of deregulation of landing charges at regional airports. [11181]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Landing charges at all larger airports in Great Britain are subject to regulation by the Civil Aviation Authority under the Airports Act 1986. The Department of Trade and Industry is now reviewing the
  209
  system of regulation of utilities, and this may produce conclusions of relevance to future policy on regulation of airports.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to increase the proportion of international flights to and from English regional, Scottish and Welsh airports in comparison with London airports. [11176]

  Ms Jackson
  Where flights operate it is normally determined by the commercial decisions of airlines. The majority of the UK's bilateral air services agreements permit carriers to serve all points in the United Kingdom. Where there are restrictions, we seek to remove them so that all airports can compete fairly for traffic.

  Heavy Vehicles
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy not to increase the maximum axle weight of lorries beyond 40 tonnes. [11120]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The existing maximum axle weight for lorries is 10.5 tonnes which, in certain cases, will increase to 11.5 tonnes from 1 January 1999. The existing general gross weight limit for articulated vehicles with five or more axles is 38 tonnes and 44 tonnes for certain six-axle vehicles in combined road/rail movements. From 1 January 1999, we will allow an increase in the weight limit from 38 to 40 tonnes for articulated vehicles with five or more axles on international journeys. With regard to allowing 44 tonne lorries generally, I refer to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on 25 July,Official Report, columns 788–89.

  London Transport (Complaints)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he last reviewed with(a) London Regional Transport, (b) London Buses and (c) London Underground their compliance with the recommendations of the Wilcox committee report on the handling of complaints. [10995]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has not undertaken such a review. London Transport handles complaints using established procedures which are broadly consistent with the recommendations of the citizen's charter task force.

  Rail Fare Increases
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what was the average increase in real terms in rail fares between 1979 and 1997; [11256]

  (2) what were the annual increases in real terms in rail fares in each year since 1979. [11257]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Information for each year between 1979 and 1996 inclusive is in the table. Figures for 1997 are not available.

  Key commuter and leisure fares are regulated by the franchising director. For three years from 1 January 1996 annual increases in regulated fares are capped in line with the retail prices index from the June 1995 price base. For
  210
  four years from 1 January 1999, increases are capped at RPI minus 1 per cent. There is some limited scope for individual commuter fares—in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Greater Manchester—to exceed the cap where these are balanced by other regulated fares being held below the cap.

  Rail fare index

  Rail fare index 1979=100 (a)

  RPI 1979=100 (b)

  Real rail fare index 1979=100 (c)

  Annual increase in real rail fares

  1979

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  1980

  124.2

  118.0

  105.3

  5.3 per cent.

  1981

  142.1

  132.0

  107.8

  2.2 per cent.

  1982

  163.1

  143.4

  113.8

  5.7 per cent.

  1983

  171.8

  149.9

  114.6

  0.7 per cent.

  1984

  173.6

  157.4

  110.3

  -3.8 per cent.

  1985

  184.6

  167.0

  110.6

  0.3 per cent.

  1986

  197.1

  172.7

  114.2

  3.3 per cent.

  1987

  207.3

  179.9

  115.2

  0.9 per cent.

  1988

  221.7

  188.7

  117.5

  2.0 per cent.

  1989

  241.9

  203.3

  119.0

  1.2 per cent.

  1990

  263.1

  226.1

  118.4

  -2.2 per cent.

  1991

  290.5

  235.6

  123.3

  5.8 per cent.

  1992

  311.7

  244.5

  127.5

  3.4 per cent.

  1993

  333.6

  248.3

  134.3

  5.3 per cent.

  1994

  348.4

  254.4

  137.0

  2.0 per cent.

  1995

  363.9

  263.2

  138.3

  0.9 per cent.

  1996

  377.6

  269.5

  140.0

  1.3 per cent.

  Percentage change from 1996 to 1979 40.0 per cent.

  1 (c) = 100* (a)/(b).

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics.

  Airport Infrastructure Investment
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much at current prices was invested in airport infrastructure in the United Kingdom in each year since 1979. [11261]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The available figures for investment in airport infrastructure and air traffic control for Great Britain are given. Information was not compiled on a consistent basis before 1983–84.

  £ million

  1983–84

  198

  1984–85

  223

  1985–86

  216

  1986–87

  219

  1987–88

  250

  1988–89

  291

  1989–90

  379

  1990–91

  578

  1991–92

  461

  1992–93

  432

  1993–94

  504

  1994–95

  639

  1995–96

  576

  1996–97

  624

  American Airlines (Heathrow)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the number of passengers flying with American Airlines through Heathrow airport in 1996; and what is the projected number of passengers in 2005. [10851]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The number of passengers who flew with American Airlines through Heathrow airport in 1996 was 1.4 million. American Airlines predicts that this will increase to 2.3 million in 2005 assuming 6 per cent. growth, an open skies agreement and the capacity to use larger aircraft.

  Airports (Access)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to introduce bus priority lanes to Heathrow and Gatwick airports. [10855]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 29 July 1997:
  The Minister for Transport in London has asked me to reply to your recent question asking what proposals there are to introduce bus priority lanes to Heathrow & Gatwick Airports.
  The Highways Agency, in partnership with Heathrow Airport Limited, are currently implementing a scheme to provide a dedicated bus and coach lane on the M4 Spur Road to Heathrow Airport. It will reduce journey times for the large number of buses and coaches that use the Spur as well as further encouraging the use of public transport for journeys to and from the airport. Work started on 27 June and is expect to take two months to complete.
  There are no plans at the present time to introduce bus priority lanes on the approaches to Gatwick Airport.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take steps to allow only coaches and other multiple-occupancy vehicles in the outside lanes of motorways on approaches to major airports to reduce congestion. [10856]

  Ms Jackson
  For safety reasons, coaches and buses have been generally banned from the outside, or overtaking lane of motorways with three or more lanes since 1 January 1996 because newer buses and coaches are restricted to 65 mph by their speed limiters. We will be reviewing this ban in 1998, once there has been a full two years operation.

  Exceptionally, the Highways Agency is building an extra offside lane in addition to the existing three lanes on a 0.9 mile stretch of the M4 spur to Heathrow airport, which will be specifically restricted to buses and coaches. This lane is on the offside to accommodate traffic flows at the roundabout at either end of the spur road. The £1 million cost is being met by BAA plc. We have no immediate plans to introduce similar measures at other airports but will be watching the effects of this experiment with interest.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to improve public transport access to airports. [10854]
  212
  Ms Jackson
  My Department will be studying options for increasing the contribution that public transport can make to access airports, as part of preparation for the integrated transport White Paper.

  London Airports
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to receive a report from the inspector at the terminal 5 inquiry. [10804]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  It is not known at this stage precisely when the report will be submitted. The public inquiry into the proposed fifth terminal at Heathrow airport is not scheduled to finish until the second half of 1998, after which the inspector will prepare his report on the applications before the inquiry.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how many occasions the use of reduced separation at Heathrow and Gatwick have been logged in the watch logs at West Drayton during(a) 1996 and (b) 1997. [10805]

  Ms Jackson
  I refer to my answer of 1 July,Official Report, column 132. The specific information is not available. The recording of the number of occasions when reduced separation is used is not an operational requirement and is not part of the trial procedure.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the number of passengers flying with British Airways and its franchisees through Heathrow airport in 1996; and what are the projected numbers in 2005. [10852]

  Ms Jackson
  The number of passengers who flew with British Airways and its franchisees through Heathrow airport in 1996 was 25.4 million. British Airways predicts that this will increase to 32.7 million in 2005.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the loss of flight capacity at Heathrow airport form the closure of the cross-wind runway. [11071]

  Ms Jackson
  The cross-wind runway remains open, and I have made no estimate of the potential capacity loss were it to close.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the annual passenger capacity for the proposed fifth terminal at Heathrow airport on the day of opening; and when he expects it to reach a capacity of 30 million passengers. [10853]

  Ms Jackson
  I have made no such estimates. These are matters for BAA plc as promoter of the scheme, and are being examined by the public inquiry currently under way.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for how many movements and what percentage of movements the cross-wind runway at Heathrow airport has been used in the last five years. [10850]
  213
  Ms Jackson
  Data provided by National Air Traffic Services Ltd., show that in the five-year period from 1 January 1992 to 31 December 1996 the cross-wind runway at Heathrow was used as follows:

  Year

  Movements

  Percentage of total movements (all runways)

  1992

  1,347

  0.33

  1993

  255

  0.06

  1994

  136

  0.03

  1995

  256

  0.06

  1996

  241

  0.05

  Railways Act 1993
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to make greater use of section 4 of the Railways Act 1993. [11114]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Section 4 of the Railways Act 1993 places a number of duties on the Secretary of State and the Rail Regulator. One of the key powers available to the Secretary of State under the Act, which is covered by these duties, is the power to issue objectives, instructions and guidance to the franchising director. The Government are currently reviewing the franchising director's objectives, instructions and guidance and will make an announcement in due course.

  Transport Projects (Valuation Formula)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will amend the cost-benefit analysis formula used for determining the value of road projects to give greater weight to(a) air pollution, (b) destruction of the natural environment, (c) noise pollution and (d) the existence of public transport alternatives. [11108]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The COBA method does not assess the factors listed by the hon. Member. The effects of a road scheme on air and noise pollution and its impact on the natural environment are set out in the environmental impact assessment, which serves with COBA to determine the value of a road project. Public transport alternatives are considered at an early stage in the development of a scheme when assessing the options to remedy the problems identified.

  The hon. Member will wish to note, however, that the Government, as part of their consultation document "What Role for Trunk Roads in England?", have invited

  Reported injury accidents on the Norfolk section of the A11

  1995

  1996

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Total

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Total

  Roundabouts

  0

  3

  8

  11

  0

  4

  9

  13

  Dual carriageways

  0

  7

  10

  17

  1

  6

  19

  26

  Single carriageways

  4

  20

  51

  75

  1

  10

  34

  45

  Total

  4

  30

  69

  103

  2

  20

  62

  84

  214
  comments on how the appraisal system might be broadened, including the weighting of environmental factors against economic and safety considerations.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to incorporate safety standards and environmental impact considerations into the formula for calculating the expected rate of return for rail projects; and if he will make a statement. [11109]

  Ms Jackson
  The Department is carrying out a fundamental review of transport policy with the aim of providing a balanced transport system which is efficient, environmentally sustainable and safe, which meets the needs of all sections of society and which provides genuine choice to meet people's future transport needs. The contribution of rail and other modes in achieving these objectives will be carefully examined, together with the implications for how projects should be assessed.

  Bus Services (Subsidy)
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the level of public subsidy for bus services outside London in each year since 1984. [112898]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The following table shows the level of public transport revenue support for bus services in Great Britain outside London:

  At current prices (£ million)

  At 1995–96 prices (£ million)

  1984–85

  364

  596

  1985–86

  352

  547

  1986–87

  305

  461

  1987–88

  229

  329

  1988–89

  221

  297

  1989–90

  212

  266

  1990–91

  210

  249

  1991–92

  237

  264

  1992–93

  232

  249

  1993–94

  218

  227

  1994–95

  217

  222

  1995–96

  226

  226

  A11 (Accidents)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what have been the trends in road accident figures on the Norfolk section of the A11 over the last two years; and what representations he has received in respect of dualling further sections of the road. [9605]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Road accident figures for the last two years on the Norfolk section of the A11 are shown in the following table.
  215
  A number of representations from hon. Members about the dualling of the All have been received and there have also been representations supporting the dualling of the entire length of the A11. There has also been a campaign conducted by the local media known as "Complete the DuAlling".

  London Transport (Investment)
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much, at current prices, was invested by London Transport in(a) network maintenance and improvements and (b) rolling stock in each year since 1979. [11258]

  £ millions (1995–96 prices)

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  National roads

  1,146

  1,136

  1,237

  1,351

  1,243

  1,336

  1,289

  1,326

  1,394

  Local roads

  2,244

  2,245

  2,176

  2,312

  2,362

  2,725

  2,777

  2,821

  696

  Total

  3,390

  3,381

  3,413

  3,662

  3,605

  4,060

  4,067

  4,147

  2,091

  £ millions (1995–96 prices)

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  National roads

  1,360

  1,719

  2,120

  2,070

  2,108

  2,140

  2,087

  1,760

  1,573

  Local roads1

  801

  662

  668

  798

  898

  984

  1,001

  897

  713

  Total

  2,161

  2,381

  2,788

  2,868

  3,006

  3,124

  3,088

  2,657

  2,286

  1 For 1979–80 to 1986–87, the entries comprise local authority expenditure on roads. For 1987 onwards, because of a change in expenditure classification, the entries comprise central Government support for local authorities in terms of grant and credit approvals—which do not reflect the total sum of local authority expenditure on roads.

  Railways (Funding)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the total level of(a) Government financial support and (b) public subsidies for the railways in each year since 1979 at current prices. [11242]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The table provides details of British Rail's external finance requirement for each year from 1980 to 1993–94.

  Year

  £ million (1996–97 prices)

  1980–81

  1,759

  1981–82

  1,949

  1982–83

  1,607

  1983–84

  1,469

  1984–85

  1,803

  1985–86

  1,488

  1986–87

  1,233

  1987–88

  821

  1988–89

  531

  1989–90

  939

  1990–91

  1,317

  1991–92

  1,682

  1992–93

  2,276

  1993–94

  1,569

  The table provides details of the passenger grants paid by the franchising director to train operating companies in each of the three years since the industry was restructured on 1 April 1994.
  216
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information is not readily available in the form requested.

  Roads Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much the Government spent on roads in each year since 1979 at current prices. [11243]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Road expenditure information is published annually in the "Transport Report". Summary information for years prior to 1985–86 was published in the Government's expenditure plans.

  The expenditure figures requested are as follows:

  align="right">£ million 1996–97 prices

  Year

  Grants paid to private sector TOCs

  Grants paid to TOCs owned by British Rail

  Total grants paid by Franchising director

  1994–95

  —

  1,883

  1,883

  1995–96

  20

  1,696

  1,716

  1996–97

  552

  1,257

  1,809

  Source:

  Figures for 1980–81 to 1986–85 are derived from figures published in "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1986–87 to 1988–89". Figures for 1985–86 to 1993–94 are derived from figures published in British Rail's annual reports and accounts. Figures for 1994–95 to 1996–97 are derived from figures published in the "Transport Report 1997", with extra detail provided by the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising.

  Railway Investment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how much was invested by British Rail in new rail rolling stock in each year since 1979 at current prices; [11241]

  (2) how much the Government invested in the rail network in each year since 1979 in current prices. [11240]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The table shows public sector investment in railway rolling stock, together with total public sector investment in the rail network, for each year between 1979 and 1996–97.
  217

  £ million 1996–97 prices

  Public sector rolling stock investment

  Total public sector investment

  1980

  279

  977

  1981

  219

  831

  1982

  190

  713

  1983

  135

  786

  1984–85

  140

  1,028

  1985–86

  137

  899

  1986–87

  128

  841

  1987–88

  156

  951

  1988–89

  294

  982

  1989–90

  309

  1,173

  1990–91

  359

  1,113

  1991–92

  521

  1,486

  1992–93

  592

  1,628

  1993–94

  452

  1,249

  1994–95

  342

  1,183

  1995–96

  85

  930

  1996–97

  —

  16

  Notes:

  1. Investment directly funded by passenger transport executive is not included.

  2. Figures for 1984–85 cover a 15-month period.

  3. Figures for 1994–95 and 1995–96 include investment undertaken by Railtrack, EPS and Union Railways while they were publicly owned but not part of BR. BR rolling stock investment was £212 million in 1994–95 and £29 million in 1995–96, both in 1996–97 prices. Total investment numbers for 1994–95 and 1995–96 are not directly comparable with figures for previous years due to the adoption of a new accounting practice by Railtrack.

  4. The figure for 1996–97 covers British Rail only, excluding any investment undertaken by Railtrack, EPS and Union Railways during the few weeks at the start of the year when they were publicly owned. No separate details of rolling stock investment are available.

  Source:

  Annual reports and accounts of British Rail, Railtrack, European Passenger Services and Union Railways.

  Wyre Piddle Bypass
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on traffic flows in the village of Wyre Piddle, Worcestershire. [9384]

  Dr. Strang
  The latest figures supplied to the Department by Hereford and Worcester county council in July 1996 relate to flows in 1994. They show an annual average daily traffic flow on the main road in the village of between 10,500 and 11,500 with the percentage of heavy commercial vehicles standing at between 11 and 12 per cent.

  London Bus Service Targets
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library a copy of his letter to London Transport Buses relating to the new quality of service targets. [10994]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have now placed a copy of my letter to the chairman of London Transport in the Library.

  Wrexham Central Station
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library of the notices given by the train operator and Railtrack to the franchising director relating to the proposed closure of Wrexham Central station. [11128]
  218
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No. The Railways Act 1993 requires the franchising director to publish notices of his acceptance of closure proposals. That has been done in this case. The Railways Act does not require the franchising director to publish the notices given to him by operators or Railtrack. Nor are these items which the franchising director is required to place on his public register.

  Transport Investment (London)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the total public investment, at current prices, in transport in London in each year since 1979. [11194]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Figures are not readily available in this form. "Transport Statistics for London 1996" reports total investment in road and rail in London and the south-east for the past 10 years. Transport investment is reported annually in the "Transport Report". Summary information for the years prior to 1985–86 was published annually in the Government's expenditure plans.

  Freight Facilities Grant
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what funding the Government have provided for the freight facilities grant in each year since the scheme was established. [11302]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The following table lists the grants awarded and, where available, the spend in each year since 1975–76 in Great Britain.

  Year

  Award £

  Spend £

  1975–76

  1,038,000

  —

  1976–77

  3,332,000

  —

  1977–78

  6,536,000

  —

  1978–79

  6,967,000

  —

  1979–80

  4,930,000

  —

  1980–81

  8,078,000

  —

  1981–82

  5,077,000

  —

  1982–83

  3,863,000

  —

  1983–84

  9,465,000

  —

  1984–85

  6,213,000

  —

  1985–86

  8,994,000

  7,055,000

  1986–87

  1,945,000

  5,739,000

  1987–88

  1,212,000

  4,205,000

  1988–89

  440,000

  1,600,000

  1989–90

  4,087,000

  1,000,000

  1990–91

  1,188,000

  3,500,000

  1991–92

  1,771,000

  1,200,000

  1992–93

  7,602,000

  1,700,000

  1993–94

  403,000

  5,798,000

  1994–95

  2,912,000

  2,800,000

  1995–96

  7,773,000

  4,000,000

  1996–97

  4,359,000

  3,453,000

  The time needed to construct or procure capital assets means that there is inevitably a lag between award and payment of grant. In some cases where grant has been awarded, the applicant has decided not to proceed with the scheme.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much inward investment, in terms of(a) jobs and (b) total spending in current prices has gone to each region of the United Kingdom in each year since 1979. [11349]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Consistently comparable figures for jobs and capital expenditure are available only from 1985–86 onwards. According to information notified to my Department's Invest in Britain Bureau, the figures are included in a table, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many(a) US, (b) Japanese, (c) French, and (d) German companies have located in Britain since 1979. [11346]

  Mr. McCartney
  According to figures notified to my Department's Invest in Britain Bureau, the number of projects that have located in Britain since 1979 are as follows:

  Total associated jobs (new/safeguarded) by UK region

  Year

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  North-east

  North-west

  Y. Humber

  1979–80

  2,757

  854

  2,794

  1,466

  379

  1,176

  1980–81

  4,474

  3,332

  2,760

  2,923

  913

  890

  1981–82

  5,756

  1,986

  2,429

  1,021

  1,177

  167

  1982–83

  2,258

  901

  1,893

  539

  1,291

  104

  1983–84

  8,567

  4,029

  1,740

  1,786

  1,823

  847

  1984–85

  8,253

  9,412

  6,400

  2,574

  4,544

  1,385

  1985–86

  10,422

  4,139

  2,078

  4,486

  4,380

  5,265

  1986–87

  2,608

  6,559

  3,428

  4,593

  2,575

  786

  1987–88

  9,892

  6,974

  2,712

  4,005

  8,190

  2,913

  1988–89

  5,575

  6,259

  4,257

  3,289

  6,368

  1,956

  1989–90

  8,397

  9,277

  11,395

  5,407

  13,092

  3,358

  1990–91

  6,629

  8,421

  2,743

  2,811

  11,537

  11,391

  1991–92

  4,775

  10,829

  1,096

  6,166

  9,982

  3,462

  1992–93

  8,686

  7,321

  4,099

  5,522

  4,775

  6,815

  1993–94

  12,274

  6,564

  3,631

  6,237

  4,739

  6,327

  1994–95

  10,795

  5,235

  5,259

  9,651

  7,564

  7,019

  1995–96

  11,605

  9,031

  4,451

  13,508

  5,665

  9,531

  1996–97

  11,997

  12,653

  7,205

  7,563

  3,075

  5,333

  Total

  135,720

  69,911

  70,370

  83,547

  92,069

  68,725

  Year

  West Midlands

  East Midlands

  East

  South-east

  South-west

  1979–80

  864

  1,174

  n/a

  908

  1,938

  1980–81

  1,040

  276

  n/a

  1,046

  1,008

  1981–82

  425

  290

  n/a

  967

  2,199

  1982–83

  100

  848

  n/a

  1,300

  1,295

  1983–84

  4,380

  1,019

  n/a

  5,703

  909

  1984–85

  2,280

  961

  n/a

  7,412

  2,084

  1985–86

  8,231

  1,134

  n/a

  9,945

  2,077

  1986–87

  7,534

  382

  n/a

  3,513

  973

  1987–88

  10,699

  902

  51

  16,559

  1,158

  1988–89

  8,792

  3,260

  50

  3,344

  513

  1989–90

  15,778

  8,080

  320

  1,330

  1,538

  1990–91

  12,132

  2,061

  1,188

  25,227

  580

  1991–92

  5,648

  424

  4,801

  3,393

  2,980

  220

  Number

  France

  237

  Germany

  471

  Japan

  498

  USA

  2,241

  Figures are based on information provided by companies at the time of the announcement of the decision to invest. There is no requirement to notify the Department so the figures include only those projects where the IBB and its regional partners were involved or which have come to their notice. They take no account of subsequent developments.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will estimate the number of new jobs created or safeguarded in each region of the United Kingdom attributed to inward investment in each year since 1979. [11196]

  Mr. McCartney
  Consistently comparable figures are available only from 1984–85 onwards. According to my Department's Invest In Britain Bureau, the figures are as follows:
  221

  Year

  West Midlands

  East Midlands

  East

  South-east

  South-west

  1992–93

  4,237

  588

  10,995

  7,340

  1,280

  1993–94

  46,439

  3,428

  1,713

  6,866

  2,177

  1994–95

  12,266

  11,670

  2,462

  18,195

  2,093

  1995–96

  11,501

  2,364

  2,253

  21,798

  5,060

  1996–97

  19,738

  6,076

  1,395

  9,657

  9,032

  Total

  172,084

  44,937

  25,228

  144,503

  38,894

  n/a = (Not Available) Eastern Region figures counted within south-east figures before 1997–98.

  Safeguarded job figures counted only from 1983–84 onwards.

  All figures are based on information provided by companies at the time of the announcement of the decision to invest. There is no requirement to notify the Department and so the figures include only those projects where the IBB and its regional partners were involved or which have come to their notice. They take no account of subsequent developments.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much inward investment the United Kingdom attracted in each year since 1979 in terms of(a) total investment expenditure at current prices, (b) the number of individual inward investment projects and (c) the number of jobs created or safeguarded as a result. [10979]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: Consistently comparable figures are available only from 1984–85 onwards. According to my Department's Invest in Britain Bureau the number of inward investment successes are as follows:

  Year

  Number of projects

  Total number of jobs

  Total investment £ billion (at current prices)

  1984–85

  349

  44,972

  1.4

  1985–86

  420

  52,157

  1.8

  1986–87

  356

  32,951

  1.5

  1987–88

  363

  64,060

  2.2

  1988–89

  348

  43,633

  2.8

  1989–90

  374

  77,992

  5.4

  1990–91

  364

  84,720

  3.8

  1991–92

  353

  53,626

  3.2

  1992–93

  334

  61,667

  2.5

  1993–94

  433

  100,395

  4.3

  1994–95

  454

  92,048

  8.3

  1995–96

  495

  97,782

  7.5

  1996–97

  483

  93,724

  9.3

  Project successes recorded: The figures above are based on information provided by companies at the time of the announcement of the decision to invest. There is no requirement to notify the Department and so the figures include only those projects where the IBB and its regional partners were involved or which have come to their notice. They take no account of subsequent developments.

  Total investment figures: The total investment figure is based on the information provided by companies. However, some companies do not wish to provide this information. Therefore, the figures above are not complete and only an indicator of the amount of investment into the UK.

  Minimum Wage and Social Chapter
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the minimum wage rates in each of the

  Expenditure on the Science Budget 1979–80 to 1997–98

  £ million

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Cash

  329.4

  394.0

  439.4

  468.7

  503.2

  535.4

  571.0

  602.7

  658.2

  706

  1997–98 prices

  891.8

  901.6

  916.7

  912.9

  936.7

  948.9

  959.5

  983.1

  1,019.3

  1,025.1

  222
  EU and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, expressed in sterling, at (a) current exchange rates and (b) as a percentage of average wages in that country; and what is the current unemployment rate in each country. [11347]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The information requested about wages is not routinely collected by my Department. All the latest figures available to me are set out in the table.

  Country

  Minimum wage £1

  Percentage of average wage2

  Unemployment rates3

  Belgium

  699 monthly

  60

  9.6

  Canada

  £2.17 hourly

  n/a

  9.5

  France

  621 monthly

  50

  12.6

  Greece

  12 daily

  62

  9.7

  Japan

  26 daily

  n/a

  3.6

  Luxembourg

  732 monthly

  56

  3.7

  Netherlands

  651 monthly

  55

  5.4

  New Zealand

  2.45 hourly

  n/a

  5.9

  Portugal

  191 monthly

  45

  7.2

  Spain

  8.84 daily

  32

  20.8

  USA

  2.85 hourly

  39

  4.8

  Notes:

  NA=Not Available.

  1 Converted at current exchange rates 25 July 1997.

  2 Dolado et al Economic Policy No. 23

  3 Eurostat and OECD for May 1997 except Netherlands (May) New Zealand (Q4 1996) and Greece (1996)

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the business organisations that have made representations to her supporting the minimum wage and the social chapter. [11345]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on 5 June 1997,Official Report, column 235.

  Science Budget
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much money in current prices the science budget received in each year since 1979. [11343]

  Mr. Battle
  Details of the science budget since 1979–80 are set out below.
  223

  £ million

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Cash

  814.4

  902.0

  935.6

  1,056.4

  1,163.1

  1,220.5

  1,295.1

  1,319.1

  1,330.4

  1997–98 prices

  1,104.9

  1,133.1

  1,104.7

  1,197.2

  1,280.9

  1,324.1

  1,367.5

  1,355.4

  1,330.4

  1. Data are taken from appropriation accounts and supply estimates.

  2. Expenditure has been repriced to 1997–98 prices using the GDP deflator.

  3. Between 1992–93 and 1994–95 there was a phased transfer of funds from the higher education funding councils to the research councils amounting to £154 million in 1994–95, which was associated with the transfer of responsibility to research council project grants of any remaining direct costs except academic staff salaries and the cost of premises and central computing and an overhead contribution assessed at 40 per cent. of total direct staff costs.

  4. Between 1988–89 and 1994–95 certain expenditure of the Agriculture and Food Research Council and its successor council, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, totalling some £53 million was met from the receipts from the sale of the Plant Breeding Institute and the National Seed Development Organisation.

  Radio Advertising (Wealth Warnings)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will assess the need for wealth warnings on radio advertising. [11121]

  Mr. Griffiths
  I shall shortly issue a consultation paper on the possibility of dispensing with wealth warnings in the broadcast media, along with a number of other proposals for simplifying and clarifying the Consumer Credit Act.

  I need to ensure that any changes could be made without removing necessary consumer protection or adversely affecting competition among the various media.

  Royal Greenwich Observatory
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate she has made of the income from work carried out under contract at the Royal Greenwich observatory; if this is taken into account in the projected savings resulting from its closure; and if she will make a statement. [11077]

  Mr. Battle
  The expected income from work carried out under contract by the Royal Greenwich observatory in 1997–98 is £1.97 million. Expected income in the period 1998–99 to 2001–02 was evaluated and taken into account when the long-term benefit to the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council's programme of restructuring and co-location was determined.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate she has made of the full costs of redundancy payments resulting from the closure of the Royal Greenwich observatory. [11078]

  Mr. Battle
  The Particle Physics and. Astronomy Research Council's report "Future Management of the Observatories" estimated redundancy costs of £5.085 million arising from the restructuring of the royal observatories. The PPARC has indicated that it will minimise redundancies wherever possible.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received regarding(a) the conducting of a full market test of the Royal Greenwich observatory and (b) the consideration of a management-led buy-out of the Royal Greenwich observatory; and if she will make a statement. [11299]

  Mr. Battle
  I have received one representation supporting a market test of the Royal Greenwich observatory and representations from three sources supporting a management-led buy-out. The Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council has made clear 224
  its interest in seeing any proposals which the current RGO management might wish to bring forward for continuing and developing much of the work currently undertaken at the RGO which will not be transferred to the new astronomy technology centre.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment her Department has made of the impact on small businesses of the changes to computer equipment required to accommodate the year 2000. [9533]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 18 July 1997]: The century date change problem is a serious issue which will affect many businesses, large and small.

  Every business should consider whether its crucial business functions depend on IT systems and take action to deal with those systems. The impact will be much more serious if a business fails to take action where action is necessary. Chief executives must take this issue on board now and ensure that the survival of their business is not compromised.

  Industry and Government need to work together to raise awareness and understanding of this problem and I shall be doing all I can to inject a sense of urgency across as wide a section of the industry and commerce as possible.

  My Department is closely involved with Taskforce 2000, a body set up by the Confederation of British Industry and the IT industry, with our financial support, to spread awareness and co-ordinate action. I have asked officials to explore, with the taskforce and industry, what more can be done to help the private sector to tackle the problem.

  On 22 July I hosted the millennium IT skills summit to tackle the shortage in skilled IT staff and I have called for a report on new initiatives in September.

  Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her letter to the right hon. Member for Wokingham on the views of the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs when in opposition, if such views are permitted to be expressed when they conflict with Government policy. [10460]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 25 July 1997]: I shall not determine my policy on the issues currently being considered by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in respect of the holiday travel trade until I have received

  225
  the report and had a full opportunity to consider it. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) had made it clear that he would approach the MMC report with an open mind, but he decided to stand aside from its consideration to ensure that the report would clearly be seen to be considered fairly.

  British Telecommunications plc
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what licence changes the Government propose for BT. [10463]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 25 July 1997]: The Government, in consultation with Oftel, are currently considering the way forward on questions relating to the licence restrictions on BT and other public telecommunications operators, and would expect to publish proposals in the autumn for extensive consultation.

  Internet (Schools)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the issue of the restriction on BT's business currently before the regulator is linked to the question of an Internet connection for every school. [10464]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 25 July 1997]: The Government are considering the issue of the regulatory restrictions which apply to BT, Mercury, Kingston and some other national public telecommunications operators. At the same time, Oftel is in discussion with the whole industry on options for delivering the Government's manifesto commitment to wire up schools to the information superhighway. Both of these issues are of key importance in the development of the UK's information society.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she expects British Telecommunications plc to offer a free Internet connection to every school. [10462]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 25 July 1997]: The Government welcome BT's proposal of a special deal for schools, which aims to link schools to the information superhighway with no connection charge, and provide access to advanced on-line services at affordable and predictable rates. The results of Oftel's current consultation on the proposal will help it to decide how to take the proposal forward so as to get the best possible deal for schools without harming competition. Whatever the final form of the proposal, the same package will be available to all schools who wish it.

  It is of course up to individual institutions to decide whether and how to connect to on-line services, and to decide which services are most appropriate for them. The issue for Government is to make the options available, and to inform schools' choices. This will be promoted by the creation of the national grid for learning, on which we shall be consulting shortly.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the Council of Ministers meetings which took matters handled by her Department since 1 May, and the Ministers who represented the United Kingdom at each. [10326]
  226
  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 24 July 1997]: The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry attended the Research Council on 15 May and the Energy Council on 27 May.

  The Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe attended the Internal Market Council on 20 May.

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Small Firms, Trade and Industry attended the Telecoms Council on 27 June.

  The Minister of State, with Ministers from the Department for Education and Employment attended the Social Affairs Council on 27 June and an informal Social Affairs Council on 3 to 6 July.

  General Affairs Councils have taken trade issues but no DTI Minister has attended since 1 May.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what meetings of the Council of Ministers are planned to take DTI business up to the end of October 1997; and which DTI Ministers will be attending each. [10327]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 24 July 1997]: Ministerial attendance at Council meetings is dependent on the agenda for each meeting.

  A Telecommunications Council may take place on 2 October, which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Small Firms, Trade and Industry would plan to attend.

  An informal Internal Market Council is planned to take place on 3–4 October, which the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe plans to attend.

  There is a Social Affairs Council planned for 7 October, which may take issues relevant to the DTI, in which case the Minister of State may attend.

  General Affairs Councils are planned for 15–16 September and 6–7 October at which trade policy issues may be taken. No decision has yet been taken on attendance by DTI ministers.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she had made of the impact of a single currency meeting the Maastricht requirements on British business. [10923]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: As the Treasury booklet "EMU Practical Information for Business" makes clear, a single currency would be bound to have an impact on British business, whether or not we join. The Government will examine the impact on Britain's national economic interest, to which British business is central, whenever a decision about joining is considered.

  Competitiveness
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the impact of current sterling levels relative to those 12 months ago on UK competitiveness. [10925]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: The Government understand and share the concerns of exporters about the current strength of sterling.

  227
  Competitiveness, however, depends on a range of factors. I am working together with industry to ensure that the whole environment for business in Britain is as favourable as possible.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the advisory group on competitiveness will first meet; and what will be on the agenda. [10927]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: The first meeting of the advisory group on competitiveness is expected to take place in September. The discussion will focus on taking forward the Government's "Competitiveness UK" initiative.

  Manufacturing Exports
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations her Department has received concerning the state of manufacturing exports in the last three months. [10926]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: Ministers and officials in my Department hold regular meetings with members and representatives of the UK business community. Exports are often discussed, and all concerned are keen to see them prosper.

  Advisory Bodies
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the key functions of the technology foresight steering group; when the group was established; by what authority; and if she will list the names of the chairman and secretary. [9635]

  Mr. Battle
  The steering group was set up by the then Minister for Science in 1993 to oversee the planning and subsequent development of the technology foresight programme. Since his appointment in 1995, it has been chaired by the chief scientific adviser, Sir Robert May. The secretariat is provided by the Office of Science and Technology.

  Business Links
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 14 July,Official Report, column 70, what limitations apply under European Community state aid rules in relation to business links support for small firms. [9304]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 23 July 1997]: European Community state aid rules in relation to business link support for small firms apply to those businesses falling within the European Commission's definition of small and medium-sized enterprises.

  SMEs as a whole are defined as having fewer than 250 employees and either an annual turnover up to 40 million ECUs or an annual balance sheet total up to 27 million ECUs. Businesses with fewer than 50 employees are defined as small, with either an annual turnover up to 7 million ECUs or an annual balance sheet total up to 5 million ECUs. In both cases, they should not be more than 25 per cent. owned by a larger enterprise. Finally, the Commission recognises micro enterprises as those businesses with fewer than 10 employees.
  228
  Within this definition, there is no restriction on the level of support to SMEs via the business link network where that support comprises either general information services or initial counselling.

  More substantial assistance, such as consultancy, in-depth counselling or specific skills training, can be funded only up to 50 per cent. of the total cost of that assistance.

  Routine or regular assistance with, for example, accountancy or taxation cannot be supported from public funds as the Commission regards this as part of the normal running costs of a company.

  Biotechnology
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the names and positions of those involved in the UK working party on the European directive relating to patenting and biotechnologies; what timetable they are working to; and what will be the nature of the consultation process relating to this work. [10638]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 24 July 1997]: Delegations to the Council working group dealing with the Commission's proposed directive on legal protection of biotechnical inventions consist of officials from the Patents Office. Personnel may vary according to agenda items under discussion.

  The European Parliament produced its first opinion on the Commission's proposal at its vote on 16 July, and is seeking some 70 amendments to the Commission's text. We expect the Commission to respond with an amended proposal. When this emerges it will be put before the Council working group for discussion. The current presidency, Luxembourg, of the European Union has outlined its programme for meetings of the working group as 10–11 September, 6–7 and 27–28 October, and 6–7 November 1997, although these may vary depending upon the availability of the Commission's amended proposal.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action she is taking to boost biotechnology-based business in the United Kingdom. [10076]

  Mr. Battle
  My Department is fully committed to strengthening our highly successful UK biotechnology industry. This will be achieved by both securing greater exploitation of our science base and by raising the awareness of opportunities offered by biotechnology to a wide range of industrial sectors.

  On 11 July, my Department announced a second call for proposals under two initiatives, with the aim of improving competitiveness in the sector. The business mentoring and incubator challenge is designed to encourage intermediaries to address the management and business skills required by emerging biotechnology companies. The biotechnology exploitation platforms challenge aims to retain the benefits of publicly funded bioscience research in the UK, by promoting better management and exploitation of intellectual property.

  In addition, my Department continues to promote biotechnology research and development in industry through a range of schemes, including SMART, LINK and EUREKA, which are targeted at small firms and collaborative research projects.
  229
  These departmental initiatives help companies to profit from the results of more than £500 million per annum currently spent by the public sector on biotechnology-related research.

  Departmental Payroll
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list each of the functions relating to the payroll for which her Department is responsible, indicating the management systems purchased, all sub-contractors involved in the work, co-operative arrangements with other Departments and the costs of the systems and processes in the last year for which figures are available. [10743]

  Mr. Griffiths
  The Department of Trade and Industry is responsible for all its payroll functions. In discharging these responsibilities the Department utilises a combination of an in-house pay operations unit for gross pay purposes and external contractors for net pay, Chessington Computer Services Limited, and accounting purposes—CSL Managed Services. The information on the costs of systems and processes would be available only at disproportionate cost.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many and what percentage of employees in her private office are(a) of Asian origin and (b) of Afro-Caribbean origin. [9580]

  Mrs. Beckett
  It is not normal practice in my Department to answer questions about small numbers of staff, in order to preserve personal confidentiality unless individuals are content for this information to be provided. Of the 12 staff in my private office two or 17 per cent. are of Asian origin and two or 17 per cent. are of Afro-Caribbean origin.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to change the system of industrial tribunals; and if she will make a statement. [10310]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: The Government are fully committed to the industrial tribunals system, which plays an important role in resolving employment rights disputes. It is important that, where we can, we take steps to improve both the services offered by the tribunals and the system of dispute resolution. To this end the Government are giving their full support to a Bill which Lord Archer of Sandwell introduced in the House of Lords on 9 July 1997. The Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Bill, which received its Second Reading on 25 July, will streamline certain tribunal procedures and will promote voluntary alternative forms of dispute resolution, such as arbitration. These changes, which have been the subject of full consultation, will improve the service offered by the tribunals and give those involved in employment rights disputes additional methods of resolving their disputes.

  Information Society
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what studies have been commissioned, and 230
  what legislation is under consideration, by the European Commission concerning (a) social cohesion and social exclusion and (b) regional cohesion in respect of the information society; and if she will make a statement. [10199]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 22 July 1997]: Details of the European Commission's activities in these areas are set out in the Commission's Communications COM(96) 607 final "Europe at the Forefront of the Information Society: Rolling Action Plan", and COM (97) 7 final "Cohesion and the Information Society", as well as in its Green Paper COM(96) 389 final "Living and Working in the Information Society: People First", all of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The Commission's High Level Expert Group on the Social and Societal Aspects of the Information Society has recently presented a report to the Commission entitled "Building a European Information Society for us all".

  Before 1999, the Commission will propose revised regulations or amendments to regulations for structural and cohesion funds. Elements of the structural funds are used to support projects related to the information society.

  Power Stations
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is her Department's policy towards new applications for(a) oil-fired, (b) solid fuel and (c) gas-fired power stations. [11097]

  Mr. Battle
  When assessing applications made under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 we will address local issues and ensure consistency with the wider objectives of secure, diverse and sustainable supplies of energy at competitive prices and meeting of environmental targets.

  Solar Power
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to increase the proportion of electricity in the United Kingdom generated by solar power. [11285]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke on Trent, North (Ms Walley) on 10 June 1997,Official Report, column 417. We are currently reviewing policy in this area, including what would be necessary and practicable to achieve 10 per cent. of the UK's electricity needs from renewables by the year 2010. The Government's support for solar energy will be considered in the context of this review.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate she has made of the share of the global market in solar power held by British companies. [11229]

  Mr. Battle
  The solar energy—photovoltaic—industry has estimated in its draft strategy, as part of the Government's foresight energy initiative, that UK-based companies currently have 9 per cent. of the world market across the wide variety of PV applications.

  Non-status Lending
  Mr Illsley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will bring forward legislation to implement the guidelines issued by the Director General of Fair Trading on non-status lending. [11183]

  Mr. Griffiths
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmore Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) on 18 July 1997,Official Report, column 372.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if she will list those local authorities in England which fully disregard war pensions when calculating council tax benefits and housing benefit; [9141]

  (2) if she will list those local authorities in England which do not fully disregard war pensions when calculating council tax benefit and housing benefit, indicating the level of disregard applied in each case. [9140]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  I have been asked to reply.

  We do routinely collect information on discretionary local schemes for housing and council tax benefits as any such scheme must be funded from an authority's own resources and, therefore, the decision to operate such a scheme is entirely for local authorities. The information requested is therefore not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

WALES

  Commercial Lobbyists
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) on what dates since 1 May(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department have met commercial lobbyists to discuss matters relating to the business of his Department; and if he will introduce a register of such meetings; [8059]

  (2) on what dates since 1 May (a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department have attended meetings with organisations representing (i) commercial and (ii) non-commercial interests organised by commercial lobbying firms; and if he will introduce a register of such meetings. [8060]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  It is not my intention to hold or attend meetings solely for the purpose of discussing Members' interests and I therefore have no plans to introduce a register.

  Devolution Referendum
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 9 July,Official Report, column 509, concerning the referendum on Welsh devolution, what steps his Department will take to ensure that blind and partially sighted voters are aware of the availability of postal votes before the proposed referendum. [9422]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  My Department will liaise with the Royal National Institute for the Blind and will make information available via the various "talking newspapers" in Wales on the timetable for making applications for postal or proxy votes.

  Employment Advertisements
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how often since 1992 his Department has been responsible for employment advertisements that contained age restrictions on those who could apply. [9498]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Not at all.

  "A Voice for Wales"
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if "A Voice for Wales" represented Government policy. [9881]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I published the White Paper, "A Voice for Wales", on 22 July 1997: it represents the proposals of Her Majesty's Government for a Welsh Assembly and reflects the clear manifesto pledge on which the Labour party in Wales won 34 out of 40 seats in the general election.

  Welsh Assembly
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what estimate he has made of the potential level of saving relating to non-departmental public bodies under a Welsh Assembly that could not be achieved under present arrangements; [9903]

  (2) if he will invite the National Audit Office to validate estimates of savings that can be made in non-departmental public bodies and public services by the Welsh Assembly. [9880]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Our plans for a Welsh Assembly provide both for the rationalisation of non-departmental public bodies in Wales before it is established and the power for the Assembly to continue this process afterwards. I expect that both elements will yield long-term savings in the form of economies of scale, reduced duplication of effort and lower administration costs. However, it is impossible at this early stage to provide a quantified estimate of such savings, particularly as future decisions will be in the hands of the Assembly itself. Our proposals are in line with the election manifesto.

  Mr. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 23 July,Official Report, columns 638–39, if he will ask the National Audit Office to review the estimates and the assumptions used to make them relating to the establishment and running costs of a Welsh assembly. [11164]

  Mr. Davies
  No. As I said in my answer of 23 July to my right hon. Friend, the figures I published are estimates of what the Assembly itself might decide to spend, not Government expenditure plans, and I have clearly set out the assumptions used. It would not be appropriate to ask the National Audit Office to investigate such matters.

  Departmental Payroll
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list each of the functions relating to the payroll for which his Department is responsible, indicating the management systems purchased, all subcontractors involved in the work, co-operative arrangements with
  233
  other Departments and the costs of the systems and processes in the last year for which figures are available. [10737]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  In 1996–97, the last year for which figures are available, the Department's pay section and finance division collated and processed payments in respect of its own staff and the staff of the office of Her Majesty's chief inspectorate of schools in Wales, including basic pay, tax and other deductions, overtime, and so on.

  Staff employed on a casual basis and a number of miscellaneous payments for services were paid by the finance division, all other staff were paid by the Chessington Computer Services Ltd., via the SPIRE system—standard payroll input and retrieval system.

  The total cost of providing this service in 1996–97 was £269,000.

  Quangos
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the quangos for which his Department is responsible and indicate the size of their budgets and the names, dates of appointment and retirement and salaries of all paid appointees. [10749]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The non-departmental public bodies for which the Secretary of State for Wales is responsible are listed, together with total gross expenditure budgets and numbers of board appointments, in the annual Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies". Further details of appointments, including names, dates of appointment and retirement and salaries are published in the quarterly publication "Appointments by the Secretary of State for Wales".

  Copies of both publications are available in the Library of the House.

  Computer-related Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what funding is presently committed from his Departmental budget for(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–00 to resolve the year 2000 computer problem; and whether he will make a statement. [11378]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  There is at present no specifically dedicated budget for this purpose. The Department's main information systems platform is not affected. Remedial work needed on earlier systems is being assessed and any costs will be met from future information systems budgets.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of total departmental expenditure on computer-related current and capital work for(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98, (d) 1998–99 and (e) 1999–00; and if he will make a statement. [11382]
  234
  Mr. Davies
  Present plans for expenditure are as follows:

  Current

  Capital

  1995–96

  2,289,835,55

  919,099.59

  1996–97

  2,384,779.31

  1,741,681.88

  1997–98

  4,897,000.00

  1,000,000.00

  1998–99

  4,897,000.00

  600,000.00

  1999–00

  4,897,000.00

  600,000.00

  Expenditure on computer-related work is kept under review to ensure that it meets my Department's operational needs.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was public spending per head in Wales as a percentage of public spending per head in England in 1996–97. [11358]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Information for 1996–97 will be published in the Treasury's public expenditure statistical analysis in March 1998. Identifiable general Government expenditure per head in Wales was 16 per cent. higher than in England in 1995–96.

  Some 42 per cent. of identifiable Government expenditure in Wales is social security, where a number of economic factors result in high levels of social security expenditure in relation to England.

  Owner-Occupation
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of homes in Wales were owner occupied in each year since 1979. [11192]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Information on the proportion of owner occupied homes in each year from 1979 is given in the following table:

  Proportion of owner-occupied homes in Wales1

  Owner occupied homes (per cent.)

  1979

  59.3

  1980

  59.7

  1981

  62.4

  1982

  63.8

  1983

  64.6

  1984

  65.1

  1985

  66.0

  1986

  66.7

  1987

  67.8

  1988

  69.1

  1989

  70.5

  1990

  70.8

  1991

  70.9

  1992

  71.0

  1993

  71.1

  1994

  71.1

  1995

  71.2

  1996

  71.3

  1 At 31 December. The breakdown of dwelling stock by tenure is estimated from census information, local authority returns and housing association
  returns.

  Water and Sewerage
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what investment Dwr Cymru has made in the water and sewerage system(a) in total and (b) per household in each year since 1987. [11190]

  Dwr Cymru—total capital investment

  £ million

  (1996–97 prices)2

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–971

  Total 1990–97

  Water service

  105.0

  117.1

  116.7

  112.9

  116.5

  110.0

  —

  678.3

  Sewerage service

  84.9

  97.5

  105.5

  82.6

  87.7

  114.6

  —

  572.7

  Total investment

  189.9

  214.6

  222.2

  195.6

  204.2

  224.6

  253.0

  1,504.0

  Notes:

  1 Only total investment in 1996–97 is available in the public domain.

  2 Retail prices index used to obtain 1996–97 prices.

  Source:

  Office of Water Services.

  Dwr Cymru—total capital investment per household

  £/connected property

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–973

  Total 1990–97

  Water service1

  8.4

  9.3

  9.3

  9.0

  9.3

  8.8

  —

  54.0

  Sewerage Service2

  6.6

  7.6

  8.2

  6.5

  6.9

  9.0

  —

  44.8

  Total Investment

  15.0

  17.0

  17.5

  15.5

  16.1

  17.7

  19.9

  98.8

  Notes:

  1 Calculated on the basis of the total number of properties—domestic and non-domestic—connected to the distribution system at the end of the year.

  2 Calculated on the basis of the total number of domestic properties connected to the sewerage system at the end of the year.

  3 Only total investment in 1996–97 is available in the public domain.

  Source:

  Office of Water Services.

  LG Investment
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much LG has announced that it will invest in Imperial park, Newport; and how many jobs this will create. [11263]

  Mr. Hain
  When the project was announced on 10 July last year, LG confirmed its intention to invest £1.7 billion at Imperial park in a project that will create 6,100 new direct jobs.

  Students on further and higher education courses in Wales1

  Academic year

  Open University courses2

  Higher education courses at University of Wales3

  Higher education courses at further and higher education institutions3

  Total higher education courses

  Further education courses at further and higher education institutions

  Total higher education and further education courses

  1979–80

  n/a

  20,789

  12,980

  33,769

  60,712

  94,481

  1980–81

  n/a

  21,667

  13,722

  35,389

  57,783

  93,172

  1981–82

  n/a

  21,300

  14,973

  36,273

  61,668

  97,941

  1982–83

  2,858

  20,888

  15,782

  39,528

  60,158

  99,686

  1983–84

  2,988

  20,050

  17,537

  40,575

  64,751

  105,326

  1984–85

  3,006

  20,486

  18,083

  41,575

  62,257

  103,832

  1985–86

  3,170

  21,520

  19,134

  43,824

  62,821

  106,645

  1986–87

  3,257

  22,674

  19,774

  45,705

  66,981

  112,686

  1987–88

  3,416

  22,886

  20,207

  46,509

  69,837

  116,346

  236
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The information is set out in the following tables. Full report year investment data are not available from 1987–88 to 1989–90. Total investment figures for these years in respect of the Welsh Water authority are given in "Waterfacts 93" published by the Water Services Association, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Higher and Further Education
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many students were enrolled in(a) higher education and (b) further education for each year since 1979. [11189]

  Mr. Hain
  Figures related to the number of students on further and higher education courses in Wales since 1979–80 are provided in the following table:
  237

  Students on further and higher education courses in Wales1

  Academic year

  Open University courses2

  Higher education courses at University of Wales3

  Higher education courses at further and higher education institutions3

  Total higher education courses

  Further education courses at further and higher education institutions

  Total higher education and further education courses

  1988–89

  3,492

  23,167

  21,314

  47,973

  74,622

  122,595

  1989–90

  3,607

  24,577

  22,455

  50,639

  78,813

  129,452

  1990–91

  3,852

  26,170

  23,938

  53,960

  80,270

  134,230

  1991–92

  3,980

  29,487

  27,775

  61,242

  85,004

  146,246

  1992–93

  4,182

  33,112

  33,005

  70,299

  89,688

  159,987

  1993–94

  4,376

  36,390

  37,022

  77,788

  92,851

  170,639

  1994–95

  4,441

  3—

  79,323

  83,764

  100,506

  184,270

  1995–965

  n/a

  3—

  91,022

  n/a

  125,928

  n/a

  1996–975

  n/a

  3—

  93,508

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Notes:

  1 At November or December for further education colleges, higher education institutions or universities depending on the source. At January for the Open university. Excludes courses run by the Workers Educational Association, the Young Men's Christian Association, sponsored institutions and adult education centres.

  2 Data not available prior to 1982–83 and for 1995–96 or 1996–97.

  3 In the autumn 1994 higher education was collected on a United Kingdom basis by the Higher Education Statistics Agency for all higher education institutions (including universities). Data for 1996–97 exclude higher education courses at further education colleges.

  4 Includes Coleg Harlech from 1992–93 and sixth form colleges from 1993–94. Data for 1996–97 are not available.

  5 Data are provisional.

  Sources:

  Further Education Students Record, Open University, Universities Statistical Record, Higher Education Statistics Agency and the Further Education Funding Council for Wales.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much at current prices was spent on the NHS in Wales in each year since 1979. [11193]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The information is as follows:

  1996–97 prices

  Year

  Net expenditure (£ million)

  Uplift factor

  Net expenditure (£ million)

  1978–79

  397.8

  3.075

  1,223.4

  1979–80

  465.5

  2.635

  1,226.6

  1980–81

  598.6

  2.227

  1,333.1

  1981–82

  682.1

  2.031

  1,385.1

  1982–83

  750.2

  1.896

  1,422.1

  1983–84

  796.2

  1.812

  1,442.4

  1984–85

  861.0

  1.725

  1,485.1

  1985–86

  919.5

  1.635

  1,503.7

  1986–87

  988.2

  1.587

  1,568.6

  1987–88

  1,097.5

  1.507

  1,654.1

  1988–89

  1,220.5

  1.413

  1,724.1

  1989–90

  1,324.4

  1.320

  1,748.8

  1990–91

  1,490.6

  1.223

  1,822.4

  1991–92

  1,710.1

  1.149

  1,965.3

  Inward investment into Wales

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  Year

  Projects

  New jobs

  Safe jobs

  Capital investment £ million

  Based on 1996–97 constant prices £ million

  1983–84

  29

  3,185

  1,956

  222,128

  402,406

  1984–85

  50

  4,993

  2,742

  134,060

  231,242

  1985–86

  69

  5,496

  1,433

  151,692

  248,061

  1986–87

  100

  4,578

  3,027

  213,771

  339,335

  1987–88

  103

  8,475

  1,933

  371,638

  560,118

  1988–89

  96

  11,924

  1,527

  1,115.461

  1,575.732

  1989–90

  120

  6,359

  5,986

  593,523

  783,694

  1990–91

  147

  8,907

  6,064

  585,139

  715,381

  1991–92

  208

  9,133

  7,646

  1,155,224

  1,327,615

  238

  1996–97 prices

  Year

  Net expenditure (£ million)

  Uplift factor

  Net expenditure (£ million)

  1992–93

  1,912.9

  1.103

  2,109.8

  1993–94

  1,986.6

  1.072

  2,129.2

  1994–95

  2,076.6

  1.056

  2,192.6

  1995–96

  2,178.3

  1.028

  2,238.5

  1996–97

  2,291.3

  1.000

  2,291.3

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was(a) the total value of inward investment in current prices, (b) the number of inward investment projects and (c) the number of jobs created or safeguarded in Wales by inward investment in each year since 1983. [11262]

  Mr. Hain
  The following table provides details of inward investment into Wales on a financial year basis since 1983–84. The figures are based on information provided by the companies at the time of the decision to invest. They take no account of any subsequent developments.
  239

  Inward investment into Wales

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  Year

  Projects

  New jobs

  Safe jobs

  Capital investment £ million

  Based on 1996–97 constant prices £ million

  1992–93

  201

  6,627

  7,231

  949,462

  1,047,174

  1993–94

  169

  8,081

  5,856

  765,143

  820,054

  1994–95

  131

  5,603

  3,563

  920,742

  972,160

  1995–96

  122

  6,800

  5,848

  976,174

  1,003.138

  1996–97

  136

  13,798

  3,059

  2,954.552

  2,954.552

  Total

  1,681

  103,959

  57,871

  11,108.709

  12,980.52

  Source:

  Columns 1 to 4—Inward investment database managed by the Welsh Development Agency.

  Column 5—Calculations made by the Welsh Office's EcAD.

  Benefit Dependence
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each county council, and for Wales, the latest numbers of those of working age estimated to be dependent on benefits, and comparative figures for the United Kingdom. [8218]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 15 July 1997]: I have been asked to reply.

  Our objectives are to promote work incentives, to strengthen community and family life, and to reduce poverty and welfare dependency.

  The information requested is not available. However, the number in receipt of income support, the safety net benefit of last resort in Great Britain, Wales and counties in Wales is shown in the table:

  Income support claimants aged under 60

  All

  Claimants

  Partners

  Great Britain

  4,524,000

  3,879,000

  644,000

  Wales

  249,000

  211,000

  38,000

  Clwyd

  30,000

  26,000

  4,000

  Dyfed

  28,000

  23,000

  5,000

  Gwent

  39,000

  33,000

  6,000

  Gwynedd

  20,000

  16,000

  3,000

  Mid Glamorgan

  54,000

  45,000

  9,000

  Powys

  5,000

  4,000

  1,000

  South Glamorgan

  37,000

  33,000

  4,000

  West Glamorgan

  35,000

  30,000

  5,000

  Notes:

  1. For the analysis, working age has been defined as below the age of 60.

  2. If the claimant is of working age then the partner, if present, is counted regardless of their age.

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand and as such totals may not tally.

  4. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and as such are subject to a degree of sampling error.

  5. Figures include unemployed people who received income support at August 1996 (pre-dating the introduction of jobseeker's allowance in October 1996).

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, November 1995.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to amend the regulations to allow those on attendance allowance, but ineligible for disability living allowance, to qualify for mobility allowance. [1290]

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make it her policy to adopt a social model of disability in framing all future and amending previous relevant legislation and guidance; and if she will make a statement. [1668]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government recognise the importance of disability living allowance in enabling individuals to enjoy greater dignity and independence. We wish to ensure that the benefits system provides appropriate support to those in greatest need. We are planning to review provision in this area and will announce the scope of this review in due course.

  The mobility element in disability living allowance is intended to reflect the identified need of those who suffer disability before retirement. The extension of the mobility component to those aged over 65 years, the age at which one may be eligible for attendance allowance, would cost an estimated £4 billion for 1997–98 and in the current circumstances it would be unlikely that such a significant extension of entitlement would attract priority.

  Notes:

  1. Estimate is for the full year 1997–98 and is in 1997–98 prices.

  2. Estimate is based on disability living allowance case load statistics and the disability survey 1985.

  3. Estimate is subject to a considerable margin of error and should be treated with caution.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will review the legislative and regulatory provisions relating to entitlement to war pensions in respect of noise-induced hearing loss in addition to the medical and scientific review. [3565]

  Mr. Denham
  The independent review arises solely from our desire to show that the scientific evidence is clear and unambiguous for the purposes of assessing disablement under the existing legislation. We have no plans to review the legal provisions themselves.
  241
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to review the discretion which local authorities have to vary the level of war pension which is disregarded when calculating housing and council tax benefit. [9142]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The present arrangements for disregarding war pensions aim to strike a balance between acknowledging the special reasons for payment of the pension and the proper use of public funds. War pensioners already receive preferential treatment and benefit from many advantages over their social security counterparts.

  The discretion that local authorities have to disregard a war disablement pension or a war widow's pension combined with the statutory disregard afford a special treatment to war pensioners and war widows.

  We have no plans to review the present arrangements for disregarding war pensions.

  Poverty
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the estimated number of pensioner households officially living in poverty in(a) Britain,
  (b) Nottinghamshire and (c) the Gedling parliamentary constituency; and what were the figures (i) 10 and (ii) 20 years ago; [4383]

  (2) what is the estimated number of families officially living in poverty in (a) Britain, (b) Nottinghamshire and (c) the Gedling parliamentary constituency; and what were the figures (i) 10 and (ii) 20 years ago; [4382]

  (3) what is the estimated number of children living in poverty in (a) Britain, (b) Nottinghamshire and (c) the Gedling parliamentary constituency; and what were the figures (i) 10 and (ii) 20 years ago. [4384]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information requested is not available. The policies of the previous Administration led to poverty and social division throughout Britain. The Government are committed to mounting a concerted attack against the worklessness which is causing social and economic inequality and welfare dependency.

  Information on those with low incomes is available in the Government Statistical Service publication, "Households Below Average Income". This annual report seeks to measure potential living standards derived from goods and services financed from disposable income. It provides a range of statistics monitoring the characteristics of people at various points in the income distribution, and describes how changes in income over time have affected particular groups. Complementary information is provided on possession of consumer durables and on household expenditure.

  "Households Below Average Income" was last published in November 1996, and a copy is in the Library.

  UK Pensioners Overseas
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what policy she will adopt on the payment of annual increments to United Kingdom pensioners living overseas. [6155]
  242
  Mr. Denham
  The Government have no plans at present to change the policy that state retirement pensions are uprated only within the European Economic Area and in certain countries with which the United Kingdom has a social security agreement which provides for uprating.

  It would cost some £255 million per year fully to unfreeze those pensions which are not uprated—that is, to bring them up to the rate which would be paid if the pensioners were in the UK. There are competing demands and constraints on social security spending, and it would be wrong to raise expectations that uprating these pensions would be likely to attract priority in current circumstances.

  Compensation Recovery Unit
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to review the workings of the compensation recovery unit. [6874]

  Mr. Denham
  We plan to bring the provisions of the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997 into force on 6 October. The Act will reform the compensation recovery scheme following a report of the Social Security Select Committee. The Act will ensure that compensation in respect of pain and suffering cannot be reduced on account of recovery of social security benefits. It will also protect public funds by ensuring that all recoverable benefits paid as a consequence of accident, injury or disease are repaid by the compensator.

  We will monitor the effects of the reformed scheme and consider whether any further changes are appropriate. In doing so we will have regard to the rights and responsibilities of all parties affected by the benefit recovery process.

  Claimants From Overseas
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people who are the subject of sponsorship undertakings have had(a) income support, (b) housing benefit and (c) council tax benefit (i) refused and (ii) curtailed under the rules brought in by SI 1996 No. 30 Social Security (Persons From Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1996. [7172]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We are committed to a wide-ranging review of the major components of the social security system: our aim is to reduce poverty and welfare dependency and to promote work incentives.

  The information requested is not available as data held on sponsored immigrants' benefits do not specify the reason for the refusal of benefit.

  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people subject to sponsorship undertakings have been awarded(a) income support, as an urgent case, (b) housing benefit and (c) council tax benefit, due to the death of their sponsor. [7180]

  Mr. Bradley
  We are committed to a wide ranging review of the major component of the social security system: our aim is to reduce poverty and welfare dependency and to promote work incentives.

  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows:
  243
  Between May 1996 and April 1997, one person was awarded income support due to the death of their sponsor.

  Information on the number of people awarded housing benefit and council tax benefit is not available.

  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary for Social Security how many asylum seekers have had child benefit (i) refused and (ii) curtailed under the rules brought in by SI 1996 Nos. 2327 and 2530 on child benefit since 7 October 1996. [7173]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We are committed to a wide-ranging review of social security. With the Home Office, the Department of Health and other Departments, we shall consider all arrangements for asylum seekers to ensure they are dealt with fairly and promptly.

  Restrictions, to all persons subject to immigration control and not just to asylum seekers, are applied under section 146A of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. The statutory instruments referred to provide exemption from the general restriction for certain categories.

  Information on the number of asylum seekers whose child benefit claims have been disallowed since 7 October 1996 is not available.

  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many asylum seekers have had(a) income support, (b) housing benefit, (c) council tax benefit, (d) disability living allowance, (e) attendance allowance, (f) family credit, (g) severe disablement allowance, (h) invalid care allowance and (i) disability working allowance 1. refused and 2. curtailed under the provisions of SI 1996 No. 30 Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations. [7174]

  Mr. Bradley
  We are committed to a wide-ranging review of social security. With the Home Office, the Department of Health and other Departments, we will consider all arrangements for asylum seekers to ensure they are dealt with fairly and promptly.

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

  Income support claims from asylum seekers: May 1996 to April 1997

  Income support

  Numbers

  In-country asylum claimants refused income support1

  1,309

  Income support claims from asylum applicants curtailed2

  936

  Notes:

  1 Figures are for those claimants refused income support past the introduction of the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Regulations 1996.

  2 Figures are for those applicants whose income support claims are curtailed as a result of a negative decision by the Home Office on their asylum application post the introduction of the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Regulations 1996.

  Source:

  Clerical management statistics (not validated).
  244
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the costs to the Benefits Agency resulting from the repeal of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. [7558]

  Mr. Bradley
  We are committed to a wide- ranging review of the major components of the social security system. Our aim is to reduce poverty and welfare dependency and to promote work incentives.

  We have made clear that we are committed to a wide-ranging review of social security. With the Home Office, the Department of Health and other Departments, we will consider all arrangements for asylum seekers to ensure they are dealt with fairly and promptly.

  Earnings Limits
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to alter the limit set in 1988 on earnings allowed before such earnings are taken into account in calculations of benefits. [7239]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Government believe that work is the best form of welfare for people of working age. Our welfare to work objectives are to provide work incentives, to reduce poverty and welfare dependency and to strike a new balance between rights and responsibilities.

  Over the next few months we shall be looking closely at all the features of the benefit system which might have an impact on work incentives. A key priority will be to consider carefully support which enables people to make the transition from benefit into employment. We need to encourage those who wish to do some part-time work without creating a disincentive to take up full—time work. This is exactly the sort of issue we will be looking at as part of our welfare-to-work measures.

  Local Councillors
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to review the treatment of local councillors' attendance allowances for the purposes of(a) income support and (b) other benefit entitlement. [7445]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Councillors already receive more favourable treatment in income support and jobseeker's allowance compared with most other claimants, including an exemption from the remunerative work rules. However, we shall be looking at all features of the benefit system as part of our review of social security.

  Pensioner Incomes Review
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how the review of pensioners' incomes will operate; and how much it will cost. [7560]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollock (Mr. Davidson) on 17 July,Official Report, columns 239–41.

  In keeping with our commitment to manage within current cash targets, the cost of the pensions review will be absorbed within the Department's existing running costs limit.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to abolish the jobseeker's allowance. [7564]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Government believe that work is the best form of welfare for people of working age, and our welfare-to-work objectives are to provide work incentives, to reduce poverty and welfare dependency and to strike a new balance between rights and responsibilities. An extensive programme of monitoring and evaluation is under way to enable us to ensure that jobseeker's allowance is achieving these objectives.

  Unemployed People (Borrowing)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she plans to let unemployed people begin borrowing against future earnings; and what estimate she has made of the cost of the scheme in each of the next three years. [7562]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Government believe that work is the best form of welfare for people of working age. Our welfare-to-work objectives are to provide work incentives, to reduce poverty and welfare dependency and to strike a new balance between rights and responsibilities.

  Over the next few months we shall be looking closely at all the features of the benefit system which might have an impact on work incentives. A key priority will be to consider carefully support which enables people to make the transition from benefit into employment.

  Family Credit Take-up
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to increase the take-up of family credit; and how much she estimates this will cost. [7557]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We are committed to streamlining and modernising the tax and benefit systems to fulfil the objectives of promoting work incentives, reducing poverty and welfare dependency and strengthening community and family life.

  We launched the first phase of the new deal for lone parents on 21 July in eight areas across England, Scotland and Wales.

  This will offer lone parents whose youngest child is at school an interview with a personal adviser which will include personalised advice on in-work benefits and in particular family credit.

  We also recently announced that Martin Taylor, chief executive of Barclays plc, will lead a Whitehall task force to review this area.

  Single Room Rent Allowance
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much she estimates that her changes to housing benefit regulations will cost. [7561]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  My. right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 18 June her intention to revoke the extension of the single room rent allowance to 246
  single people between the ages of 25 and 59. This measure was inherited from the previous Administration and they estimated that the savings were £6 million 1997–98, £47 million in 1998–99 and £69 million in 1999–00. The revocation of the measure will therefore cost these sums.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) which rates of non-dependant charges will be increased to fund the withdrawal of the single room rent allowance for single people aged 25 to 59 years living in the private rented sector; and what the increase for each non-dependant rate will be; [10932]

  (2) when non-dependant charges will be increased to fund the withdrawal of the single room rent allowance for single people aged 25 to 59 years living in the private rented sector; and what the transitional protection arrangements will be. [10933]

  Mr. Bradley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced, as part of our commitment to keep spending within the planned ceiling for social security expenditure, our decision to adjust the levels of non-dependant deductions from April 1998, and our intention to protect those in greatest need. A final decision on the levels of deductions will not be taken until our annual review of benefit rates is completed later in the year. We will announce the outcome of the review on non-dependant deductions at that time.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the withdrawal of the single room rent allowance for single people aged 25 to 59 years living in the private rented sector is to be funded solely by increasing non-dependant charges. [10934]

  Mr. Bradley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Burgon) on 2 July 1997,Official Report, columns 207–09.

  The measures announced will ensure that we meet our commitment to keep spending within the planned ceiling for social security expenditure.

  Pensions Entitlement
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the cost of introducing a pensions entitlement. [7563]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollock (Mr. Davidson) on17 July,Official Report, columns 239–41.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the effect on Government revenues in a full year of(a) a £10 and (b) a £100 increase in the real level of the national insurance contribution ceiling. [8199]
  247
  Mr. Denham
  The estimated effects on national insurance contribution revenue for 1998–99 are +£190 million and +£1,505 million respectively.

  Notes:

  1. The figures assume that the weekly upper earnings limit on employees' class 1 contributions would be increased by an additional £10 and £100 from April 1998, and that corresponding increases would be made to the upper profits limit on class 4 contributions paid by self-employed people.

  2. The figures also assume that the additional increases would not be applied to the upper earnings limit used for the calculation of employee and employer contracted-out rebates, that the current 10 per cent. class 1 contribution rate would apply to earnings above the present upper earnings limit and that the current 6 per cent. class 4 contribution rate would apply to profits above the present upper profits limit.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate the effect on Government revenues in a full year of(a) a freeze and (b) a £10 reduction in the level of the 5 per cent., 7 per cent. and 10 per cent. thresholds for employers' national insurance contributions. [8201]

  Mr. Denham
  The estimated effects on national insurance contribution revenue for 1998–99 are +£125 million and +£355 million respectively.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the main taxable benefits in kind which are not subject to national insurance contributions. [8202]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is in the table:

  Type of taxable benefit

  Net amount chargeable to tax (1995–96)

  Private medical insurance

  £650 million

  Ownership of cars and property transferred to employee

  £200 million

  Beneficial loans

  £200 million

  Living accommodation

  £170 million

  Notes:

  1. This figure is likely to include some payments by employers made to third parties on behalf of employees which are subject to class 1 NICs.

  2. Regulations exclude payments in kind, services, facilities and accommodation from class 1 NICs. These are not identical with taxable benefits declared on the P11D but the two are broadly similar and therefore the figures on the right hand side give a good indication of the amounts of taxable benefits not subject to NICs.

  Source:

  Inland Revenue—taxable benefits specifically reported on form P11D.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate the cost to(a) employers and (b) the Exchequer of extending entitlement to statutory sick pay to employees with earnings below the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions assuming that (i) entitlement is at the standard rate of SSP
  248
  and (ii) entitlement is limited to a replacement of normal earnings, giving figures (1) gross and (2) net of any savings in other benefits. [8197]

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

  We aim to ensure a measure of financial help for people during short periods of sickness; to support employers, particularly small businesses, in their administration of the statutory sick pay scheme; and to secure value for taxpayers' money.

  Based upon Government Actuary's Department best estimates of SSP case load, it is estimated that providing sickness cover to employees earning below the lower earnings limit equivalent to the standard rate of SSP would cost approximately £120 million at 1996–97 levels.

  Statutory Maternity Pay
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate the effect on Government revenues in a full year of a 1 per cent. change in the employers' standard recovery rate for statutory maternity pay. [8200]

  Mr. Denham
  We aim to help women balance their careers and family responsibilities; to support employers, particularly small businesses, in their administration of the statutory maternity pay scheme; and to ensure value for taxpayers' money.

  The standard recovery rate of SMP for large employers is 92 per cent. It is estimated that a 1 per cent. adjustment in the standard rate would lead to a change in Government revenues of £5 million in 1998–99. Small businesses are able to recover SMP costs in full.

  Accommodation Costs Review
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will give for the review of regulations restricting the eligibility of single claimants other than young people to accommodation costs(a) the expected completion date and (b) the cost of conducting the review. [8255]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The decision to revoke the regulations, which would have restricted housing benefit for single claimants aged 25 to 59, was announced on 18 June by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  The draft regulations to bring about the change were referred, in accordance with the statutory requirement to do so, on 11 July to the social security advisory committee and the local authority associations for their consideration. Subject to their views, the regulations will be made and laid as soon as possible.

  The review was conducted as part of the Government's overall review of the package of measures we inherited from the previous Administration. It was an internal review, carried out as part of the Government's day-to-day business. I am therefore unable to give a cost which relates specifically to this issue.

  Stationery
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much her Department spent on stationery provision in respect of paper items in each of the last five years. [8868]

  Mr. Field
  Information is not available in the format requested.

  Details of departmental expenditure on printing and stationery in the last five years are as follows:

  1992–93: £45,405,909

  1993–94: £53,417,645

  1994–95: £53,741,136

  1995–96: £64,162,566

  1996–97: £58,229,968.

  Notes:

  1. Departmental expenditure on printing of forms, leaflets etc. and procurement of desk top equipment such as staplers, pens, calculators and paper is brought to account against one general heading of "printing and stationery".

  2. The production costs of instruments of payment—such as order books and girocheques—are not included as a general printing and stationery expense.

  Housing Benefit (Blackpool)
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are currently claiming housing benefit in Blackpool. [8681]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  At the end of November 1996, there were 14,910 recipients of housing benefit in Blackpool. A recipient may be a single person or a couple.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit Management Information System, quarterly 100 per cent. case load count with and without income support taken at the end of November 1996.

  Benefit Disregards
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to vary benefit disregards for the disabled. [8909]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We are committed to a review with the objective of reducing poverty and welfare dependency and promoting work incentives. Provision for disabled people will form part of that review.

  Industrial Injury Benefit
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to review the Social Security (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1997 as they relate to the backdating of industrial injuries disablement benefit, with particular references to the award of benefit to claimants suffering industrial injury from asbestosis or mesothelioma; and if she will make a statement. [8933]

  Mr. Denham
  In our manifesto we promised to build a modern welfare state. The publication of the Social Security Bill on 10 July 1997 was a key step towards this aim.

  We are determined that making a claim should be a straightforward matter for those entitled to benefit. The Social Security Bill provides for equal treatment when claiming social security benefits, including industrial injuries disablement benefit, with entitlement for a past
  250
  period restricted to one month. Those suffering from asbestos related diseases have benefited from improvements to the rules that came into force from 9 April 1997, which include the removal of the 90-day waiting period for sufferers from mesothelioma and the widening of the range of occupations covered for this disease.

  State Earnings-related Pensions
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will give an undertaking that the value of SERPS will be uprated in exact line with prices during the lifetime of the present Parliament. [8991]

  Mr. Denham
  We have announced a wide-ranging review of all aspects of pensions. Our long-term objective is to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to build up an adequate pension to guarantee security in retirement. We will retain SERPS for those who wish to remain in it and introduce a citizenship pension to help people who lose out on pension entitlements because they assume responsibility as carers.

  We aim to build a society in which there is a wide consensus on the future for pensions, both now and tomorrow, and to provide dignity in retirement for the whole nation.

  The Government have no plans to bring forward in the review proposals to change the uprating of SERPS.

  State Pension (Age Addition)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate the cost of raising the addition to the basic state pension for those aged 80 years or over from 25p to(a) £3 per week and (b) £5 per week, assuming no change in the thresholds for means-tested benefits. [9320]

  Mr. Denham
  We believe that all pensioners should share fairly in rising national prosperity and are committed to examine the means of delivering more help to the poorest pensioners—many of whom are over 80. We will retain the basic state pension as the foundation of pension provision, increasing it at least in line with prices.

  The estimated net cost of increasing the 25p age addition paid to those pensioners aged 80 years and over is £200 million and £350 million a year respectively.

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  Source:

  Gross costs provided by Government Actuary's Department. Net costs taking account of income related benefit offsets have been calculated by the Department of Social Security Analytical Services Division.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost of the extra 25p to pensioners over the age of 80 years; what was the cost of its administration in each year since 1992; and what estimate she has made of the cost of each in each of the next five financial years. [11072]

  Mr. Denham
  We have announced a wide-ranging review of all aspects of pensions. Our long-term objective is to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to build up an adequate pension to guarantee security in retirement.
  251
  We aim to build a society in which there is a wide consensus on the future for pensions, both now and tomorrow, and to provide dignity in retirement for the whole nation.

  The 25p age addition is paid automatically to all those in receipt of a state retirement pension when they reach age 80; administration costs are therefore minimal.

  The cost of the age addition paid to pensioners over 80 since 1992 and for the next five years is given in the table.

  Year

  Estimated expenditure on age addition £ million

  1992–93

  29

  1993–94

  30

  1994–95

  31

  1995–96

  31

  1996–97

  32

  1997–98

  32

  1998–99

  31

  1999–00

  31

  2000–01

  32

  2001–02

  33

  1. Estimates have been prepared by the Government Actuary's Department. Recipients of retirement pension, non-contributory retirement pension and industrial industries death benefit are included. Estimates for past years are based on the actual numbers over 80 on each benefit in question.

  2. Estimates are in cash prices and rounded to the nearest £1 million. They relate to the gross cost of the addition, i.e. any income-related benefit effects of not paying the addition are not taken into account.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what percentage of employees in her private office are(a) of Asian origin and (b) of Afro-Caribbean origin. [9583]

  Mr. Denham
  The total percentage of staff working in the Department of Social Security private office who are of Asian or Afro-Caribbean origin is 13.3 per cent.

  Our code of practice on ethnic origin surveys prevents our giving information which will identify individuals; I am therefore unable to provide a further breakdown.

  Income Support
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many (i) single men, (ii) single women and (iii) married couples aged(a) 65 to 69, (b) 70 to 74,
  (c) 75 to 79 and (d) 80 years or over are failing to take up their entitlement to income support; and what amount is unclaimed by each group. [9319]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The position under the previous Administration when up to 1 million pensioners did not claim the income support to which they are entitled cannot be allowed to continue. We are commissioning research to find out whey they did not claim income support.

  The number of benefit units with a head over 60 not claiming the income support to which they are entitled is estimated to be between 810,000 and 1,100,000. The total amount unclaimed is estimated to be between £590 million and £800 million.
  252
  Estimates for the age groups specified for 1994–95 are in the table.

  Numbers not claiming their entitlement to income support (rounded to the nearest 10,000)

  Age

  Single men

  Single women

  Couples

  65 to 69

  10,000

  70,000

  30,000

  70 to 74

  20,000

  150,000

  40,000

  75 to 79

  20,000

  170,000

  40,000

  80 and over

  40,000

  310,000

  40,000

  Amount of income support unclaimed (rounded to the nearest £10 million)

  Age

  Single men

  Single women

  Couples

  65 to 69

  Less than £10 million

  £30 million

  £40 million

  70 to 74

  Less than £10 million

  £80 million

  £30 million

  75 to 79

  Less than £10 million

  £90 million

  £30 million

  80 and over

  £30 million

  £240 million

  £40 million

  1. It should be noted that the true figures may be higher or lower.

  2. Estimation methods are described in "Income Related Benefits Estimates of Take-Up in 1994–95", a copy of which is in the Library.

  3. The estimates for single men and for couples should be treated with particular caution as they are based on small samples.

  4. All estimates relate to 1994–95.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the value of income support for a single pensioner aged 80 years or over as a percentage of average earnings; and what it will be in(a) 2000, (b) 2010, (c) 2020, (d) 2030 and (e) 2040, assuming real earnings growth of (i) 1.5 per cent., (ii) 2 per cent. and (iii) 2.5 per cent. and upratings in line with the retail prices index. [10115]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 24 July 1997]: The policies of the previous Administration have created real poverty, growing inequality and widespread insecurity for pensioners. We believe that pensioners should share fairly in the increasing prosperity of the nation. Our review of pensions is looking at the central areas of pensions insecurity for elderly people. Pensions are of key importance to people's lives and it is vital to build a sustainable consensus on the way forward so that everyone can look forward to a secure and dignified retirement.

  The information requested is in the table:

  Single pensioner's (over 80) income support as a percentage of estimated average earnings

  Real growth of average earnings per year

  Date

  1.5 per cent.

  2.0 per cent.

  2.5 per cent.

  April 1997

  20.6

  20.6

  20.6

  April 2000

  19.7

  19.4

  19.2

  April 2010

  17.0

  15.9

  15.0

  April 2020

  14.6

  13.1

  11.7

  April 2030

  12.6

  10.7

  9.1

  April 2040

  10.9

  8.8

  7.1

  1. April 1997 data based on current benefit rates and the estimated gross weekly earnings of full-time employees from the Office for National Statistics.

  2. The estimates for the future are based on the assumption of no growth in real terms in the value of income support for a pensioner over 80.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are currently in receipt of incapacity benefit in the Bolton, West constituency. [9685]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government strongly believe that for people of working age, work is the best form of welfare. We are committed to giving opportunities to sick and disabled who have some capacity for work to do so. Some £200 million from the windfall levy has been set aside to fund this important programme of work and other measures.

  The information is not available in the format requested.

  As at 28 February 1997, the number of people in receipt of incapacity benefit in the Benefits Agency Bolton, West district was 13,7601.

  Notes:

  1. This figure is based on the 5 per cent. sample of the pensions strategy computer system—INCAP—and does not include some clerical cases which are not held on the system.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her answer of 9 July,Official Report, column 519, on incapacity benefit, if the sum of £200 million will cover measures unrelated to helping sick and disabled people enter the work force. [11166]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government are committed to increasing opportunities to work for people who are disabled or who have long-term health problems. Some £200 million from the windfall levy has been set aside to fund this important programme and other measures. The University for Industry will receive £5 million as start-up funding from the "other measures" element of the package. We are currently considering how to help most effectively those sick and disabled people who want training or work, and will make announcements in due course.

  Asthma
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many registered days of certified incapacity due to sickness and invalidity caused by asthma there were in 1995; and what estimate she has made of the cost in terms of benefits. [10230]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) on 22 July,Official Report, columns 576–77.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress has been made on the code of practice for the purposes of identifying fraudulent claims for benefit; and if she will make a statement. [10394]

  Mr. Denham
  We have, in consultation with other Government Departments been developing a draft departmental code of practice on datamatching. We have undertaken to publish this voluntary code of practice before using new sources of data allowed by the Fraud Act. In line with a previous commitment, we will be offering the draft code to the Data Protection Registrar for discussion before publishing a final code.

  Computer-related Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is her estimate of total departmental expenditure on computer-related current and capital work for(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98, (d) 1998–99 and (e) 1999–00; and if she will make a statement. [11391]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The bulk of the Department of Social Security's information technology-related expenditure is accounted for by the Information Technology Services Agency which exists to provide IT services both to DSS and to certain other Government Departments. ITSA's total actual and estimated expenditure on the provision of such IT services is set out in the table.

  £ million

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Current expenditure

  354.126

  359.251

  356.463

  Capital expenditure

  81.370

  24.100

  23.384

  Of this expenditure, the Department recovers the following sums mainly in respect of services provided to other Government Departments.

  1995–96: £94.573 million

  1996–97: £50.532 million

  1997–98 (estimated): £35.192 million

  Additional departmental IT expenditure, not accounted for by ITSA, is as follows:

  £ million

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Current expenditure

  8.655

  6.846

  7.751

  Capital expenditure

  18.529

  19.612

  18.084

  Detailed spending plans for 1998–99 and 1999–00 have not yet been finalised.

  Compensation Recovery Scheme
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress has been made towards introducing regulations to reform the compensation recovery scheme. [11697]

  Mr. Denham
  We have announced today that the provisions of the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997 will come into force on 6 October. We expect to lay the regulations made under the provisions of the Act in early September. Together, the Act and the regulations will make compensators liable to repay benefits which have been paid as a result of an accident, injury or disease;
  allow compensators to reduce compensation payments to take account of benefit recovery but only where the benefits and compensation meet the same need;
  ensure that compensation paid for pain and suffering cannot be reduced; and
  remove the current small payments limit of £2,500 at or below which benefit recovery does not apply.

  Taxation
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will publish data in the manner of the tax benefit model tables for families whose head is a full-time employee with ranges of gross earnings from £50 to £310 in bands of £20 for(a) a lone parent owner occupier with one child under five years, assuming no child care costs, (b) lone parent owner occupier with one child under five years, assuming child care costs of £40 per week and (c) married couple owner occupier with two children aged under five years and aged five-10 years, assuming no child care costs. [8515]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 17 July 1997]: The information has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parents currently take advantage of the £60 per week disregard for child care costs in family credit, and of these how many she expects to take advantage of the £100 per week disregard introduced in the Budget. [10794]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: As at February 1997, the latest date for which information is available, there were 28,400 lone parents receiving help with child care costs in family credit. Of these, 2,000 lone parents with two or more children have child care costs of more than £60 per week.
  256
  The increase in the maximum allowed child care costs will help those already claiming with two or more children, some further lone parents already working will be drawn into entitlement, and will ensure that work pays for some lone parents not currently working. It is not possible to quantify these behavioural effects with any certainty.

  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will raise the maximum family credit ceiling; and what is her estimate of the number of families which will benefit from the increase in the maximum allowed child care costs. [10918]

  Mr. Bradley
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: The maximum family credit ceiling is reviewed in the uprating order each year.

  As at February 1997, the latest date for which information is available, there were approximately 2,200 families with two or more children with child care costs of more than £60 per week claiming family credit.

  The increase in the maximum allowed child care costs will help those already claiming with two or more children, some further families already working will be drawn into entitlement, and will ensure that work pays for some families not currently working. It is not possible to quantify these behavioural effects with any certainty.

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

Lord Saville of Newdigate
The Right Honourable Sir Mark Oliver Saville, Knight, a Lord Justice of Appeal, having been appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and thereby created a Baron for life, by the style and title of Baron Saville of Newdigate, of Newdigate in the County of Surrey—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Mustill and the Lord Steyn.
Viscount Melville—Took the Oath.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom—Took the Oath.

Prescription Fraud
2.46 p.m.
Lord Calverley Lord Calverley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to implement the recommendations of the National Health Service efficiency scrutiny into prescription fraud and, if so, when.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, the report of the efficiency scrutiny on prescription fraud was published on 19th June. The Government have announced immediate decisions to implement some of the important recommendations, including, for example, security measures in the printing of prescription forms which will come into force next April. We are committed to a comprehensive programme to reduce fraud. At the moment work is going on to establish priorities for implementing some of the other recommendations in the report and we expect to make decisions about those later in the summer.
Lord Calverley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for a very reassuring answer. Unfortunately, some of the thunder has been stolen from my Question, as has just been explained. However, is the Minister aware of an exposé on the BBC "Panorama" programme some weeks ago which highlighted a very serious problem? A small minority of GPs were misusing an archaic paper-sift system by ghosting patients and over-prescribing. In some cases, they were even prescribing to deceased patients. Does she agree that the introduction of a computerised costing system within the NHS would reap great benefit for a cash-strapped service?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I saw the "Panorama" programme to
90
which he refers. It displayed an extraordinarily complex web of fraud within the prescription service, not simply among GPs but sometimes involving patients who nominated themselves for exemption without being entitled to it. I understand exactly what he says about improving the IT systems and indeed the computer systems within that service. It is something which the Government are examining. IT systems are expensive, but, then, so is fraud.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, can the noble Baroness give any figures or a guesstimate of what the powers-that-be consider to be the total amount of money fiddled? Can she confirm that a considerable sum is involved, especially if added to the money being fiddled on housing, as noted in the latest report of the National Audit Office and the Audit Commission? Does she agree that it is no wonder that some vital services in the country, such as the health service, are badly short of funding when money is stolen at such a rate?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, undoubtedly it is a serious problem. The estimate of theft and forgery with prescription forms, which was the subject of the original Question, is that approximately £15 million annually is lost. On patient charge evasion, the sum is in the region of £70 million to £100 million. Clearly, it is money worth saving.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, can the noble Baroness inform the House how many patients have been prosecuted over the past 12 months and how many medical practitioners have appeared before the General Medical Council?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give an answer to the second question about the General Medical Council. I shall write to the noble Lord. I imagine that he refers specifically to the problem of prescription fraud. It is extremely difficult to identify patients who are defrauding the system. People simply present forms and, when asked if they are exempt, claim that they are when they are not. One proposal of the report, which was the subject of the initial Question, accepted by the Government, is that evading charges should become a criminal offence and be subject to the kind of standard fine which is, for example, appropriate for a motoring offence.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a view around that a vendetta is being exercised by the Government against old age pensioners, both current and future? Will she put matters right by giving an undertaking that no charges will be introduced for prescriptions for old age pensioners during the life of this Government?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Baroness is aware, the comprehensive spending review, which is looking at all subjects of expenditure and cost-raising under the NHS, is being undertaken by the Department of Health. There is a firm

91
commitment by this Government to stand by their manifesto commitment that the NHS should be available free at point of need to those who need it.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I am not quite clear about the reply to the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. Am I to understand that the Minister said that this Government are not ruling out the possibility that they will introduce prescription charges for old age pensioners?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, that question is rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper. I gave the general response to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege.

Road Accident Costs: Budget Proposal
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon asked Her Majesty's Government:
If insurance companies are required to pay the "full cost of treating road traffic accidents" as announced in the Budget Statement and pass that cost on to policyholders by way of increased premiums, what effect that will have on the cost of living index and the overhead cost to public transport, the transport of goods and to trade and industry generally.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, under Section 157 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 insurance companies are already obliged to pay the costs of treating road traffic accidents for those who make insurance claims. In the Budget Statement my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the intention to ensure that hospitals actually collect those payments that are due to them. The proposal is to make the process of recovering those sums easier. There will probably be some administrative costs attached to that, but improving efficiency will not have the widespread implications suggested by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, as the Minister says, there was always a right to recoup some of the costs. But how do the Government reconcile the new proposal—the extra collection mentioned by the Minister—with the principle that the National Health Service should be free at the point of delivery, particularly in view of her answer to the previous Question? Also, do the Government have any plans to extend the new tax to other claims against insured third parties for matters such as breaches of safety at work, defective goods or premises, or indeed for train accidents?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. To take her second point first, it is true that the Law Commission made some recommendations on the wider use of this type of recovery of payment. For example, its proposal said that
92
anyone responsible for accidents through negligence should bear the costs. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State told the Law Commission that he is looking at those proposals. As to the specific of the road traffic accidents, it is the insurance companies who pay the costs, not individual patients.

Treaty of Amsterdam: Religious Freedoms
2.53 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they propose to deal with the effect that new Article 6a in the draft Treaty of Amsterdam may have on religious freedoms.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government strongly supported the inclusion of new Article 6a on non-discrimination in the Treaty of Amsterdam. The article is clearly couched as a legal base which allows for future action, and not as a free-standing unrestricted principle. It should not have any immediate or direct effect. Moreover, all measures under Article 6a must be appropriate and are themselves subject to unanimity. We do not therefore believe that the new article will have any detrimental effect on religious freedoms in this country.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. However, will he accept that the new article is a wide-ranging extension of anti-discrimination legislation covering, as it does, religion, sex and sexual orientation? It contains inherent contradictions and could cause serious problems in the United Kingdom, particularly for church schools and, I suspect, for the established Church.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not see that danger. Every measure brought forward under this provision—which we welcome as a declaration of non-discriminatory principles right across the Union—will clearly have to be subject to some definition and recognition that there may on occasion be conflicts between anti-discrimination in one area and freedom in another. However, since all provisions are subject to unanimity, we believe that we can protect all such freedoms by the use of the United Kingdom vote.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, in regard to the Minister's first response to my noble friend Lady Young, if the article has no immediate or direct effect, why do the Government wholeheartedly support it? Why sign it?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we believe that the institutions of the Union should have the right to bring forward measures which end discrimination in countries of the European Union. We have long advocated the extension of the gender discrimination provisions under the European Union treaties to areas of race

93
discrimination, as is the case in this country. The article widens that to certain other areas and we supported that also; for example, disablement.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that the article states that the conclusions will have to be unanimously agreed? Presumably therefore any change in any of the provisions set out in Article 6a will need unanimous agreement before any progress can be made.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. Any specific measure will require unanimity.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is there any move to harmonise the definition of religion throughout the European Union? Is the Minister aware that in some countries of Europe, such as France and Germany, religions have to be registered to be allowed to function, whereas in this country they can be formed ad hoc and do not have to ask anybody's permission?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is correct in that there are different legal definitions of "religion". Were a proposed measure to emerge under this area of anti-discrimination on religious grounds, there would be formidable definition problems. However, they would not be insuperable. After all, in Northern Ireland we have the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act based on non-discrimination on grounds of religion. Though some noble Lords may think that there are only two religions in Northern Ireland, I can assure the House that in that Province there are many sects and mainstream religions. It has caused no problem there. I believe therefore that we can take measures under this provision.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that, even though matters under Article 6a may have to be agreed by unanimity, if they were so agreed, this Parliament would have no say in their implementation? Indeed, even if this Parliament were violently opposed to those measures, it could do nothing about them.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, this Parliament has powers to direct its Ministers when they go into the Council of Ministers. That is the role of national parliaments in relation to conclusions on all areas of European legislation. Indeed, the treaty provides for a longer period for this Parliament to give its views on any proposals for legislation. However, at the end of the day it is the Council of Ministers who decide, on the basis of a Commission proposal and subject to the agreement of the European Parliament, whether such legislation will go through.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, perhaps I can pursue my noble friend on that matter. My noble friend said that our Ministers and the Council of Ministers would be under direction from this Parliament. If that were so, I should be extremely happy. If the Labour
94
Government have any proposals to do that, I shall gladly support them. However, as I understand it, at the present time the position is that this Parliament cannot in fact direct; it can only advise.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, if I used the word "direct" it was a slight exaggeration of the position. Nevertheless, the position must be in this as in other areas of legislation that national ministers are responsible to national parliaments and report back to their national parliaments. But at the end of the day, the European Council, on the basis of Commission proposals, proposes European legislation; accountability is to the European Parliament for that legislation and not to the national Parliament.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that all these measures merely add to the grounds on which one cannot discriminate? One can still decide things on grounds of merit or on grounds of reasonability as long as one does not discriminate. What is wrong with that?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for making the position absolutely clear. That is precisely why we supported the article and why we believe that the European Union, in adopting it, is moving in the right direction.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, associated with Article 6a is the Declaration to the Final Act which states:
"The Union will respect and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in the Member states".
Does that mean that extreme organisations and cults could apply for legal status; for example, charitable status? Can the Minister assist the House by applying his ingenious mind to defining the "philosophical organisations" which are referred to in the Declaration to the Final Act? I have given him notice of that last question out of courtesy. If he can help the House by defining which "philosophical organisations" might come within this context, it will be appreciated.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is beyond me to define "philosophical organisations". The declaration to which the noble Lord refers is, thankfully, not legally binding and therefore is not subject to the same legal definition as any measures under the article would be. As I understand it, it was included because of the concern for humanist organisations in France and Belgium to be treated by the European institutions in the same way as religious organisations. The declaration also includes a reference to "non-confessional organisations", a point which I thought the noble Lord might raise. I wondered whether the Conservative Party was looking for protection under the article as a "non-confessional organisation" on the grounds that it never admits its mistakes.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, some Members on both sides of the House will welcome what the noble Lord had to say about Ministers signing up to directives in

95
Europe. If Parliament is to have a say in directing or advising Ministers before they do so, that is to be welcomed. The previous government did not recognise scientology as a religion. Is it the case that the present Government will not recognise scientology as a religion? Whatever decision they come to or declare in response to my question, would it be possible under these arrangements, as my noble friend suggested, for scientology to go to Europe and gain recognition as a religion there, over and above the view of the United Kingdom Government?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I have said before, the definition under any measure will require some negotiation. There will be different national practices. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, in some countries religions have to register. In this country religions do not have to register. There are different legal provisions for different types of religion. In certain respects, the Church of Scientology is not respected as a religion in this country in the way the mainstream Churches are. However, the final version would depend on the particular measure and on the discussions regarding different national practices. We are a long way off that point and it would be dancing on a pinhead to decide it now.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of the Government's avowed support of complete transparency in all these matters, can the noble Lord give the House particulars as to the source of this proposal and whether it was given serious consideration after consultation, whether co-ordinated or otherwise, through the party channels in the various member states, which presumably have some connection with the public? Will he give some idea as to the actual impact the article will have on the ordinary people of Europe?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, of itself this article simply allows further measures to be brought forward. The direct and immediate impact is therefore very small. However, the noble Lord will be interested to know that in 1995 the Labour Party in its policy documents agreed that the provisions of the European Community relating to sex discrimination should be extended to race discrimination. That was a major motivation for this article. We also received strong representations from both gay organisations and disabled organisations. That was reflected in other countries, which is why the Dutch Presidency came up with a fairly wide-ranging article. In fact, originally, it was the Irish Presidency which produced the article.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord did not answer my question. Do the Government endorse the previous government's view that scientology is not to be considered a religion in the United Kingdom?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is probably a question for the Home Office rather than the Foreign Office. However, there is no current intention to change the position.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that what prevents scientology being recognised as a religion at present is a decision of the Court of Appeal?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that to be so; in which case I had better not comment any further.
Baroness Young: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that many of us regard this issue as very serious indeed? It really is not good enough to say that it all depends on definition or that it all depends on trusting the decision at the time. There are inherent conflicts where there are two lots of anti-discrimination legislation—on religion and on sexual orientation—and where in some instances one would take priority over the other. The Government should look far more carefully at all of this before signing on the dotted line to something which could cause a great many difficulties.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that we will look very carefully at any propositions under this article. However, democracy and all law making are about resolving potential conflicts. The Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which is a model for the rest of Europe, excludes Church ministers and Church employees from its effects. I suspect that other countries besides ourselves would insist on a similar exclusion from any measure proposed under this article, which is simply a legal base at this point.

Geneva Conventions (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Avebury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill
3.7 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 2 [Referendum in Wales]:
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 16, leave out ("Welsh Assembly") and insert ("National Assembly for Wales").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I find myself virtually sitting on the Labour Benches due to the crowding of the House. The purpose of the amendment is to replace the words "Welsh Assembly" with the words "National Assembly for Wales". Without anticipating tomorrow's debate on the White Paper, I wish to stress that this Third Reading amendment is generated by enthusiasm for the White Paper and for the wording within it.
The purpose of the amendment is to assert the fact that the proposed assembly is not a Welsh assembly, a Welsh nationalist assembly, a Welsh socialist assembly, a Welsh Liberal Democrat assembly or a Welsh Green assembly but that it is in all senses a national assembly.

97
It is a national assembly in terms of its international relations to be effected through the European dimension of the White Paper; it is also a national assembly through its internal regional organisation within Wales.
The formulation "National Assembly for Wales" is a closer rendering of the actual White Paper than the wording at present on the face of the Bill. Indeed, within the White Paper itself the phrasing "an Assembly for Wales" occurs on a number of occasions. I notice that the Minister in another place, Mr. Peter Hain, in Friday's debate, in fact referred on a number of occasions to the assembly as being an assembly for Wales.
To be more specific, I shall briefly indulge in some linguistic argument. Welsh connotes both language and identity: Wales connotes both. An assembly for Wales indicates a national institution for all citizens of the Principality without reference to linguistic or ethnic affiliation. An assembly for Wales is not about national identity or affiliation; it is about all the residents of Wales who will be able to vote in the referendum. To specify the assembly as an assembly for Wales, as the Welsh language version does, it would be Cynulliad i Gymru rather than Cynulliad Cymreig. For a Welsh assembly, the adjective "Welsh" would be Cymreig whereas an assembly for Wales, as rendered in the Welsh language version, is of course an assembly for Wales. This is not merely a point of translation. It emphasises the inclusiveness of the proposals in the White Paper and the need for an inclusive debate in the referendum.
The use of the word "national" is also important. This is a European regional assembly. It is, and will be, a United Kingdom regional assembly. I, for my part, have no problem in describing Wales as a region and indeed a European region; an economic region of the United Kingdom. But to use the favourite expression of the BBC, it is also a national region, a phrase used by that organisation to apply to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is national in the sense that it represents the cultural aspirations of an historic nation, which are resolved politically through a regional structure within Europe. That is why I say that it is a national assembly and not a nationalist assembly.
I say that advisedly because I am a little tired, sitting on the Cross-Bench, to be chastised by opponents of the Bill for advocating Welsh independence or a nationalist solution and for being the advocate of a slippery slope. I support the White Paper because it represents a consensus of opinion in Wales. Any further development of the constitutional structure of Wales is a matter for the United Kingdom Parliament—it cannot be otherwise—and therefore it cannot be a slippery slope. It is not a nationalistic assembly proposal, but a national assembly. The national aspirations of Wales can be perfectly accommodated within the United Kingdom and the European Union.
The other purpose of the amendment is to assert that the national aspirations of Wales are no threat to the United Kingdom and its integrity. We can have within our union state of the United Kingdom—which is not any more, and never has been in any real sense, a unitary
98
state—national assemblies which have a validity, speaking for the nations of that kingdom without creating any threat to the unity of the kingdom but propagating the national diversity which has always been the nature of this state.
For the life of me I cannot see why the Conservative Party has not tabled its support of this amendment. I understand that that party, in the person of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. William Hague, has declared unequivocally that it is now prepared to accept that if the people of Wales and Scotland vote for their parliament and assembly that decision shall remain on the statute book and unchallenged by the party. Clearly, if there is to be a Conservative intervention in this short debate, I hope that that assertion can be confirmed for it seems to me that we now need to build a consensus for the kind of constitutional change in which we are involved. If Conservative Members are to nominate candidates and to stand for the assembly and the parliament, then surely it is hypocritical of them to campaign—as apparently they are still doing—against the establishment of such an assembly and parliament. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, the noble Lord almost invites a challenge from these Benches. I have to tell him that I have a good deal of sympathy for his case that the assembly should be called a national assembly if the people of Wales decide that they want it. My criticism of the amendment is that it is moved at the wrong time and to the wrong Bill. In my view it is perfectly reasonable—an amendment having been won—for the Bill to come before this House again. If it helps the noble Lord I am happy to say that if the referendum is won I will accept the verdict, but it will not stop my pressing for examination of the Bill with care and possibly moving amendments and suggesting improvements. The moment for doing so is when we have a Bill bringing forward the legislative proposals.
Indeed, the noble Lord almost made the point when he began to elaborate on his case. He drew attention to the fact that, in his view, it will be a European assembly. He pointed to the internal arrangements. He says that it is all in the White Paper. We were only allowed to see the White Paper when we had virtually completed examination of the Bill. The noble Lord responding to our debates has stonewalled stalwartly throughout our consideration of the Bill on the grounds that the White Paper will be debated in due course and that these matters are not for the referendum Bill.
It is a pity in a way that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, spoilt his case when he argued that we were not going down a slippery slope and that there was no threat in the legislation to the unity of the United Kingdom. He began to spell out in some detail his party's view that the nation which is Wales was going to be a nation which was part of Europe rather than a nation which was part of the United Kingdom. He gave just a little bit away.
I maintain that what the noble Lord is really trying to do is to find another way of influencing the result of the referendum. He is trying to insert into the referendum

99
Bill a particular point of view and to put into the Bill matters arising from the White Paper, which we have not yet debated. That is wrong in principle. If the people of Wales vote for an assembly, and we then have a Bill and the noble Lord comes forward with an amendment at that stage to call it a national assembly, I for one would be inclined to support him. There are so many Welsh institutions that we describe in those terms. I would find no difficulty in supporting his amendment at that time. However, I find the greatest difficulty in supporting it today.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, knows perfectly well, as I do, that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, has a very considerable intelligence and intellect. However, he is not so Machiavellian, I believe, to have the motivation that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, implies. It seems to me that to suggest that it would be an advantage in the presentation of the case for a "yes" vote to change the name is neither here nor there.
It is far better that we reconsider whether the institution will be best described as the "Welsh Assembly" or as the "National Assembly for Wales". The Government should reconsider this because it seems to me that, for the reasons advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, the body would be better described as the "National Assembly for Wales". That would be better than the description "Welsh Assembly" because in Wales the description "Welsh" often implies that a person is Welsh-speaking. As there may be other implications, I think that it would be far better to use the much more neutral term "National Assembly for Wales".
Over 30 years ago I introduced into another place a Bill to give a domestic parliament to Wales. I was reminded of that when the Library found a copy of that Bill, which had been drafted by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, knows, my noble friend is a much better draftsman than I am which is why I entrusted him with the drafting. I noticed that it was called the "Government of Wales Bill", but I believe that the wording suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, is rather better—and it is better than the Government's first proposal. All that I am suggesting to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is that the Government should reconsider the matter and possibly return to it later. As I have said, it would be a considerable advantage to have the proposed wording.
Lord Parry: My Lords, I have no difficulty whatever in supporting all of the arguments that have been put forward so cohesively and persuasively by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. The only problem is that the amendment has taken not only me but the whole House by surprise. The timing is crucial as so many papers have been prepared based on the old assumptions which the noble Lord is now asking to be corrected.
I was chairman of the Wales Tourist Board—not the "Welsh Tourist Board", for precisely the reasons that the noble Lord has outlined. Like other noble Lords,
100
I think that "National Assembly for Wales" is a better title. I support that view totally and hope that the Government can go some way towards giving us an assurance that they will consider making such a change despite the fact that they might be defeated by the time schedule.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Hooson and Lord Elis-Thomas, about a change of title. I do not know whether it is possible to make the change at this stage, but I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, recognise that, very sadly, over the past 20 or 30 years a rather racist and ethnic approach has crept into Wales. As has been said, the new proposed name for the assembly should create the right impression. Surely that is most important. I warmly welcome what the noble Lord said.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, I have listened most carefully to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, and others who have spoken in this short debate. The argument for the amendment has been well made and I believe that it has some power. It is perhaps unfortunate that we are faced with this amendment at this stage of the Bill's journey because it is now relatively late in the day.
As the noble Lord knows, the Government have already published their White Paper on their proposals. The sub-title of that document is, "The Government's Proposals for a Welsh Assembly", and we are preparing a leaflet for households using the same terminology. I think that it would be misleading for the public if, having flocked to the shops to buy copies of the White Paper and having become familiar with the Government's proposals for what is described as the "Welsh Assembly", the ballot paper instead asked them for their views on the "National Assembly for Wales". That would introduce a degree of confusion. We have worked hard, and shall continue to work hard, to avoid confusion and to ensure that the electorate is well informed.
I am afraid that these amendments, however well intentioned, would undermine our efforts and would possibly jeopardise the ballot. However, perhaps I may suggest that these arguments might properly be deployed during consideration of the legislation setting up the assembly—subject, of course, to the people's endorsement of our proposals. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, now that I have moved back to the Cross-Benches, I am continually surprised by the way in which this House listens to arguments, having spent 18 years next door in another place. I welcome particularly the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and his endorsement for the notion that, if established, the assembly would be a national institution alongside all our other national institutions. I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Hooson who has long campaigned for Wales

101
(in all senses of the word) and for Welsh institutions. I am grateful also for the support of my noble friend Lord Parry.
My only suggestion for my noble friend Lord Sewel, for whom I obviously have the utmost respect because there cannot be any more difficult role than that of sociologist turned politician, is that perhaps the strapline, "An Assembly for Wales", might feature regularly in the campaigning in Wales as a mode of information rather than disinformation. It would help to ensure that the inclusiveness, on which all noble Lords have commented, is reflected in the campaigning. I emphasise particularly the importance of ensuring that the Government's campaign is seen as an inclusive campaign for the creation of another national institution. It should not be seen as a Labour Party campaign—I am certain that it will not be seen in that way—but nor should it be seen as an anti-Conservative campaign. I am a little concerned that some Labour campaigning for the assembly might appear to be a campaign to exclude Conservatives from Welsh politics. That should never be the case because, as we have seen today, the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, is almost as much of a lower case Welsh nationalist as I am. On those grounds, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Expenditure]:
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Section 1(2)]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 19, after ("HAVE") insert ("INCOME").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 3, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 4. These are procedural amendments which I should have moved on Report after your Lordships had made a decision on an earlier amendment, but I am afraid that, as I am still in the nursery school of opposition, I withdrew them instead of moving them, so I beg to move them now.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 22, after ("HAVE") insert ("INCOME").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Section 2(2)]:
[Amendments Nos. 5 to 10 not moved.]
Schedule 3 [Section 3]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 6, line 41, at end insert—
("(3) It is the returning officer's general duty at a referendum to do all such acts and things as may be necessary for effectually conducting the referendum in the manner provided by this Schedule.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, following the contribution just made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, perhaps I should say that Amendments Nos. 11 to 42 are minor technical amendments to
102
improve Schedule 3 which was added on Report. They are simply good housekeeping amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, we now come to Amendments Nos. 12 to 42 and I should mention to your Lordships that, if Amendment No. 42 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 43 and 44.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendments Nos. 12 to 42 en bloc:
Page 9, leave out lines 26 to 28.
Page 9, leave out lines 45 and 46.
Page 10, line 3, column 2, after ("votes") insert ("on his own behalf').
Page 10, line 6, column 2, leave out ("voting") and insert ("electoral").
Page 10, line 7, column 2, leave out ("voting") and insert ("electoral").
Page 10, line 9, column 2, leave out ("voting") and insert ("electoral").
Page 10, line 13, column 2, leave out ("voting") and insert ("electoral").
Page 10, line 37, column 2, leave out ("voting") and insert ("electoral").
Page 10, line 38, column 2, leave out ("voting") and insert ("electoral").
Page 11, leave out lines 3 to 6.
Page 11, line 25, column 2, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").
Page 11, line 49. column 2, at end insert—

("The lists maintained in accordance with paragraph 3 of Schedule 5 to the 1983 Act shall have effect for the purposes of a referendum; and any person shall, before a referendum, be entitled at all reasonable hours to inspect those lists or a copy of them.")

Page 13, line 8, column 2, at end insert—

(", and

(b) for subsection (5)(a) and (b), and the words in subsection (5) after paragraph (b), substitute "for or within any voting area where, or in relation to which, the illegal practice occurred.

(5A) In subsection (5) "voting area" means a local government area in Scotland or a county or county borough in Wales.".")

Page 13, line 9, column 1, at end insert ("(application for relief)").
Page 13, line 12, column 1, at end insert ("(incapacities on conviction of corrupt or illegal practice)").
Page 13, line 13, column 1, at end insert ("(mitigation of incapacities, illegal payments, & c., and prosecutions)").

103
Page 13, line 13, at end insert—

("Section 177 (summary trial)

For "in the county in which the local government area for which the election was held is situated or which it adjoins" substitute "in the county or county borough where, or in relation to which, the offence is alleged to have been committed".")

Page 13, leave out lines 42 to 45.
Page 14, leave out lines 9 and 10.
Page 14, line 23, column 2, at beginning insert ("In paragraph (1),").
Page 15, line 3, column 2, at beginning insert—

("The reference in paragraph (a) to section 66 of the 1983 Act shall be construed as a reference to that section as modified in Table 1.")

Page 16, line 15, column 2, after ("referendum") insert ("in this electoral area").
Page 16, line 35, column 2, after ("fwrdeistref") insert ("sirol").
Page 16, column 2, leave out lines 46 to 50 and insert—

("for "yr etholiad hwn ac yn yr etholaeth hon" substitute "y refferendwm hwn yn y rhanbarth etholiadol hwn".")

Page 19, line 3, column 2, at beginning insert—

("In subsection (5) for "constituency or, as the case may be, electoral area" substitute "local government area in Scotland or county or county borough in Wales".")

Page 19, line 8, column 2, leave out ("the") and insert ("a").
Page 20, line 28, column 2, at end insert—

("For subsection (5) substitute—

"(5) A person is not entitled to vote as proxy in any electoral area in a referendum on behalf of more than two electors of whom that person is not the husband, wife, parent, grandparent, brother, sister, child or grandchild.".")

Page 24, line 23, column 2, at end insert'

("and (b) for "Constituency" substitute "Local government area".")

Page 24, leave out lines 27 and 28.
Page 28, line 30, column 2, leave out from ("D") to end of line 59 on page 29 and insert ("shall be construed as a reference to the form of proxy paper in the Appendix to this Schedule.").
Page 30, column 2, leave out lines 27 to 49 and insert—

(""2. Read the ballot paper carefully. On the ballot paper mark a cross (X) in the box to the right of the proposition you are voting for. Put no other mark on the ballot paper or your vote may not be counted. If you cannot vote without

104

assistance, the person assisting you must not disclose how you have voted.",")

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 not moved.]
3.30 p.m.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 30, column 2, leave out from beginning of line 53 to end of line 15 on page 31 and insert—

(""2. Darllenwch y papur pleidleisio yn ofalus. Ar y papur pleidleisio rhowch groes (X) yn y blwch i'r dde o'r gosodiad yr ydych yn pleidleisio drosto. Peidiwch â rhoi unrhyw fare arall ar y papur pleidleisio neu fe all na chaiff eich pleidlais ei chyfrif. Os na fedrweh bleidleisio heb gymorth, rhaid i'r person sy'n eich cynorthwyo beidio â datgelu sut yr ydych wedi pleidleisio.",")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 45.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendments Nos. 46 and 47:
Page 36, line 5, leave out ("at the same referendum") and insert("in any electoral area").
Page 36, line 25, at end insert—

PROXY PAPER: REFERENDUM IN WALES
REFERENDUM
REFFERENDWM
PROXY PAPER
PAPUR DIRPRWY
County / County Borough
Sir / Bwrdeistref Sirol
Electoral Area(s)
Rhanbarth(au) Etholiadol
Polling District
Dosbarth Pleidleisio
Penodir
Name of Proxy
Enw'r Dirprwy
Address
Cyfeiriad
is hereby appointed as proxy for (name of elector)
drwy hyn yn ddirprwy dros (enw'r etholwr(aig))
who is qualified to be registered for (qualifying address)
sy'n gymwys i'w gofrestru/i'w chofrestru ar gyfer (cyfeiriad cymhwyso)
to vote for him/her at
i bleidleisio drosto/drosti yn
the referendum on (date)
y refferendwm ar (dyddiad)
Signed Date
Llofnod Dyddiad
Electoral Registration Officer
Swyddog Cofrestru Etholiadol
[Address
cyfeirad]

YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE AS PROXY

  EICH HAWL I BLEIDLEISIO FEL DIRPRWY
  1. This proxy paper gives you the right to vote as proxy on behalf of the elector whose name is given overleaf.
  1. Rhydd y papur dirprwy hwn hawl i chi bleidleisio fel dirprwy dros yr etholwr(aig) a enwir drosodd.
  2. Your appointment as proxy will be for the referendum only. You have the right to vote as proxy only at the referendum specified in the proxy paper.
  2. Penodir chi yn ddirprwy ar gyfer y refferendwm yn unig. Mae gennych hawl i bleidleisio fel dirprwy yn y refferendwm a bennir yn y papur dirprwy yn unig.
  3. Prior to the elector applying to have you appointed as proxy you should have been consulted and asked if you were capable of being, and willing to be, appointed as proxy, or you should have signed a statement to the effect that you were capable of being, and were willing to be appointed as proxy. You are capable of being appointed as proxy if you are at least 18 years old on polling day, a British or other Commonwealth citizen, a citizen of any other member state of the European Union, a citizen of the Republic of Ireland and not for any reason disqualified from voting. If for any reason you are not capable of being, or are not willing to be, the proxy please advise the elector, without delay, in order that the elector may cancel the appointment.
  3. Cyn i'r etholwr(aig) wneud cais i chi gaol eich penodi yn ddirprwy, dylid bod wedi ymgynghori â chi a gofyn i chi a oeddech yn gymwys i fod yn ddirprwy ac yn fodlon i gad eich penodi, neu dylech fod wedi Iloinocli datganiad eich bod yn gymwys i fod yn ddirprwy ac yn fodlon i gael eich penodi. Yr ydych yn gymwys i'ch penodi yn ddirprwy os ydych yn 18 oed o leiaf ar y dyddiad pleidleisio, yn ddinesydd Prydeinig neu'n ddinesydd un arall o wledydd y Gymanwlad, yn ddinesydd un arall o aelod-wladwriaethau yr Undeb Ewropeaidd, yn ddinesydd Gweriniaeth Iwerddon a heb eich gwahardd rhag pleidleisio am unrhyw reswm. Os nad ydych, am unrhyw reswm, yn gallu bod yn ddirprwy neu yn fodlon cael eich penodi yn ddirprwy, rhowch wybod i'r etholwr(aig), yn ddioed, er mwyn i'r etholwr(aig) ddileu'r penodiad.
  4. You may vote as proxy at the polling station allotted to the elector on whose behalf you are appointed. However, you may not vote as proxy in any electoral area for more than two electors of whom you are not the husband, wife, parent, grandparent, brother, sister, child or grandchild. Shortly before polling day you will be sent a proxy poll card telling you where the polling station is. You do not need to take either the poll card or this proxy paper to the polling station but you may find it helpful to do so. You should note that the elector may still vote in person. If a ballot paper is issued to the elector at the polling station before you apply there for a ballot paper as the proxy, you will not be entitled to vote as the proxy.
  4. Cewch bleidleisio fel dirprwy yn yr orsaf bleidleisio a bennwyd i'r etholwr(aig) y penodwyd chi drosto/drosti. Er hynny, ni chewch bleidleisio fel dirprwy mewn unrhyw ranbarth etholiadol dros fwy na dau o etholwyr nad ydych yn ŵr, gwraig, rhiant, tad-cu neu fam-gu, brawd, chwacr, plentyn, ŵyr neu wyres iddynt. Ychydig cyn y dyddiad pleidleisio anfonir cerdyn pleidleisio dirprwy atoch yn dweud Ile mae'r orsaf bleidleisio. Nid oes angen i chi fynd â'r cerdyn pleidleisio na'r papur dirprwy hwn gyda chi i'r orsaf
  106
  bleidleisio, and hwyrach y bydd o gymorth i chi wneud hynny. Sylwer y caiff yr etholwr(aig) ddal i bleidleisio yn bersonol. Os rhoddir papur pleidleisio i'r etholwr(aig) yn yr orsaf bleidleisio cyn i chi wneud cais yno am bapur pleidleisio fel y dirprwy, ni fydd gennych howl i bleidleisio fel y dirprwy.
  5. You may also apply to vote by post as proxy at the referendum if the Electoral Registration Officer is satisfied that you cannot reasonably be expected to vote in person at the elector's polling station.
  Any application to vote by post as proxy should be made on Form DR93 which may be obtained from the Electoral Registration Officer. You should note that the Electoral Registration Officer cannot allow an application to vote by post at the referendum if he receives it after 5.00 pm on the eleventh working day before the poll.
  5. Cewch wneud cais hefyd am bleidleisio drwy'r post fel dirprwy yn y refferendwm os yw'r Swyddog Cofrestru Etholiadol yn fodlon nad yw'n rhesymol disgwyl i chi bleidleisio'n bersonol yng ngorsaf bleidleisio yr etholwr(aig).
  Dylai unrhyw gais am bleidleisio drwy'r post fel dirprwy gaol ei wneud ar Ffurflen DR93 y gellir ei chael oddi wrth y Swyddog Cofrestru Etholiadol. Sylwer na all y Swyddog Cofrestru Etholiadol ganiatáu cais am bleidleisio drwy'r post yn y refferendwm os daw'r cais i law ar Ôl 5.00 pm ar yr unfed diwrnod gwaith ar ddeg cyn y bleidlais.
  6. It is an offence to vote, whether in person or by post, as proxy for some other person if you know that person is subject to a legal incapacity to vote (eg if that person has been convicted and is detained in a penal institution in pursuance of his sentence).
  6. Mae'n drosedd pleidleisio, boed yn bersonol neu drwy'r post, fel dirprwy dros ryw berson arall os gwyddoch fod y person hwnnw yn methu yn gyfreithiol â phleidleisio, (e.e. os yw'r person wedi'i gollfarnu ac wedi'i gadw mewn carchar yn unol â'i ddedfryd).").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  In the Title:
  [Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 not moved.]
  3.33 p.m.
  Lord Sewel: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. At Second Reading I said that this Bill was short and simple. Following the amendments on Report which changed the Bill from six to 36 pages, I can hardly claim that it remains a short Bill. It is however still in essence a simple Bill. It provides for the people of Scotland and Wales to be asked whether they support our proposals for a Scottish parliament and a Welsh assembly. It also sets out the detailed provisions for the conduct of the two referendums.
  This Bill has been the subject of far-ranging debate over the past few weeks. Your Lordships have scrutinised it thoroughly and without the many frivolous amendments that have been encountered in another place. Amendments have been moved in an attempt to promote debate on a range of important subjects, including eligibility to vote, broadcasting, the provision of information to voters, thresholds and the machinery for future referendums.
  We have listened carefully to the arguments that have been advanced and have set out why we believe that our approach is right. The merits of including provisions for the conduct of the referendum in the Bill have been examined, and we have been pleased to do that.
  There are areas in which your Lordships' House has disagreed with the Government. Another place will shortly examine those areas. We have made it clear that for very good reasons we intend to hold the referendums

  107
  in Scotland and Wales on 11th and 18th September respectively. Subject to the views of another place, we intend that the amendment passed in Committee which requires the referendums to be held on the same day should be overturned. Similarly, subject to the views of another place, we intend that the amendment passed on Report relating to income tax should be overturned on the ground that it is both unnecessary and undesirable.
  It is worth noting that the time spent by this House on the Bill is greater than that spent on either the Referendum Act 1975 or the relevant provisions of the Scotland and Wales Acts 1978. I make no complaint about that. The quality of the debate in your Lordships' House has, as always, generally been of the highest order. For the most part the debate has focused on the issues relating directly to the referendums rather than devolution more generally. In particular, the Opposition Front Bench should take credit for focusing the debate so clearly on the substance of the Bill.
  It is customary on an occasion like this to thank all those who have contributed to the consideration of the Bill. I am more than happy to do so on this occasion. One should also recognise that there are those who appeared as major figures in the debate but who were not physically present in your Lordships' House. The Italian waiter has become an old friend. I feel that I have developed a close, but perhaps not enduring, relationship with the daughter of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. Most of your Lordships have made admirable contributions to the debate. As we have moved on, many substantial and proper contributions have been made, as befits your Lordships' House in scrutinising such an important piece of legislation.
  This Bill is in a very real sense a beginning on the way to the establishment of a Welsh assembly and a Scottish parliament. Tomorrow we have a debate on the White Papers. We on this side of the House look forward with confidence to the passage of the substantive Bills. There will be plenty of opportunities for noble Lords to continue what has been a good-humoured and courteous yet serious debate on the topics that we have been addressing over the past few days. I suspect that we shall not want for opportunities to take forward the debate in the days and perhaps evenings that lie ahead. At this stage, I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Sewel.)
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, for his kind remarks. This has been something of a learning curve for both of us. I have had to learn how to deal with Bills from this side of the House, having developed some bad habits in dealing with a fair number of Bills from the Government Front Bench. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, has had to learn how to deal with Bills from the Government Front Bench.
  As I indicated a few minutes ago, I made a small mistake at Report stage in failing to move some amendments that I should have moved because they were consequential to a previous decision. It reminds
  108
  me of earlier proceedings involving the late Lady Seear. At one stage in a particular Bill I accepted one of her amendments. Lady Seear was so surprised that she rose but did not automatically move it. There was much whispering to suggest to her that she should move it. Whenever I think of Lady Seear I shall always remember that little incident. I have made my little mistake and I shall learn from it. I shall make sure that I look at the amendments on the Marshalled List more carefully later on, especially when I have had a small victory over the Government.
  I hope that when we come to deal with the Scotland Bill Ministers will have learned a little from this one. Perhaps we can engage them a little more in the debating process and a little less in just textual analysis of the amendments.
  I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas, who has dealt with Welsh matters, and all of my noble friends who have taken part from the Benches behind me. I should like to pick out in particular my noble friend Lord Crickhowell for the part that he has played in looking after the Welsh situation.
  I should like to make two points which have nothing to do with the technicalities or the small print of the Bill but have everything to do with what I believe to be two larger issues. First, I am still not in the least convinced that referendums should form part of our constitution, but I accept that the Government were elected on a manifesto that clearly indicated that there would he a number of them. Having said that, I believe that if one must sin—having referendums under the present system is probably a bit of a sin—one should do so, if I may dare say it in the presence of the Bishops Bench, properly and have post-legislative referendums, not pre-legislative referendums. If "Yes" votes are recorded in either Scotland or Wales, or both, when the Bills come before us perhaps we should consider whether we should insist on having post-legislative referendums before the detailed proposals, not the White Paper, are implemented.
  My second point relates to the amendments moved today by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel. Your Lordships can observe from all the amendments to Schedule 3 that have been moved today that it is not an easy task to amend the Representation of the People Act, which is designed for general elections and local elections, to accommodate referendums. That may be a perfectly satisfactory way of doing it if it is a one-off. However, as we are promised a fair number of referendums, I appeal again to the noble Lord and to his colleagues in Government to think seriously about my proposal and that of the Commission on the Conduct of Referendums that there should be a proper referendums Act so that in one easily understood statute can be found all of the rules for the conduct of referendums.
  Anyone who wants to study the rules for this referendum will have to sit with the Act and with the Representation of the People's Act and thread their way from one to the other to see what is in, what is not in and what is in that has been amended. That is not a good way to do business. It is not a good way to run referendums. I understand why the Government would

  109
  not accept my request on this occasion, but they have a good few months before we come to the next referendum. I appeal to them to think seriously about a referendums Bill. Perhaps through the usual channels we can find a way to get it passed without a long war of attrition so that when we come to further referendums we will not have to have these large schedules which to most of us are double Dutch. I hope that the Minister will consider that. With those thoughts, I shall leave the issues upon which we Scots will have to decide these matters until tomorrow.
  Lord Hooson: My Lords, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, I would say that the best way of dealing with the problem of referendums is not to have any in the future, rather than to formulate rules which will encourage referendums in this country. If one wants weak governments, the way to get them is to have more referendums.
  I congratulate the Government. In their manifesto they set out to achieve a certain end, and they have achieved it. It is no mean achievement. I have struggled for many years in Parliament to try to achieve something of the kind that the Government have achieved in the Bill. Everyone who has taken part is to be congratulated on that achievement.
  Various changes have taken place during the course of debates on the Bill. We have heard, for example, from the Conservative Benches an acknowledgement of the great benefits of the secretariats for Scotland and Wales and of the service given by various Secretaries of State. I acknowledge that. I am only sorry that originally the Conservatives, because they were so frightened of change, were opposed to having Secretaries of State for Wales. I see two distinguished former Secretaries of State on the Conservative Benches. One is my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, and the other the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. They are both distinguished former Secretaries of State.
  During their time, the Welsh Office grew out of all recognition in Wales. They saw the development of Cardiff as a capital city, and that made all the difference. During the Bill's passage I said that one of the reasons why the Conservatives did badly in Wales was that they had overloaded some quangos with a disproportionate number of Conservatives. I have never heard it suggested that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, or the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, were guilty of that fault. I feel that I should say that publicly.
  We have seen other changes as well. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. William Hague—I believe rightly, and I congratulate him on doing so—has stated publicly that the Conservatives have no intention of trying to reverse the decision, whatever it may be, of the electorate on the referendums. That is an important development. He has also said that he has reversed Opposition policy of opposing an elected mayor for greater London. That is an important development. It would be marvellous if he were to go a little further on the Bill so that it is given a good send-off, reconsider his position and withdraw his opposition in principle to the two Bills.
  110
  One of the worst arguments I have heard is that the Bill, or its consequences, could lead to the break-up of the UK. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have far too great a common heritage. We share many similar views. That does not mean to say that the Government of the UK should be centralised entirely, and that because we have a common heritage we do not also have important differences. It is a natural process to give Scotland much greater control over its domestic affairs and Wales a real say in its own government in the future.
  It is ridiculous that a party such as the Conservative Party, which gained 20 per cent of the popular vote in Wales, does not have one MP. That is because of its opposition to electoral reform over the years. A Welsh assembly will give the Conservative Party a fair representation in Wales because of the provision for proportional representation. There will be Conservatives in the assembly dealing with day-to-day affairs in Wales. That is an important step forward.
  This has been a worthwhile exercise. I congratulate the Government Front Bench, the Conservative Opposition Front Bench, everyone on the Cross-Benches and my colleagues on their part in the debate which has been conducted, in the main, in a highly constructive manner and marks an important achievement for the UK.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Beloff: My Lords, I wish to break in briefly to complain about this universal atmosphere of congratulation which seems to have engulfed the House in respect of the Bill. As I indicated at an earlier stage, I find a Bill intended to alter the constitution of the UK in which those who inhabit the largest part of the UK are excluded from a voice wholly unacceptable. Even if everyone in all parties thinks that it had been a marvellous affair, perhaps I may say that I do not.
  Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sewel and Lord Williams of Mostyn, for their continuing courtesy and help throughout the Bill's passage. I have some brief comments to make upon events which have happened in the past five days so far as concerns Scotland; that is, since Report stage last week. The White Paper was of course published. There are many questions there which are unanswered, and hidden problems, although we were told to wait for the White Paper to see what was in it. We shall have an opportunity to discuss that at length tomorrow.
  I must remind noble Lords that the referendum on 1st March 1979 was on a particular scheme already incorporated in the Scotland Act 1978. Electors in Scotland then were able to see and discuss that Act, warts and all, and then to vote upon it. This time a referendum is to be held before a draft Bill has even been seen by Parliament. Some electors in Scotland may be attracted by the ideas set out in the White Paper between now and 11th September but later find themselves opposed to the scheme that emerges as an Act.
  A referendum on the final proposals, after the legislative process, would produce a better measure of the Scottish electorate's views. I am critical of the

  111
  Government for giving the public the impression that the creation of such a parliament within a unitary state (the UK) is easy and for not warning that it is a difficult operation to carry out.
  The Labour Government, between 1975 and 1978, found it difficult, and demonstrated how complex a task it was when it all collapsed early in 1979. Given that there will be a referendum on general propositions in September, I regret that there was not a third proposition in the Scottish referendum; that is, the option of independence. That proposal was discussed in our earlier stages. It would have recorded approximately the amount of support for independence, as distinct from devolution as proposed in the White Paper.
  Two days ago, since the Report stage, the leader of the SNP announced that that party had decided to advocate "Yes, yes" in the referendum for the two propositions. He made it clear that he was doing that only because he regarded a Scottish parliament on the proposed lines, which he described as a puppet parliament, merely as an unstable and divisive stage, not a settled solution. In his view, independence would be easier to attain in the contentious circumstances which he foresaw if the proposals went through.
  A previous leader of the SNP, Gordon Wilson, had been urging the party not to vote "Yes" but to insist on the complete independence for which the SNP has always stood. It seems that "Yes" votes in the referendum are likely to include considerable numbers of people who dislike the ideas in the White Paper but who want Scotland to be a completely separate country.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I shall be brief. Far be it for me to move away from the amiable atmosphere at the end of this Session, but I am desperately worried that we should be discussing the White Paper tomorrow, it not having been discussed previously. What has happened is that we have had an amiable debate. It has not been a very constructive one. It has been rather tedious at times and there has been a good deal of shadow boxing because the substance has not been there. It will not be there even tomorrow. I have read the White Paper and I shall not go into it. I protest against this form of debate. I hope that the substance will be before us on any future occasion before we have to consider what is, yes, a simple Bill but a skeletal Bill with no substance.
  I wish to make one other point, again briefly. It is perfectly plain that the Government wish a "Yes" answer to the first question. But surely they want an authentic and a true answer. What they have done is to devise a form on the first ballot which is bound to give—I do not say "intended to give" because that is an unkind and unnecessary allegation and I do not make it—a flawed answer. We know, and we knew before what was said by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, about the Scottish Nationalists. We knew long before that they would vote "Yes" because, although they are separatists wanting independence, they would see it as a step towards their goal. There can be no way that the votes can truly be segregated to produce an authentic and fair result which the
  112
  Government can truly consider in order to implement their policy. That seems to me to be unfortunate in the extreme and, unfortunately, we do not have the multi-option as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, and in another place by my right honourable friend Mr. Michael Ancram.
  Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene in the debate between the Campbells. In this Third Reading debate I do not regret that we are not debating tomorrow's subject today. I am purely in favour of debating today's subject today. What we are debating today is the Third Reading of the referendums Bill on Scotland and Wales. Perhaps I may say with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that he never seems to spoil a good argument by getting it accurate. There was a whole host of inaccuracies in the noble Lord's submission to your Lordships today.
  I intervene in the debate to offer my warm and sincere congratulations because it is right and proper that we on this side of the House should do so. I offer them to my noble friends Lord Sewel and Lord Williams of Mostyn for the way in which they have conducted the debates throughout the consideration of the Bill.
  My noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn and I were introduced into your Lordships' House on the same day. I knew as we were taking part in the rehearsals that my noble friend was headed for the highest heights. Anyone who moves from chairman of the Bar Council to the high and elevated position of Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Home Office must have made progress.
  I knew that my noble friend Lord Sewel was headed for the highest heights, too. Anyone who can move from the Faculty of Medicine and Law at Aberdeen University to become Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Scottish Office is headed for the highest heights.
  I have enjoyed the debates on the Bill and I believe that my two noble friends in particular deserve eternal credit. Furthermore, my noble friend Lady Farrington, who has acted as Whip on the Bill, deserves credit for the way she has conducted the proceedings.
  I have always recognised the debating skills of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I have never doubted them. The one thing that I have doubted about the noble Lord is the quality of his amendments. As the Bill has passed through your Lordships' House, there has been no doubt in my mind that those amendments have reduced in quality. We heard about the Italian waiter in Glasgow; we heard all about the noble Lord's daughter in Italy; we heard about the sliding scale thresholds in the referendum; and we heard about the unfranked ballot papers. There was a stage during our debates when I came firmly to the conclusion that the noble Lord was quota hopping in red herrings!
  Be that as it may, no one can say that your Lordships' House has not considered the Bill seriously. Therefore, it returns to the other place for consideration of the amendments that have been made. More importantly, it goes to the Scottish people, who in my view will record a resounding "Yes, yes" vote. In my view, the people of Wales too will record a resounding "Yes" vote.

  113
  On Thursday of last week I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, saying that he hoped that at this time next year we were not bogged down in controversial legislation. As I look around your Lordships' House I can say with some confidence that most of us would express the hope that we are here at this time next year. Whether or not we are bogged down in controversial legislation, at least we shall be here!
  I look forward to a resounding, "Yes, yes" vote in Scotland and to this time next year when we shall have Royal Assent for the primary legislation which will lead to the creation of a Scottish parliament. I make no secret of the fact that for more than 30 years that has been my ambition. I am not in favour of referendums, and in that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, and I share the same view. I believe that it is alien to the British constitutional way of life. I am not in favour of referendums, but that is the chosen path, and therefore I shall support it.
  Perhaps I may return to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, about the Scottish National Party. I agree with Gordon Wilson, the Vice-President of the SNP, for reasons different from those which he quoted. He says that the SNP should have stayed out of the campaign because he believes that it will damage the SNP. I believe that the SNP should have stayed out of the campaign because it will damage the campaign. I believe that it will damage a "Yes, yes" vote. I say now that I shall not share a platform with any Scottish National Party member in the referendum campaign.
  Therefore, I agree with Gordon Wilson that the SNP should have stayed neutral and should have stayed out of the campaign. I am not in favour of referendums in any shape or form. But in my view this Bill has been conducted brilliantly by my noble friends on the Front Bench and I am honoured today, from these Back-Benches, to place on record my tribute to my noble friends Lord Sewel and Lord Williams of Mostyn, and also to Lady Farrington, who acted as a Whip on the Bill.
  4 p.m.
  Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, I did not think that the Bill was necessary. I did not want it but because of a promise made by the Government, I have backed it all the way through. I cannot join in the love-in between the Front Benches. We have wasted the most enormous amount of time. I am extremely glad that it is over. Some good arguments have been put forward, even by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. But the amount of time that we have spent on a simple enabling Bill has been quite ridiculous. It is a good Bill because I hope—in fact, I am sure—that it will lead to better things. But for me the best thing to come out of it is the fact that "referendum" is now an English word and we talk about "referendums" instead of "referenda".
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, if anything could have shaken my adherence to devolution, it would have been this enabling Bill. If anything could have
  114
  reconciled me to this Bill, it would have been the conduct of the two noble Lords who are its promoters in your Lordships' House.
  I say that it is a demeaning Bill. In the first place, it is unnecessary. That was declared roundly on Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, and was repeated on a number of occasions by other Liberal Democrats subsequently. Today, I believe for the first time, the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, with whom I generally agree, seemed to think that this is a useful Bill. On the other hand, he was followed by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, who considers that it is not worth discussing at all. It is worse than useless. It is demeaning because time and again issues have been fudged. They have been fudged in order that the vote of the Scottish National Party shall be added to those who support the limitations of the White Paper and to secure an overwhelming vote. That overwhelming vote, which is hoped for in Scotland and which I think is likely, will then be used to bully the Welsh into following suit.
  Of course, everybody knows that an earlier election can influence a later one. American primary elections are a very good example of that. But we had our own example in this country. At one time the general election was held over a period of days—I think it was a week or 10 days. But it was found that the earlier results unacceptably influenced the later ones. Therefore, we now have a general election with all votes cast on the same day without difficulty. This Bill has been improved by stipulating that the two elections shall be on the same day so that neither can influence the other.
  The other major improvement is the insertion of the words "income tax". The Government wish to have tax-varying powers because the Scottish National Party want to erect customs offices along the Border which will then be a frontier. Therefore, members of that party will vote for tax-varying powers but they may not vote for income tax-varying powers because that is a limitation.
  Therefore, in those two respects, the Bill has been improved although I am afraid that it is still full of fudge and political intrigue. The hand of the back-room boys is very strong on this Bill—those who have achieved influence by mounting the back stairs: the spin doctors.
  It is pleasant to turn from that to those noble Lords to whom we owe so much. In the first place, that is the two ministers. My recollection of debating goes back to Winston Churchill, Michael Foot, Crossman and fain Macleod. I hope I may say without seeming impertinent that although the technique of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, is different from those others, he gave a consummate example of how what I regard as a weak case can be put forward attractively.
  I should like to pay a particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. Unfortunately, I was not present last week but I read his speeches with considerable emotion. What he seemed to do was to breathe into what is now known as "vacuant Blairism" a warmth, a conviction and a pride in the country which ennobled the whole of the theme with which we are now concerned.

  115
  From the Cross-Benches, I must say also how much we owe to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, in his conduct of this Bill. I am sure that he was right about what he said about referendums or referenda, and for once, I disagreed with the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. I believe that they have a place in a democratic parliamentary constitution. But it needs to be thought out. That was the first thing that should have been done as we approach the various constitutional matters. Instead of wasting our time on what the Liberal Democrats almost unanimously said is an unnecessary Bill. We should have thought out in what circumstances a referendum, particularly an immediate post-election referendum, can be justified; how far pre-legislative referendums are justified; and how far it is an advantage, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said, to have a post-legislative referendum. After all, when one comes to think of it, that is by far the most democratic expedient.
  There is one other noble Lord whom I must mention: the Chief Whip. Chief Whips are universally unpopular. From the Cross-Benches, I must say that we have been done proudly by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. He has given us time to debate this measure which is the concomitant of your Lordships allowing a government to get through their business. I was very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, reciprocated so that that business was dealt with on schedule.
  The last thing that I should like to say is how much I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that what we have missed is the English dimension, which is very important. I said that that was the last thing, but I should like to add something else. I believe that the supporters of the Bill have altogether underestimated their danger from the Scottish National Party. Any body of radicals is always liable to be outbidden by those who are more radical. One has only to think of the deputies from the Gironde at the French Revolution—all their radicalism and all their commanding gifts did not prevent their being bundled into the tumbrils and having their necks severed at the guillotine.
  I am sure that the Government's supporters in the Scottish parliament—which I think we shall have—will find themselves in the very uncomfortable position of being constantly taunted for not standing up to Westminster, for not fully implementing their powers, and so on. I am very glad that the Conservatives are going to take their place in that parliament. That will make it very much easier for those who support the White Paper.
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I am rather relieved that my noble friend Lord Beloff has left the Chamber and is no longer seated immediately behind me. I say that because he may feel that, in thanking the Ministers for the way in which they have handled the business, I am somehow joining in a love-in. I should like to take this opportunity to thank the Ministers for the courteous and sometimes disarmingly charming way in which they responded to debates. However, they had every reason
  116
  to do so in the face of the rather remarkable handling of such matters by my noble friends on the Front Bench on this side of the House. They produced some formidably good amendments, but did so with great wit to the great delight of the whole House.
  However, having thanked the Ministers for their charm and courtesy, I should like to make a few further points. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, might have been better placed at Headingley over the past few days rather than in this House. He certainly plays with an extremely straight, defensive bat; indeed, he was so straight and defensive with his bat when responding to one particular amendment that I felt moved to press it, even though I never intended to do so when entering the Chamber. In all my time in Parliament, I do not think that I have ever received such a non-response to points made.
  I should tell the noble Lord that, if another Bill comes to this House after the referendum, he will not be able to get away with that again. If that happens, we shall expect our debates to be responded to in detail. Quite clearly, if the people vote for an assembly, we would accept that verdict. However, that does not mean that we would have to accept everything that the Government chose to offer and that we would not he free to criticise the Bill, to examine it and, if necessary, to amend it. I should like to make it absolutely clear that, if we were to get another Bill, I shall be doing just that.
  The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, said that I was in some form a Welsh nationalist. I should tell the noble Lord that, certainly in the non-political sense, I am proud to be a Welsh nationalist, just so long as I am able to be equally proud of being a British nationalist. If the intended legislation after a referendum were to go through, I fear that the Britain I love might be disrupted. I believe that we are on a course which is extremely dangerous.
  One of the most fascinating aspects of our debates in recent weeks has been the revelation of the strength and character of the new Lib-Lab alliance. We no longer share the Benches on this side of the House with the other opposition party. Now that its leader sits in a Cabinet Committee, clearly it has sold its soul. It has displayed an extraordinarily strong support for the Government during recent weeks; indeed, a stronger support than we saw from almost any Member on its own Benches.
  However, having said that, I should add that I was extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, for acknowledging one point; namely, that the accusation made that quangos were unreasonably packed could not be made about my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir or myself. In fact, in this House of all places, it would be rather hard to sustain the charge. I say that because we have here two examples of "quangdocracy". We have one or two representatives on the Benches opposite who represented the old Labour quangos before we came to power and who sat on those quangos without almost anyone else but Labour colleagues. In the days of Lord Haycock, that was the way that things were done.

  117
  We also have on the Benches opposite—and I am delighted to see him here today—my noble friend, as I persist in calling him, Lord Parry of Neyland, who was renewed in his chairmanship of a quango by me after I had taken office; just to prove that we have an open mind on such matters. However, that is something for debate on another occasion.
  I have one further thought to put before the House. I should like to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, who commented that we had debated the matter for longer than was the occasion in 1978. Well, of course, we have done so. On that occasion we were tacking a referendum on to a Bill which set out the detail of what was being put to the people. We were dealing then with a post-legislative referendum; what we are confronted with today is a pre-legislative referendum. I agree with everyone who has criticised the principles of pre-legislative referendums. In my view, they are entirely wrong in principle and should not be pursued again; indeed, I hope that they will not be.
  So we come to the end of these proceedings and we shall debate the White Papers tomorrow. It seems to me to be wrong that the White Papers should have been introduced into this House so late in the Session. Both White Papers, which will be crucial to the understanding of the electorate when it comes to vote, were presented so late that they cannot be properly debated in Parliament. There has, of course, been a debate in another place: but it took place on a Friday, which meant that it had to end at 2.30 p.m., and thus 12 Welsh Members were unable to speak. Nonetheless, that debate produced some notable speeches. I hope that everyone in this House—and, indeed, the electorate of Wales—will read the two distinguished contributions by Mr. Alan Williams and Mr. Denzil Davies. They are two of the most powerful speeches that I have ever read on the subject and were delivered by two very experienced former Ministers. If anyone thinks that the Government have an easy ride ahead of them, he should read those speeches. As I said, tomorrow we shall debate the White Papers in this House. When I last checked the speakers' list, I counted 35 names upon it. In my opinion, it is a disgrace that Parliament should be treated in this way and that, during the last week before we rise for the Summer Recess, we should be forced to have a debate on such an important constitutional matter—a debate which, by its very definition, will be inadequate. If I have praised the Ministers for their charm and courtesy, I must also point out to them that they have a pretty tough case to defend when it comes to the manner in which the Government have handled the whole affair.
  Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, as one of the speakers in tomorrow's debate I am not sure I like to hear it dismissed as inadequate before we have even had it. I look forward to the debate very much. I rise at this stage of the Bill to join in the tributes which have been paid to my noble friends Lord Sewel, Lord Williams of Mostyn and Lord Hardie for the way they have steered this Bill through the House. I add my
  118
  voice to that of the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, on the role that she has played.
  This is an important Bill. I am delighted that it has now almost passed through your Lordships' House. However, I cannot help feeling much sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said. I believe that some of the highways and byways that we went up and down in the course of discussing the amendments to this Bill were not helpful. I doubt whether all of them were necessary. Of course, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for his usual debating skills and the deftness with which he made his amendments sometimes appear more relevant than they were. I am particularly grateful to him for introducing a new element in Scottish politics; namely, the Italian waiter. I recently spent a few days in Northern Italy where I had an enjoyable time canvassing Italian waiters to see whether I could find one who had a vote in the referendum. I am sorry to report that I did not find such a person.
  Noble Lords: Oh!
  Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I refer to Italian waiters who work in Italy but who could still go backwards and forwards to Scotland and be entitled to a vote there. Nothing is too far-fetched as regards some of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. Therefore I do not see why what I have just said should be too far-fetched. As I said, I did not find an Italian waiter who had at any time established residence in Scotland. Although I did not find one who was entitled to vote in the referendum, I certainly had a great deal of enjoyment trying to find that out.
  I look forward to campaigning on the referendum, to the referendum itself and to a positive result. I look forward to the two Bills which will be introduced into Parliament to establish a Scottish parliament and an assembly for Wales, or a Welsh assembly. We all know what we mean by that. This is an important Bill and we should all be happy that it has gone through this House.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope that when the noble Baroness goes canvassing in Scotland she will make it clear to the voters that the taxes which they pay, especially the income tax, may well go up if there is a Scottish parliament. I rise to put one point only, a very important constitutional point which I do not think has yet been raised in this short debate. It seems to me to be undemocratic as well as unconstitutional that a major change of the kind envisaged, especially in Scotland, could take place with the consent of only a small minority of the voters. We were told by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, last week that one is enough—a majority of one person. That is to say that the votes in favour and the votes against are what have to be compared. But supposing the total vote expressed by the people amounts to only 25 per cent. of the electorate. It would be absurd to make the changes in those circumstances.
  This, we are told, is an advisory referendum. The Government have a duty to tell your Lordships now, if they have made up their minds—which I hope and

  119
  suppose they have—what percentage of support from the people of Scotland they would regard as adequate for such a major constitutional change. Without that knowledge the people ought not to be invited to vote at all in this referendum. It is a vital matter and I hope we shall be told what the answer is.
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I shall talk about the White Paper tomorrow, not this afternoon. I think that many of our debates on this Bill have been enormously enjoyable, particularly those on the amendments of my noble kinsman Lord Mar and Kellie. I also enormously enjoyed, in common with many of your Lordships, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, moving his amendments. It was a joy to listen to him and I would not have missed it for the world.
  I cannot say how much I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, who thinks that it has all been a waste of time. Can such enormous enjoyment ever be a waste of time? If we did not sometimes enjoy things in this House I do not know how we would survive.
  I entirely agree with what the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Croy, Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Renton, have said. I am sorry that the Government have been so intransigent over some of our amendments, none of which were in any way wrecking amendments. I refer in particular to those regarding the dates of the referenda and the eligibility of Scots and Welsh who are temporarily resident abroad to vote and the eligibility of members of the Armed Forces posted out of Scotland or Wales to vote. I think that the Government may come to regret that last point. However, that will be their problem.
  Finally, I must congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Sewel and Lord Williams of Mostyn, on making the most of a lot of very weak arguments.
  Lord Parry: My Lords, I express the hope that no one in this House on the Front Benches on either side will have had their career permanently damaged by the compliments paid to them by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. His compliments, from my experience of after dinner speaking, were the toughest and the roughest votes of thanks that I have ever heard in my life. Compliments have already been paid to the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gwydir and Lord Crickhowell, who presided over the Welsh Office with distinction and left behind them monuments that will remain for a long time.
  However, I want to make the point that the Welsh Office secretariat was the creation of James Griffiths and of the original Secretary of State for Wales. I have jotted down the names of James Griffiths, George Thomas, Cledwyn Hughes, John Morris and, of course, I added the name of Ron Davies. I had the pleasure and opportunity of not simply knowing but working with all of those Secretaries of State for Wales. The House has heard me say before that we have been extremely fortunate in those Secretaries of State. I believe that what they have done in their careers at the Welsh Office
  120
  has its logical extension in the creation of the assembly for Wales. I hope that our people will vote overwhelmingly in favour of it. I add my congratulations to all those who have taken part in the debate.
  Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I rise to make three points. I am sorry that I missed the Report stage of this vital Bill. It has been a difficult Bill to debate. I refer to the difficulty of debating the referendums Bill as opposed to the devolution issue as a whole. The House has managed well to split the two matters but I think that we have missed one or two vital issues as we have progressed through the Bill.
  The noble Lord, Lord Sempill, introduced the multiple option. I believe that the quickest way to get rid of the nationalist input in politics today would be to include the option of the complete separation of Wales and Scotland. If we had asked that question, I believe that the people of Wales and the people of Scotland would have responded with a resounding "No". We might have lost the nationalist input for ever, and that might have been an extremely good thing, at least for Scottish politics, although I am afraid I cannot speak for Welsh politics.
  However, the most important matter about which we have forgotten—it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and, sadly, has not been followed up—is the complete disenfranchisement of the English. They are not being asked a single question. I do not think that the English have woken up to the enormous effect that this legislation could have on the whole of the country. They are still asleep on the issue. The English think of themselves as Britain. They are in for a big fright. I hope that somehow or other the matter is brought home to them.
  We in this House, and especially the Ministers in our Government, must make quite clear to everyone that their intentions are to keep the whole country as Great Britain. The Government have already assured me that that is the case, and I believe them implicitly. But I am extremely worried that we are allowing certain elements in politics today to use this as a vehicle to gain complete independence. I sincerely hope that I am wrong in even thinking it for one second, but I have to say that I think it and feel it. I am worried that if we are not careful, when the English wake up the cry for a federal system will so outweigh what we have that we shall be stuck in the mire that we have created; and there will be no going back.
  I see the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, grimacing at me, thinking what nonsense this man is talking. I hope that I am wrong. I have my worries. I hope that your Lordships will think about the matter long and hard. As I said before in this House, the road we are going down is a rocky one. If we are wrong, there is no going back.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, perhaps I may pick up on the first point made so powerfully by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, told us that, subject to what the other place

  121
  may decide tomorrow, the Government intend to reverse your Lordships' decision on a uniform polling date and will insist that the Scottish referendum be held one week before the Welsh referendum. To avoid any suggestion that the Government are unfairly and perhaps even improperly trying to influence the outcome of the Welsh referendum, will they consider even at this late stage following the established pattern of elections to the European Parliament? As your Lordships will know, different countries hold their elections on different days of the week. Will they decree that the results of the Scottish referendum will be held back until the Welsh polling stations have closed a week later? It is still not too late to put that into effect tomorrow in another place.
  The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, introduced Schedule 3, a complicated schedule, I referred to the difference between elections for the European Parliament and for the Parliament at Westminster. For the European elections there are no polling agents. Almost at the end of the Report stage in your Lordships' House, I asked whether we would provide for parliamentary agents in this referendums Bill. In other words, would the referendums be like a Westminster election or more like a European election? With great respect to the Minister, he may have written to me and the letter may have gone astray, but I have had no answer to either of those questions.
  Lord Forbes: My Lords, the Bill is about referendums in Scotland and Wales. It sounds innocuous, but enormous constitutional changes could take place as a result of the Bill. Not only will Scotland or Wales be affected, but the whole of the United Kingdom.
  I deplore the fact that voters have not been given more time to consider the implications of what they will be voting for. I doubt whether anyone can foresee all the implications a "Yes" vote might bring about in the future. I have lived nearly all my life in Scotland, which I love. Like many others in your Lordships' House, I fought for the United Kingdom. I am determined that neither Scotland, nor Wales, nor the United Kingdom shall suffer from hasty legislation that has not been properly revised. For those reasons, I look on the Bill with grave concern as it leaves this House.
  Lord Geraint: My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords will agree that we have listened to excellent speeches on both sides of the House today. But I think the time is up for talking; it is time for action. The issues of devolving power to the people of Scotland and Wales have been debated by them for the past 50 years.
  Noble Lords may not be aware that the father of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, was the headmaster when I was at school. He talked then about devolving power to the people of Wales.
  The time has come; and to all of those who are in favour of devolving power to the people of Wales and Scotland, let us go home for the Summer Recess and
  122
  campaign for the "Yes" vote. Our parliament is long overdue and now we must make the right strike to ensure that we achieve it.
  Lord Sewel: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this Third Reading debate. I think that I can thank those noble Lords who directed such kind words to the Government Front Bench, but I reserve the right to look at Hansard tomorrow.
  At Third Reading, it is interesting to observe how old friends—perhaps I should say bad apples—keep popping up. We have had the post-legislative referendum discussion. We have had the independence option. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, even managed to bring in the threshold question. We have examined those three issues in all genuineness, and reached conclusions in fair and proper debate. We have given good time to them. I believe that the matter has been subject to proper scrutiny.
  Perhaps I may deal initially with the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour. My memory is that I have written to the noble Earl. I have certainly signed a letter. If he has not received it, I apologise. However, I clarify that there will be no polling agents. There are polling agents in parliamentary and European elections but that is not appropriate for a referendum. However, other safeguards are built into the system. When the noble Earl receives my letter, I hope that he will be content with the explanation that I offer.
  I move on to the three old friends, or bad apples: why are we not having a post-legislative referendum; why do we not have the independence option on the ballot; and why do we not insist on a threshold? One answer to that series of questions is that in the manifesto we put our proposals before the people. The manifesto dealt with the issues of a post-legislative referendum, the idea of independence and thresholds. In the manifesto clear proposals were put before the people and the electorate endorsed those proposals. That is what we base this legislation on: the endorsement by the electorate of our manifesto proposals.
  Some noble Lords may think that that is not good enough. I shall extend the argument. Why not a post-legislative referendum? If we look into the origins of the pre-legislative referendum we shall find that a major advocate of the pre-legislative referendum was a former Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland. He chided us about the level of popular support in Scotland for our proposals, and baited us that we would not have confidence to put those proposals before the public. We are doing just that. We shall give the people of Scotland the opportunity to make a decision on clear proposals outlined in the White Paper. For the vast majority of people a coherently written, comprehensive White Paper is more easily understood than a Bill. I believe that we are on sound grounds in going to the people of Scotland and the people of Wales and saying, "This is what we propose to do; this is the way we intend to go. We seek your endorsement." That, surely, is a sensible, commonsense way forward?
  That deals with the independence option, as well. The basis of the referendum is not some glorified public opinion poll on various options. The basis of the

  123
  referendum is the Government going to the people and saying, "These are our proposals. We seek your support; we seek your endorsement."
  It would be completely wrong for the Government to include an independence option in the referendum because the Government could not, in all conscience, advocate the independence option as a way forward to the people of Scotland and the people of Wales. What we are seeking is endorsement of a specific line of policy. If the people of Scotland and the people of Wales wish to support independence, they have the opportunity to do so at general elections by voting for candidates committed to that course of action. The people have already spoken on that issue: they have turned away from the option of independence. We seek to put clear, devolution-based proposals to them.
  The issue of thresholds was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. We have maintained all along, from the earliest discussion on these proposals, that we think that fancy franchises and thresholds are a way of frustrating the democratic will of the people. We are not going to have this issue decided by people who are perhaps uninterested or apathetic and who are not prepared to turn out to vote. It is those who vote who count and it is they who will make the decision. We have made clear that the Government are committed to moving ahead with the legislation when it is endorsed by the electorate.
  I take the point, of course, that government cannot commit Parliament. Parliament will be in the position, during consideration of the Bill, to take account of the full circumstances surrounding the result of the referendum. That is a proper matter for Parliament. But the Government have given the commitment that they will move forward on the basis of the outcome of the referendum.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that very important point, would he be so good as to say what minimum number of votes in favour the Government have in mind in order to justify this big change?
  Lord Sewel: My Lords, no. We are going to the people of Scotland and the people of Wales to put our proposals before them. If we win, we will go ahead; if we do not win, we will not go ahead. It is as simple as that. It is for the people to decide.
  In conclusion, we have rightly and properly scrutinised this legislation. It begins a process; it does not end the process. We have now virtually done our job. We hand the decision over to the people, and I hope that, as good democrats, we trust the people.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord one question before he sits down. Does he give an assurance on behalf of the Government that they will introduce primary legislation to prohibit the Scottish parliament from varying taxes other than UK income tax? I think that everybody is entitled to know.
  Lord Sewel: My Lords, the specific assurance that the noble Lord seeks is unnecessary because the powers
  124
  of the parliament will be defined in the primary legislation setting it up and the only powers that it will have to vary tax will be the income tax powers as defined in the White Paper.
  On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Local Government (Contracts) Bill
4.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Government are committed to promoting opportunities for public-private partnerships because they offer the opportunity for increased value for money and innovation in the provision of the services that national and local government need. Mr. Malcolm Bates, chairman of the Pearl Group, has recently completed a rapid review of current private finance initiative and public-private partnership arrangements. His review was published on 23rd June. One of Mr. Bates's recommendations was to take speedy action to overcome the uncertainty over local authority powers to enter into public-private partnership contracts. The Bill aims to achieve that.
The Bill clarifies the powers of local authorities to enter into contracts for the provision or making available of assets or services. It also provides a "safe harbour" through a certification procedure to protect contractors and lenders from the possibility that a local authority may not have had power to enter into a contract or may have exercised its powers improperly.
Certain recent high profile cases have led contractors and banks to fear the financial consequences of a finding by the court that a contract with a local authority is unlawful, and therefore unenforceable, because the authority had no power to enter into it or because it exercised its power unlawfully. The contracts in question were bank guarantees, and in each case the consequence of the court's judgment was that the bank concerned had to finance the losses of companies set up to carry out work in connection with local authority functions. Because the contracts were found to be void, the private sector had no recourse to the authorities for compensation and so found itself saddled with bad debts.
Those cases did not involve new principles of law and concerned arrangements quite different from the great majority of local authority contracts, but the views expressed by the courts on them have resulted in a commonly held perception that providing finance for local authority contracts, particularly long-term partnership contracts, poses an unacceptable level of risk. That is a perception we must overcome if public-private partnerships are to work successfully in local government. We want to act quickly to dispel any doubts there may be in the minds of potential backers of local authority schemes, including public-private

125
partnership schemes. The Bill aims to achieve that. It clarifies local authority powers. It also protects contractors and banks if things go wrong when they have been relying on an assurance by an authority that the authority has been acting within its powers.
It is the innovative features of public-private partnership schemes, compared to more traditional procurement contracts, that are perceived as likely to give rise to questions about the existence or exercise of local authority powers. The Bill will concentrate the minds of local authorities on this issue when they enter into contracts. It should reduce the chances of local authorities acting outside their powers.
The Bill does not disturb the fundamentals of existing legislation with respect to local authority powers. It does nothing to alter the scope for contracts to be challenged under public law. The court will have the same powers to review the exercise of a local authority's discretion to enter into a contract. It is essential to leave in place such powers for the protection of the local tax payer. For the same reason, the Bill does nothing to undermine the long-standing powers of the auditor to question the lawfulness of local authority conduct or expenditure.
I now come to the specific provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 makes it clear that a statutory function of a local authority confers power to enter into a contract for the provision of assets or services for the purposes of, or in connection with, the discharge of that function. The Bill is here not extending authorities' powers but making explicit what was already implicit. It covers contracts which are for the purposes of, or connected with, the discharge of a function, such as providing education or social services or leisure facilities. The Bill does not affect the exercise of an authority's implied or subsidiary powers, but an authority will no longer need to rely on those, including Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972, in order to enter into those sorts of contract.
The Bill does not change the law which regulates the power of local authorities to delegate their functions. Part II of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 empowers a Minister to make an order to allow an authority to contract out the exercise of a function. One such order is being prepared in connection with highways functions, because delegation in that area is necessary to underpin an effective PPP project. Contracts in other service areas seem less likely to entail delegation, but government departments could consider making similar orders, if necessary, in relation to other local authority functions.
The Bill provides a "safe harbour" to protect contractors and lenders from the possibility that a local authority may not have had power to enter into a contract or may have exercised its powers improperly. To achieve that, Clauses 2 and 3 introduce a certification procedure for contracts of a description then specified in Clause 4. In essence, they are contracts for five years or more involving the provision of services. The issue of a certificate (but not its content) has to have the consent of other parties to the contract because the legal rights of all parties are affected by the certificate in ways that I shall now describe.
126
Unlike the certification procedure under the recently enacted National Health Service (Private Finance) Act, the large number of authorities within the scope of this Bill makes it impracticable for Ministers to certify contracts individually. Also, such intervention by Ministers would weaken local authorities' responsibilities and their accountability, which is not a path that we would wish to take.
The effect of Clause 2 is that no one (including the authority, the contractor, and any other party to the contract) may argue in private law proceedings that a certified contract is unenforceable because the local authority did not have the power to enter into it or used its powers improperly. However, Clause 5 preserves the right of local tax payers or the authority's external auditor to challenge certified contracts under public law; that is, in judicial review and audit-related proceedings. Where there is a judicial review the court already has the discretion to allow a contract to continue if that is in the public interest. Clause 5(3) gives the court an equivalent discretion in audit-related proceedings. To meet the case where the court determines that a contract is to be set aside, the Bill provides for the enforceability of special terms agreed between the parties with that possibility in mind.
It would be open to the parties to agree a range of different discharge terms. Clause 6 provides that the enforceability of discharge terms would be unaffected by the setting aside of the certified contract. The aim of discharge terms would be to make provision for compensation and for dealing with the assets made available under the certified contract. Clause 6 also safeguards discharge terms by providing that they shall have effect as if the authority had power to agree them and used its power properly. Clause 6 makes clear the authority's power to agree discharge terms and that the enforceability of terms is unaffected by the setting aside of the main contract.
It is possible that discharge terms may be challenged on the ground that they do not simply provide for compensation or for dealing with the assets made available under the certified contract. Also, of course, the parties may not have agreed any discharge terms. Clause 7 provides that in either of those events, where a certified contract has been set aside, the contractor shall, nevertheless, be compensated as if the local authority had repudiated the contract. This provision is an ultimate long-stop, and the parties to a certified contract would be most unlikely to need to fall back upon it.
There are several other provisions in the Bill to which I should like to draw the attention of the House. Clause 1(2) confirms that, where a third party funds a contractor, the authority may enter into a separate contract with the financier, who could be a direct lender to the contractor or a person involved in other forms of finance, for example, bond issues. Such a contract might also include an arrangement whereby the financier would be able to nominate a replacement contractor if, for example, the original one became insolvent. The protection afforded by the certification procedure and discharge terms are extended to contracts with financiers.

127
In England and Wales, the Bill will apply to all bodies covered by Part IV of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and to probation committees and the receiver for the Metropolitan Police district. It will also apply to Scottish local authorities as defined in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
The Bill confers powers to make regulations. In particular, there are powers to regulate the certification procedure, which I have already explained, dealing with matters such as signature and the issue of copies, and power to make regulations about the kind of contract that can be certified under the Bill.
Clause 9 amends the Justices of the Peace Act 1997, so that revenue grants may be made to local authorities to meet payments under partnership contracts in respect of magistrates' courts. For technical reasons, the capital finance rules currently classify such payments as capital expenditure.
The details of the Bill reflect discussions and close working relationships with interested parties, including the Local Government Association, the public-private partnerships programme, and lawyers representing banks and contractors. Consultations have continued, following the Bill's introduction in another place. A consultation paper was issued on 16th June. Should the results of the consultations prompt the Government to bring forward further amendments, it will be done at Committee stage in your Lordships' House. There will then be a third round of consultations on the details of the secondary legislation, once the broad coverage of the regulations is established.
This is a short Bill, albeit a technical one. I hope that I have managed to explain its provisions clearly. We aim for it to be in force by November. Speed is important in this matter. Although there are provisions in the Bill which will allow it to bite on contracts entered into at any time after 12th June, it is probable that many contractors and banks would prefer to see the Bill in force and consider its provisions as enacted by Parliament before entering into a long-term contract which could be certified under the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Hayman.)
4.58 p.m.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation of the Bill. Local government Bills are described as either technical or simple, but they are usually complicated. While this Bill has relatively simple objectives, it is, nevertheless, confusing in some aspects.
Let me say straight away that we on these Benches support the general thrust of this measure and would wish to see it come onto the statute book within the timescale that the Minister indicated. There is no doubt that it has been brought about by the need to ensure that PFIs are not to fail because of private sector doubts that a local authority has the legal capacity and the power to
128
enter into the contract or the partnership deal. I am certain that the doubts were brought about by the Hammersmith and Fulham cases surrounding the authorities trading in the money market (the swaps cases) and the losses that banks and others suffered as a result of the contracts proving to be ultra vires; and, indeed, by other high profile cases that were referred to when this matter was debated in the other place.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give the House comfort that, notwithstanding the passage of this Bill, such cases are now not to become possible under this legislation. I understand that that is the case, but an assurance on the record would be very welcome.
The previous government started PFI and encouraged it. There were problems in some directions, which has always been acknowledged. However, it was an initiative which has been of—and still has the potential to bring—enormous benefit to the public sector. Indeed, I say to the noble Baroness that it has become so popular that certain prominent members of the Labour Party now claim it to have been an original Labour Party idea. If that is true, they must have been very unpopular with many of their colleagues in the country, particularly those in local authorities, because it was seen as an extension of privatisation.
We on this side welcome the fact that PFI is now to be encouraged as much by this Government as by the previous one. I hope that the relatively new enthusiasm will continue to spread despite the original hostility in some quarters. We also welcome the fact that the protection given to the party contracting with the local authority and for allied contractors does not in any way diminish the opportunity for challenge by judicial review and audit, the challenges under public law referred to by the Minister in her introduction. That is an important protection.
However, there is one matter upon which I should be grateful if the Minister could throw some light. It seems to me—if I am wrong I shall be pleased for the Minister to point out where I am wrong—that one issue remained unresolved during the progress of the Bill through the other place. On a number of occasions the Minister of State was asked whether, in the event that a certified contract was found by the courts to be unlawful, there could be any challenge to the discharge terms. She was later asked whether there should be a specific provision to the effect that, before setting aside a contract, the court should have to consider the consequences for the parties arising from the discharge terms.
In Standing Committee B on 1st July the Minister said:
"I keep receiving notes and, as this is open government, members of the Committee should know what they are saying to me. The latest note says that discharge clauses can, indeed, be challenged and that clause 7 establishes a fall-back position. Another note says that the clause does not empower courts to set aside contracts. It allows them to continue in audit review by bringing in discretion in judicial review to refuse to give what has been applied for.—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee B. 1/7/97; col. 37.]

129
I remain somewhat confused on reading that and submit that the position is still far from clear. The Minister based her rejection of the requested amendment to give effect to that specific provision on Clause 5(3) which requires the court to act as it would upon judicial review and to take into account all the circumstances. The problem nevertheless of the discharge terms which may be unreasonable remains unaddressed.
Indeed, the answer seems to indicate that, if in determining that the contract was unlawful the discharge terms were so unreasonable, the contract should nevertheless continue. I do not believe that that can be what was intended and I certainly do not believe that it is desirable. The position on the face of the Bill as it stands—it may not be what was intended—is still not clear. As the Minister explained, Clause 6 reads,
"No determination or order made in relation to a certified contract on an application for judicial review, or an audit review, shall affect the enforceability of any relevant discharge terms relating to the contract".
Clause 7 in part—I need not trouble the House with the whole clause—reads,
"Subsection (2) applies where the result of a determination or order made by a court on an application for judicial review or an audit review is that a certified contract does not have effect, and there are no relevant discharge terms having effect between the local authority and a person who is a party to the contract. That person shall he entitled to be paid by the local authority such sums",
and so forth. Clause 7(3) goes on to say,
"For the purposes of this section there are no relevant discharge terms having effect between a local authority and a person who is a party to a contract if no such terms have been agreed, or the result of a determination or order made by a court is that any such terms which have been agreed do not have effect".
I suggest that on the face of it there is a conflict. I am sure that the best legal brains have been brought to bear on this subject but clarity and certainty would be helpful and are needed for the members and officers of local authorities. It would be disastrous for the Bill and PFI initiatives—and unhelpful at the least—if there were to he a succession of cases in relation to the enforceability of discharge terms.
The Wednesbury rules on reasonableness continue to apply. Some legal authorities are saying that even if the Bill ensures that local authorities cannot escape from their obligations to third parties, they cannot escape the Wednesbury rules. All the risk is then with the council. If that is the case, who will be paying? Will it be the council tax payer or, in extreme circumstances, the members or the officers? Thus, we need to ensure that one difficulty over making PFI work is not replaced by another.
As I said to the Minister—it may be hard to believe in the light of the questions I raise—we on this side welcome the Bill. We welcome the fact that PFI is so high up the Government's agenda, as we welcome all instances where our arguments have prevailed. We look forward to hearing from the Minister either this evening or, indeed, in Committee clarification on the points which I believe are of concern and perhaps threaten the success of the initiative set out in the Bill.
5.7 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Bowness. I am in almost the same position. It is seldom that I refer to the first clause of a Bill but I am amazed that the first words are,
"Every statutory provision conferring or imposing a function on a local authority confers power on the local authority to enter into a contract with another person".
It goes on to say that "a person" can be "the financier". Those seem to me to be incredibly wide powers. I ask the Minister to consult a little over the drafting.
I want to refer to only one other clause: Clause 4(2) on page 3. It says,
"A contract entered into by a local authority falls within this subsection if it is entered into with another person for the provision or making available of services…for the purposes of, or in connection with, the discharge by the local authority of any of its functions, and it operates, or is intended to operate, for a period of at least five years".
That subsection appears to be incredibly restrictive. I would have been happier if it had been the clause, but the subsection seems to be limiting the function of the clause very tightly.
Further, are the Government wise to specify a period of at least five years? I realise that sometimes such things as public sector borrowing requirements cover long periods. But is it in the best interests of the Government to specify that the period is not allowed to be under five years? Otherwise I agree with my noble friend; this is a perfectly reasonable Bill. The points I raised were technical ones, but I feel that the Government may be restricting themselves unduly.
5.9 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we on these Benches are not opposed to the Bill and I hope that is self-evident. We welcome the confirmation of local authorities' powers. I regard it as a bit of an opportunity missed, though I hope less an opportunity missed than one postponed.
As has been said, this is a technical Bill. I was alarmed to read that the Minister in another place, on Third Reading, said,
"It is with great pleasure that we come to the Third Reading of what I admit is an exceptionally complex Bill. None of us is certain that what we want from the Bill is what we will end up with. Unfortunately, that is the nature of such legislation".—[Official Report, Commons, 8/7/97; col. 831.]
I am sure that all noble Lords and the officials concerned with the Bill have higher aspirations than that. Perhaps that was an example of the endearing openness to which the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, referred.
I was a little late getting to my feet after the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, as I was reflecting on the clauses to which he drew your Lordships' attention. Clause 4(1) sets out what is probably a Henry VIII provision, providing for regulations to amend the previous two subsections, but I hope that it will not be necessary. Certainly we on these Benches will not hold up the Bill on technicalities. The Government have clearly had no shortage of advice during the passage of the Bill but it seems to be just the kind of Bill that would

131
have benefited from being published in draft in order that full consultations could have been held before the Bill arrived in another place and indeed before it came to your Lordships' House.
I must take this opportunity to say that, although we shall not obstruct the passage of the Bill, it is a Bill about symptoms and not about causes. It adds another bureaucratic step to what is already a complicated process. We often talk about the alien who lands on our planet and what he might think having seen how we go about certain things. If he arrived here and encountered many aspects of the way we are governed he might find a good deal that is odd. He would certainly find Clause 1(1) of the Bill a little odd because it seems to amount to saying that where a local authority has a function, it can enter into a contract to discharge that function. Most of us would think that obvious and it is a pity that it requires such complicated legislation to ensure that it is the case.
It might need an alien with a sense of history to start thinking about the creative accountancy in local government, which might have been part of the provenance of Clause 2. It gives statutory blessing to what some might regard as creative accountancy. I shall not talk about the sale of parking meters—I am not sure that that was to provide services—but the fact that local government went through such hoops over recent times in order to raise funds to provide services speaks volumes.
The purpose of the Bill is to remove doubts about the validity of local authorities contracting with financiers but I cannot accept that the private finance initiative is the panacea that some people would have us believe it is. It is not a cost-free arrangement. Indeed, there are many criticisms of PFI based on the fact that it costs rather more than if local authorities have greater freedom to raise their own finance as the interest rates are often higher. The problem that is not addressed by the Bill is the capital restrictions on local authorities. The Government's hands are tied in the matter of spending and they seem willingly to have allowed their hands to be tied with regard to the matter of local authorities' powers. Despite saying that, I make it clear that I have never argued that local authorities should be able to benefit from acting outside their powers in the way that must have appeared to be so in the stream of cases involving local government to which other noble Lords have referred. I well understand the worry in the minds of potential partners caused by that stream of cases.
All three major parties in local government want wider powers for local government. The Liberal Democrats have long argued for a power of general competence—in other words, general freedom for local government to do what it thinks is best for its community. I understand that the Government are proposing a new duty for local government to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of its residents. However, I do not think that local government needs a new duty; it needs extended powers.
132
The European charter for local self government, to which considerable reference was made in the debate in the House last week on relations between local and central government, provides in the article on the scope of local self government that local authorities,
"shall within the limits of the law have full discretion to exercise their initiative with regard to any matter which is not excluded from their competence nor assigned to any other authority".
The Select Committee, on Relations between Central and Local Government, while not going as far as advocating the power of general competence, proposed a power of local competence. Paragraph 6.28 of the Select Committee report states:
"Local government needs encouragement to innovate, to be more interactive with local opinion".
That is partly to attract good people as both councillors and officers. It continued:
"The current constraints on freedom and on the ability to act as local community leaders, combined with a fear of failure, have further demoralised local government. This culture needs to change if local government is to play its role as community leader and to manage a mixed economy of service delivery".
The freedom to do things differently, including the freedom to fail, and the ability for local government to play its role of community leader, are fundamental to the health of local government.
We shall not obstruct the Bill. We hope to see it on the statute book in short order. However, we look forward to measures that will ensure the long-term vigour of local government, not just measures to prop it up.
5.17 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Bowness and my honourable friend in another place have made clear, Her Majesty's Opposition support the general principles of the Bill.
The private finance initiative was launched by the Conservative Government some five years ago with the aim of harnessing private sector resources and management and enterprise skills to improve both the quantity and quality of public capital projects and to enable necessary products to go ahead despite any restraints that might be imposed by the Treasury or the PSBR. It is true to say that the rate at which PFI projects were initiated was slower than many of us would have wished. Nevertheless, by April of this year nearly £7 billion worth of PFI contracts had been entered into.
Radical measures were introduced by the previous government in the autumn of 1996 which, by removing some of the restrictions, have facilitated or will facilitate the inception of design, build, finance and operate projects—DBFO—for schools, transport, police facilities and many municipal facilities. These will enable local councils to provide services without cost to their capital resources.
In January, the Treasury launched new guidance on best practice in PFI. Major projects that had already been signed up for by that date, as a result of the previous government's pioneering of PFI, include Dartford Bridge, the second Severn Bridge, the Skye Bridge, Heathrow Express and the University Hospital

133
of Wales. I suspect that, but for PFI, all of these ventures might still be languishing in the "pending" tray at the Treasury.
Although the Labour Party has to some extent claimed to approve of PFI, that approval has not always been more than lukewarm, especially among some of its members and allies. Hospital projects have been condemned as privatisation of the National Health Service. In its policy document Renewing the NHS, published in June 1995, it said:
"we will do our utmost to discourage the signing of PFI contracts".
Strangely enough, in the Second Reading debate in the other place, the Minister of State nevertheless chose to intervene in the speech of my honourable friend to challenge him on the number of PFI hospitals that were in the pipeline or secured under the previous government. On 20th April, during the recent election campaign, UNISON, the trade union heavily involved with the NHS, in a motion to the Scottish TUC called on the Labour Party to end the PFI.
The Association of Magisterial Officers has condemned the PFI schemes to build much needed new courts in Hereford and Worcester as "wholly inappropriate". I spent most of my 20 years as a magistrate in a courthouse that was wholly inappropriate to the dispensation of justice simply because the money could not be found to build the larger modern one that the district urgently needed.
Soon after taking office, the environment Minister expressed reservations in Construction News about DBFO schemes on the basis that,
"it is better to build the road yourself because you don't have paybacks in future years".
Only just one year ago the Deputy Prime Minister, who was then the shadow environment spokesman, called on the Government to,
"recognise the limits of the PFI approach".
Despite its new-found enthusiasm for PFI, I trust that the old Labour instincts against it will not result in similar objections to other DBFO schemes in local government.
In the Second Reading debate the Minister of State said,
"the Government are committed to public-private partnerships".
The word "partnership" is significant and that has not been stressed in either House. In PFI the entire financial risk and the responsibility for the proper performance of the contract rest with the third party, not on the Government, the local council or other public body. That is the whole point. As long as there is any financial risk either as to capital or running costs, the PSBR and Treasury constraints continue to apply, as well as all the bureaucratic paraphernalia of administering the project. In a so-called partnership then an element of those risks continues to fall on the public purse.
I now turn to the Bates report, commissioned by the Government immediately after they came to power in order urgently to review the whole concept of PFI. Not surprisingly, it came out in favour of the continued use of this method of financing public projects and indeed
134
recommended refinements that could be made now that the idea was not only acceptable but had, with time, matured in the light of gained experience.
I welcome the fact that, according to a reply given in the other place on 10th July by the Paymaster General, the Government say that they have accepted the 29 recommendations of the report. Introductory paragraph 3 proposes highly skilled departmental procurers of goods and services. Such an organisation already exists in the semi-public sector. I refer to the Crown Agents, of whom I used to be one and who can doubtless provide the standard of service, integrity and expertise that they do to overseas governments.
Bates says,
"PFI transactions require a level of commercial knowledge and project management".
The report calls for deal-making expertise, standard or model contract conditions and a dedicated Treasury library of relevant documentation. I agree. But the Government have followed the recommendation of the Bates report by scrapping the private finance panel, including three senior legal positions. The outgoing deputy chief executive, Mr. Edwin Godfrey, has warned that this could lead to government departments being understaffed in key areas. Mr. Godfrey is a partner in a leading firm of City solicitors who has been engaged in the standardisation of PFI contracts.
Another leading City legal firm says that the shortage of expertise within the Government is such that the Government cannot always be regarded as an equal partner in PFI deals. However, I am very glad to have seen a report in the Law Society's Gazette of 23rd July that several of the major City and provisional firms of solicitors have specialised teams dealing with PFI contracts and are able to provide major input into new transactions on both sides of the fence. Some Government departments have self-standing PFI units, but others such as education and the Home Office do not, and there will be an urgent need to recruit staff with adequate expertise.
With the welcome creation of the PFI task force, I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that in the public interest of having adequate contractual protection they will take the fullest advantage of private sector expertise until they have fully acquired it within the Civil Service.
This Bill has been necessitated, as other speakers have pointed out, in order to clear up doubts about the powers of local councils and other public bodies and organisations to enter into the types of contract described in the Bill. All of this is grist to the lawyers' mill, as they live on legal doubts.
This Bill is complementary to the Local Authorities (Capital Finance) Regulations 1997, which were introduced by the previous government and to the National Health Service (Private Finance) Bill. Its intention, according to the Department of the Environment's press release, is to restore confidence in the partnership process.
Subject to more detailed examination in Committee, this Bill is similar to one which the Conservative Party would itself have introduced. For this reason, and

135
because we welcome the Government's conversion to the private finance initiative, we wish the Bill well and we will help to ensure that it reaches the statute book.
5.25 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to the speakers in this afternoon's debate who have given support for the general purposes of the Bill that I am putting before the House. It comes a little ill to be lectured from the Opposition Benches about the private finance initiative and the late conversion to it, when we have long held to the concept of true partnership with the private sector and when the rosy picture painted of the success of the private finance initiative over the past few years is not one that I easily identify from my own experience, particularly in the National Health Service. I cannot believe that any of us on this side of the House would be willing to be judged by anything other than our actions in this field.
The actions that the Government have undertaken since they came to power to make a reality of some of the rhetoric about private finance that was heard from the last government, is something for which we can genuinely take credit in this area. If it had been so perfect I am not quite sure why the National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Act that was passed by the last government did not work. The last government were having to prepare legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, accepted that they would have had to introduce legislation such as that which we are introducing in order to make the Bill work.
However, I know that your Lordships' House does not like entering into petty party political squabbles of this sort, so perhaps I can return to the technicalities of local government finance with which Members opposite may be more familiar than I am. I shall try to deal with the points that have been raised in the debate.
In replying to the points that have been raised, it may be useful to return to the reasoning behind the introduction. As I said earlier, following the various high profile court cases that have taken place, there has been doubt in the private sector about the powers of local authorities entering into contracts with the provision of assets and services. It is because of the need to clarify those powers that, perhaps to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, Clause 1 is slightly otiose. But I believe that it is necessary. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, that it was necessary to frame Clause 1 in this way because it then clarifies the whole range of existing powers and duties that local authorities have in order to enter into contracts.
We were concerned that investors felt that they might suffer financially if local authorities were found to have acted ultra vires. It is the Government's policy that local authorities should explore the scope for partnerships with the private sector to achieve the best value for money in delivering services to the community. Doubts about local authorities seem most likely to arise in proposals for public-private partnership contracts.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I respond to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, about the powers under this legislation. It is certainly not intended
136
in any way to make it easier for local authorities to enter into the sort of interest rate transactions to which I believe he was referring. The Bill simply confirms the ability of local authorities to carry out the scope of their existing functions through contracts. The legislation does not extend in any way the permitted functions of those authorities.
The measures provide a framework within which local authorities and the private sector can work together in confidence, but they in no way undermine the rights of local taxpayers and auditors to challenge authorities where they have acted unlawfully. I am grateful for the support that we have received this evening for that aspect of the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to some of the technicalities and said that publishing a draft Bill might have been useful. I can understand those comments, but they have to be balanced against the need for prompt action in this area. Private finance schemes in the local authority sector have been slow in developing. Indeed, no scheme has yet got to the stage where construction work has actually begun. That is why we felt it necessary to introduce legislation early in the Session and to get it on the statute book as soon as possible.
Perhaps I may now refer to some of the specific points that have been made. I turn first to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, who asked whether the five-year limit is too restrictive. One of the balances is between the layer of bureaucracy which it has been suggested we are adding to the process of setting contracts for local government and the need to provide clarity. We envisage that the certification process will apply to contracts involving substantial long-term financial exposure to lenders. That is why it has been recognised in the five-year limit.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, asked a "multi-party question" (if I may put it that way) about the discharge terms and referred to the notes that were passed and read out in another place. In the spirit of equally open government, I offer the noble Lord the note that was passed to me in the hope that it sheds some light on the three issues that he raised. If it does not, I am sure that we can return to this matter in Committee. The issue of discharge terms is technical. The noble Lord's first point related to whether there can be a challenge to the discharge terms. They can be challenged on the grounds that they do not provide reasonable compensation to the contractor. Compensation could be excessive and not justifiable. In effect, they would not be real discharge terms and they would therefore be subject to challenge.
On the second point about whether the courts can take into account an authority's position, I advise the noble Lord that the courts can take all factors into account in deciding whether contracts should be allowed to continue, but we are considering whether an amendment to the Bill might provide further guidance on this point. Perhaps we may return to the point in later discussions. Thirdly, in the event of there being no discharge terms, damages are payable as if under repudiation. Repudiation occurs when a party to a contract simply terminates payment or

137
duties unilaterally. That is basically a breach of contract and there is well-established case law to deal with such circumstances. We would be putting these contracts on the same footing.
I hope that those comments deal with some of the points that have been made in this Second Reading debate. However, perhaps I may say one or two things about other possible amendments. Ministers in another place committed the Government to consider how authorities might be required to make certificates available for public inspection. In Committee we intend to bring forward an amendment to provide for such a requirement. Again, in Committee we shall table an amendment to Clause 9 which was sponsored by the Lord Chancellor's Department. The amendment will be tabled at that department's request and relates to the finances of magistrates' courts, which is an issue that is dear to the hearts of those noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised the issue of the general power of competency. I recognise her concerns in this area. It is not the Government's policy to provide that local authorities may do anything that they might wish to do. There would clearly have to be limits on a general power of competency. Local authorities ought not have unfettered power to undertake any activity that they choose. The Government believe there should be a different approach, one which puts an emphasis on the power of community initiative: the power of authorities to pursue the economic, social and environmental well-being of their area. The Government wish to examine ways in which pilot studies on a wide range of issues can be developed: in the areas of best value, regeneration, community planning and partnership, and democratic innovations. All of those topics have already been discussed in your Lordships' House.
I return now to the Bates Review of private finance initiatives and to the Government's action with regard to public-private partnerships. On 8th May the Paymaster General announced the end to universal testing—the rule that all projects had to be tested for private finance potential. On the same day, Mr. Bates was asked to launch a rapid review of how the private finance initiative was working. His conclusions, published on 23rd June, were that public sector structures must be simplified and responsibilities made clear. A Treasury taskforce has been set up covering both policy and central input on projects. This ended the confusion over who is responsible for what at the centre and will make the best use of the available resources and expertise.
Mr. Bates made a number of recommendations which have implications for local authority projects and my department is studying these carefully to decide on the action to be taken. In particular, the department will be working with the new Treasury taskforce and the public-private partnerships programme to agree respective roles and responsibilities for public-private partnerships. Above all, the policy of encouraging a public-private partnership approach in local government will continue. This means, for example, that we shall
138
continue to make available the revenue support, to the tune of £200 millions worth of investment costs for 1997–98, which was announced last October.
One of Malcolm Bates' conclusions was that action is required to clarify local authority powers to enter into these contracts. The Bill achieves this. Further conclusions concern the need to make smaller projects viable and to consider any obstructions still presented by the existing capital finance regulations, notwithstanding earlier changes. We shall be considering very carefully the action required on this.
The Bill reflects our manifesto commitment to public-private partnerships. The resources are available. We want to remove any legal uncertainties which might obstruct an approach which promises high quality services to communities and good value for money. It will then be up to the local authorities and their private-sector partners to show what they can do.
The partnership approach requires effort, commitment and initiative on the part of local authorities, but we are certain that given this new framework they will be able to rise to the challenge. On the part of the private sector, it also requires confidence in the legal machinery. It is of course the role of the entrepreneur to take a reasonable risk, and a main aim of the partnership approach is to ensure that the private sector bears those risks which it is best equipped to handle. The fear has been that contractors and their funders could sustain heavy losses for reasons quite outside the normal range of commercial risk. We believe that the Bill will allay those anxieties. It will create the necessary climate of confidence in which partnerships can flourish.
The Bill is the outcome of close collaboration between the Government, local authorities and the private sector. We have fully responded to the concerns and suggestions put to us by bankers and legal experts. The Bill fills the final gap in the existing legal framework for partnerships.
A great deal has been said today about the difficulties of making such partnerships work in practice. The Government are committed to doing that and this Bill is one of a range of measures which have been undertaken within the Government's brief term in office because we are committed to turning some of the rhetoric on public-private partnerships into reality. In that spirit, I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

United Nations
5.39 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in the reform of the United Nations system.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have to declare an interest in view of my voluntary and professional work, past and present, with organisations such as Oxfam, Saferworld and International Alert.
It has become almost a truism to say that we live in a highly interdependent world, but we do. It is difficult to think of a major issue confronting us which can be dealt with satisfactorily within a national context alone. Regional arrangements, the EU and NATO, have a vital part to play but migration, terrorism, crime, drugs and security, including nuclear security, provide examples of challenges that can be effectively answered only on a global scale. The question is how to deal with them.
Some favour a top down G8-based management approach, but that implies coercion for the great majority of humanity which it would be impossible to reconcile with our commitment to human rights, fairness and stakeholding. Anyway, it would be impossible to apply it successfully across the world as a whole whatever the sanctions or military resources engaged. It is therefore essential to seek a co-operative approach which is built upon the good will and positive participation of a growing cross-section of global society. To those who would settle in essence for a unipolar pax Americana, with the UN as sub-contractor, the question must be put: what lesson is this giving to China, for example? What happens if China aspires to be the superpower? The US, like the rest of us, has a deep interest in establishing the principle of co-operative global government before it is too late.
The UN system is there. It is the most comprehensive global facility that we have. The challenge is to re-invigorate it, to render it task-oriented, rather than introspectively, bureaucratically and institutionally oriented, and to gear it to deliver effectively.
Dr. Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General, has made a brave start. He has established a sense of direction. He has been criticised for having succumbed too much to committee emasculation of what he would really like to do or of settling for co-ordination rather than radical restructuring. There may be some truth in this, but he has stuck his neck out and made a start. What is necessary now is to build on what he has initiated.
Let us consider some—there are many—of his priorities: a new leadership and management structure, with a new post of Deputy Secretary-General; the establishment of a senior management group; the decentralisation of decision-making to the country level and consolidation of the United Nations presence under one flag, with, where possible, all the different elements operating from the same premises; the establishment of a strategic planning unit; assuring financial solvency through the establishment of a revolving credit fund; the elimination of at least 1,000 staff posts and the reduction of administrative costs by one third; the grouping of United Nations funds and programmes with development operations into a United Nations development group; the introduction of a development dividend to shift resources from administration and bureaucracy to development activities; improving the organisation's ability to deploy peacekeeping and other field operations more rapidly; strengthening the United Nations' capacity for post-conflict peace building with the designation of the Department of Political Affairs as a focal point for this purpose; bolstering international efforts to combat crime, drugs and terrorism by
140
consolidating UN programmes and activities in Vienna under an office for drug control and crime prevention; extending human rights activities through reorganisation and restructuring of the human rights secretariat and integration of human rights into all principal UN activities and programmes; enhancing response to humanitarian needs through the setting up of a new emergency relief co-ordination office to replace the Department of Humanitarian Affairs and focusing its capacities to deal more effectively with complex emergencies.
Because of the UK's vital role in taking all this forward, it is perhaps appropriate to ask my noble friend the Minister—whom it is always good to see at the Dispatch Box—to indicate in her reply the Government's approach to key issues which are central to success. Do the Government accept that there is a need to redefine the concept of security to bring strategic, economic, social and environmental policy more closely together to ensure that the work of the UN, the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO becomes more effectively harmonised? Is this not essential if we are to build consistently for peace and security? Do the Secretary-General's proposals go far enough in this respect? For example, what do they envisage for the future management of the global commons—a potential source of future conflict if we do not get it right? At the same time, how are the Government bringing together their own work on the foreign policy-led defence review and the White Paper on international development to reinforce the global process?
We all know that the Economic and Social Council has been a dismal failure, but is the opportunity being seized to put in place convincing arrangements to meet the century ahead? Where do the Government stand on the reform of the Security Council? What do they favour to make it credible and effective? It is patently unacceptable to leave it as it is, fashioned and formed in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War more than 50 years ago. And where do the Government stand on the Secretary-General's proposals for the revitalisation of the General Assembly?
The Secretary-General has emphasised the importance of improving the UN's ability to deploy peacekeeping and other field operations more rapidly. What do HMG believe should be done in this respect? What more will they be willing to make available in the form of specially trained standby forces? Here, our admiration for what the British services have already contributed must be underlined. They have set outstanding standards in which we should all take great pride. But what more needs to be done? Do we envisage there ever being a UN volunteer and directly recruited standing force. Meanwhile, what has been learned from the sad saga of Bosnia? Could—should—more have been done to keep the NATO operation accountable to the UN Security Council?
As to disarmament, what do the Government see as the future contribution of the UN? As to conventional weapons, is the arms register enough? Now that the Government favour a European code of conduct for the arms trade and Congress has voted in favour of a US code of conduct, what of a UN global code as advocated

141
by former president and nobel laureate, Dr. Oscar Arias? At the same time, is there a case for a demilitarisation fund and building on recent UN experiences, for example, in Mali, by co-ordinating development, the gathering in and destruction of small arms and the strengthening of controls over the arms trade?
As to pre-emptive diplomacy and conflict resolution, how much more authority are the Government prepared to advocate for the Secretary-General, enabling him to act, perhaps informally on his own initiative, to defuse potential crises within states and between them before they escalate at appalling economic and human cost? How can the UN be enabled to meet the needs of internally displaced people as well as refugees? Should the United Nations High Commission for Refugees be given powers in this respect?
The enhancement of the rule of law is surely indispensable for the future survival of humanity. Too often, by contrast, it is the law of force which prevails. What do the Government believe should be done to strengthen the rule of law? Where do the Government stand on the principle of compulsory jurisdiction by the world court? What do they propose to ensure essential consistency in the operation of any international criminal court?
If the humanitarian reform proposals by the Secretary-General are to work, surely it will be essential to strengthen the role of the new UN Emergency Relief Co-ordinator by giving him power to arbitrate bindingly when there are disagreements between UN agencies. The co-ordinator should also have direct access to the Security Council and the power to appoint humanitarian co-ordinators in the field and set priorities for UN consolidated appeals.
Finally, where do the Government stand on adequate funding of the UN system? Are the methods put forward by the Secretary-General right? If not, what are the alternatives? What will the Government do to create the highest calibre UN international civil service, with appointment and promotion based primarily on merit? For example, if there is to be a deputy secretary general, will there be an agreed job description and criteria by which the selection is made?
The Secretary-General's proposals will be debated in New York before Parliament reassembles in October. In view of our special standing as one of only five permanent members of the Security Council, I hope that the Government will be able to ensure that far more time is made available for Parliament to scrutinise and contribute to these developments than has been the case for the past 18 years. I believe that that will be altogether in keeping with their welcome commitment to the UN's future strength.
5.50 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for promoting the debate. I hope that the new Secretary General, Kofi Annan, will bring to the UN the same combination of practical wisdom, integrity and energy which distinguished his fellow Ghanaian, Robert Gardiner, who is the only man who has ever made any sense of
142
the UN operations in the Congo. But what is still wrong is the perception of the UN in the countries where its work is most needed. It needs to be, and is being, drastically cut and rationalised. It should not be seen, as it often is, as a fat cat. It has played a valuable part in stabilising situations, as in Cyprus, but it is only as good as its parts.
There is a radical problem in the UN, which is probably politically insoluble. It may be the price we have to pay for a world organisation where all can meet, but it is disturbing. The problem is—and it is perceived with grief and anger by those who most need humanitarian aid—that the doctrine of territorial integrity too often effectively prevents the UN's humanitarian mandate from being carried out.
In the Sudan, for instance, governments will work only through the UN's Operational Lifeline Sudan to take aid to the deeply oppressed people of the south. However, the OLS has to accept and respect the Khartoum Government's designation of key airstrips as no-go areas, so no aid can be got through to those who need it.
The UN Working Group on Slavery has described the regime's revival of chattel slavery in Sudan as a crime against humanity. But the UN is powerless even to mount a UNICEF-sponsored child slave tracing programme there. What is the point of the Security Council passing resolutions on sanctions against the Sudan if it cannot implement the most basic humanitarian aid there? Equally, in Nagorno-Karabakh, recognition of the sovereign integrity of Azerbaijan means that, although the UN gives extensive humanitarian aid to the Azeri refugees, it can do nothing for the at least equally deserving and suffering Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh without Azeri permission, which is usually not forthcoming.
No UN agency has set foot there, and, as in the Sudan, where the UN does not go, the ICRC does not go either. Thus in Azerbaijan and the Sudan, and, incidentally in Burma—and in the past in Cambodia—nothing can be done. Yet the EU was able to recognise the break up of Yugoslavia, and recognised, as did the UN, Croatia and Slovenia as independent states. So the rules can be varied. Of course the principle of territorial integrity is vital if we are to have a stable world, but, as a result, a few countries which are members of the UN and claim all the advantages attaching to that, are free to enslave, persecute and oppress ethnic or religious groups within their borders (the Kurds are another example) while the UN is powerless to bring in aid to the sick, the wounded, and the children. Where the UN does not go, nor will the ICRC or governments.
The trouble is the Security Council and the veto, and that is indisputable. But should we consider giving more of our humanitarian aid bilaterally through the NGOs which are free, as the UN organisations at present are not, to get the aid through to the persecuted and the needy? Perhaps with the advent of Mary Robinson at the UNHCR that issue may be forced onto the table and examined in the UN.
By all means let us celebrate the fact that the UN remains a place where all can meet, although there are now rather too many other organisations which have

143
proliferated—the OSCE, the EU, and even NATO in its political mode—and which are replicating the same pattern of talk with only a very low level of useful action. Let us make it a more efficient business, as some UN organisations and operations already are. We must pay a tribute to many of them. Could we perhaps consider whether we could not drive through a new principle—an obligation on UN members not to obstruct the delivery of humanitarian aid (medicines, food, special help for children and the old at the very least) to groups within those countries which need their help?
I do not suggest political intervention by the UN. That is of course out of the question. The UN is, in any case, a totally inept organisation as a decision-making body. We should face the fact that its humanitarian organisations are often seriously inadequate. That is one of the aspects of the UN which to me, and to many people, is the most important.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, we all owe the noble Lord, Lord Judd, a debt of gratitude for having raised the question of reform of the United Nations. I said "the question", but in his brief intervention he raised so many questions that the Minister would need 10 times the 12 minutes allotted to respond to them. Perhaps over time we will have answers to some, or indeed all, of them.
I shall add just one thought. Reform of the UN has rightly been a main theme of international debate since the end of the Cold War. The situation in which we found ourselves then made the UN both more necessary and less adequate as an instrument. If one looks back over the reports which have since been written, one discovers quite early on the right theme, although perhaps not, since then, the right answer. I shall quote from the first of the reports under the name of the long-term Under-Secretary-General, Sir Brian Urquhart, in 1990 in which he says, and I fully identify myself with the statement:
"The UN system, for all its shortcomings, is unique and- cannot be duplicated or reinvented. It is the only available universal system. It now has to live up not only to the demands of governments but also to the increasing expectations of the peoples of the world. It therefore has to adapt itself to this changing world or run the risk of becoming irrelevant in important fields of human activity. Effective leadership will be crucial to this transition".
I hope that we have such effective leadership. I am afraid that the conclusion has to be that the leaders of the great countries of the world have been preoccupied as much by their national, and in some cases regional, concerns as with the wider concerns of the world and that of the UN.
Of those Secretaries-General who followed Mr. Perez de Cuellar, I hope that it will not be said one day that one of them had the vision but not the ability to put it into practice and the other had a great sense of administration and organisation but not enough of the vision of where the organisation should go. Mr. Boutros Boutros Ghali's Agenda for Peace was an important and good document. Unfortunately, it is not possible to
144
conclude that that document became the vision for the UN. He was less able than many of us would have wished to put into practice what he wanted.
Dr. Kofi Annan's proposals are good for an effective organisation of the UN. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, cited many of them and they deserve our support. He said also in a recent interview, to my dismay, that he thought that member states and the Security Council had been too ambitious when they discussed the Agenda for Peace of his predecessor and that more modest goals were necessary. He also said that he wanted to move economic and social affairs back to the centre. That is a pity because it seems to me that peacekeeping, perhaps more than peace-making, and also peace-building are two of the central functions of the United Nations and should be seen as such. I do not mean only peacekeeping and peace-building where there are old-fashioned wars but also where nations are violently torn apart and where there is terrorism. In that connection, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Park, in her comments on new kinds of conflict. I refer to peace and human rights, including the care of those who suffer from infringements of their rights, not least the many refugees in this world.
I should prefer a United Nations which defined that as its objective and then went about it in an effective and limited but mission-oriented manner; a manner also in which its legitimacy is established by the transparency of its actions, its appointments and its decision-making processes. I believe that the Government and the United Kingdom should support the reforms of the Secretary-General but should strongly encourage him to remember that there is more than administration—or even effective administration—to the United Nations and perhaps take a lead in defining some further-reaching objectives.
6.1 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for this exceedingly timely debate. The Christian Churches, both through the World Council of Churches and the Vatican, have been fully supportive of the UN from its inception. The Anglican communion is privileged and glad to be able to have a permanent observer there, Bishop James Otley. I warmly welcome the proposed reforms to make it a more effective instrument of human and Christian aspiration.
I wish to restrict my remarks to three elements of the international system, which I believe are interconnected. The first is the issue of armed intervention. The late 1980s were a period of considerable optimism with respect to UN peacekeeping. In retrospect, the euphoria of the end of the Cold War generated unrealistic expectations of what UN peacekeeping could do. But that role is still crucial.
When we consider the question of intervention, I believe that the ancient just war framework provides a robust and challenging set of criteria through which to address the issues. For example, the first criterion is that the use of armed force must always be declared by the supreme authority. Increasingly in the modern world,

145
that is understood as requiring the approval of the United Nations and therefore usually a resolution from the UN Security Council. It is therefore essential that the UN Security Council is seen as being a more widely representative body in which Third World countries also find their views reflected.
Secondly, the functional definition of "just cause" must be linked essentially to the UN Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights before armed force is contemplated. Thirdly, war must be a last resort. This means that the diplomatic efforts of the United Nations and its member states, as well as the early warning systems locating trouble on the horizon, are vital requirements. I am glad that the need for that is stressed in the proposed reforms.
Those three and the other criteria of the just war tradition provide a clear intellectual framework for assessing whether the international community can and should use armed force. But they do not tell us whether the political will to carry out such tasks will be forthcoming. They do not tell us anything about the readiness of nations to contribute troops and thereby risk their lives. They do not tell us anything about the readiness of UN member states to pay for peacekeeping or to train their armed forces for effective participation. A relatively small number of nations have had a distinguished record in UN peacekeeping operations, Britain included. We should continue in this distinguished tradition and make it clear that deployment of personnel from our Armed Services in the context of UN peacekeeping is an honourable and necessary part of our international obligations.
The intensive debate of recent years suggests that more is required of the UN and its member states than traditional peacekeeping between the conflict parties, with the agreement to the belligerents. What is less clear, despite recent cases such as former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Somalia and Rwanda, is whether a clear doctrine of peace enforcement and the readiness of member states to implement it has emerged. In short, military protection of humanitarian convoys delivering aid is one thing, as the noble Baroness properly emphasised; but what about the possibility of peace enforcement against the wishes of at least one side in the conflict? That is another matter altogether. That needs to be addressed at the level of doctrine, UN institutions and military planning in member states. Britain is well placed to make a significant contribution to that debate.
The second area to which I wish to draw attention is the need for effective judicial remedies. One of the points which Sydney Bailey, the distinguished Quaker thinker on the role of the United Nations, emphasised early on was the need for an international criminal court. It is good that in the proposed reforms that need is asserted without equivocation.
The third and final area to which I wish to draw attention is the responsibility of the international community, and therefore the United Nations, for post-conflict peace-building. The term may at first sight seem vague, but that is precisely the challenge—how to make a precise and containable package of measures that the international community can help to provide, in
146
conjunction with societies which are emerging from the trauma of often protracted warfare. In that context, I wish to draw attention to the role of the United Nations and the success it has had in supervising and monitoring elections. That aspect of UN work is easily overlooked, but it is vital in the role of peacekeeping.
The new Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, is to be congratulated on moving so quickly to present a realistic and challenging set of proposals. Our own Government have indicated their positive inclination in responding to those proposals. One should not under-estimate the difficulties of the task at hand, but it is surely in the interests of the common good, in the widest possible sense, that the United Nations is both effective and cost-effective in seeking to make the term -international community" a reality as well as an aspiration.
6.7 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Judd, introduced this vast subject, he must have realised that it would be complicated. However, I wish to introduce a new aspect into the debate; I wish to speak about the Inter-Parliamentary Union, which is an organisation of parliaments as opposed to an organisation of governments. I take as my reference point paragraph 216 of the Secretary-General's report on reform. It reads:
"There are other constituencies of growing importance to the United Nations that warrant special consideration. Parliamentarians are a primary case in point. The agreement of 24 July 1996 between the United Nations and the Inter-Parliamentary Union (see General Assembly resolutions 50/15 and 51/7) provides a promising base for extending the UN consultative relations with this important group".
As we speak, a UN conference is taking place in New York which has a specific parliamentary dimension. David Marshall, a Member of another place, recently elected chairman of the British group, is leading a small all-party delegation. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, who might otherwise have spoken in the debate, is one of the keynote speakers on the subject of challenges facing representative governments. That is a very important subject.
What does the IPU do which is of value to the United Nations? There are many values, but I wish to mention three. First, it promotes the cause of parliamentary democracy worldwide. It is the great forum for doing that. Secondly, it enables MPs worldwide to exchange views and benefit from each other's experiences, particularly bilateral group visits in either direction and in conferences which take place internationally every six months. Thirdly, it is a worldwide repository of comprehensive information on parliaments and parliamentary practice.
Obviously having mentioned those three—and there are many others—there is a clear need to co-operate closely with the United Nations. If the United Nations is to change, so must the IPU in order to be better prepared for the 21st century. The IPU started with two members and now has 138 member countries. In effect, it is the united nations of parliaments. But as presently structured it does not appear to succeed adequately in influencing governments. I wish to give one specific example.

147
The United States of America does not attend IPU meetings very regularly. The US is a great promoter of democracy and frequently lays down democratic principles and practices as a condition for having relationships with other countries. Therefore, it is surprising that it does not participate in the most international democratic forum which exists anywhere in the world.
At the recent IPU conference I mentioned that matter and I urged our Government to do something about it. In fact, I reported that matter when I wrote to the Foreign Secretary subsequently. I am not sure whether anything has happened about that at all. If the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, is not able to comment this evening because she has already been asked dozens of questions, perhaps she will write to me about that. It is a serious matter.
The IPU is in the process of change. The British group was one of the two founders of that organisation in 1889 and has always played a leading role. Obviously, the British group will continue to do so, especially as the organisation in Geneva needs to adapt to the enlarged membership and changing circumstances. Therefore, I very much hope that the Government will continue to support this very worthwhile activity.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has certainly done us a great service this evening by raising this important issue. I notice that all earlier speakers in the debate have made it more complicated for the Minister who is to reply by following completely different lines. That is exactly what I intend to do. I have a particular interest to declare at the outset. I am chairman of the national committee of this country of UNICEF. That is one of the organisations which will be affected directly by the negotiations for reform now taking place, and I shall explain why.
In my view, the heart of the negotiation in New York is a deal. The purpose is to enable the United States to rejoin the United Nations as a financial contributor and to wipe out the arrears of American contributions. The price which the United States requires is a reform of the secretariat in New York. To the American perception, and particularly in Congress, the UN secretariat is over-large, over-bureaucratic, over-privileged and, above all, wasteful. If the secretariat can be down-sized to his satisfaction, Uncle Sam will rejoin; if not, not. That is the essential change which the United States seeks and many Americans believe that the previous Secretary-General, Boutros Ghali, lacked the determination to carry it out. Dr. Boutros Ghali's own view of his priorities, I observed, was rather different: he thought that he was trying to keep the world's peace as best he could. But certainly his successor, Mr. Annan, knows the problems intimately from the inside and to his great credit he has grasped the nettle. He has been conducting some intensive studies and soundings for a solution through Mr. Maurice Strong of Canada, an experienced wheeler-dealer in the realm of UN politics.
148
I first heard of those goings-on two months ago after a report—a world exclusive, I think—appeared in The Times. From that it seemed that a new superagency would be created in New York which would in effect merge the UNDP, the development programme, the World Food Programme, the UN Fund for Population Activities and UNICEF into a body called the Development Operations Group—DOG. It was not clear to me who was to wag its tail or whether the animal itself would be able to do that.
We discussed that subject very fully at the annual meeting of national committees of UNICEF in Morocco in May and made representations to our executive director, Carol Bellamy. Our anxieties were, first, that UNICEF must retain its separate identity and specific mission on behalf of the world's children. Our overriding concern must be the best interests of children everywhere. Our field representatives must have the freedom to approach local governments direct about their programmes as the need arises, often in emergencies, and should not be subordinate in that respect to the prior permission of the local UN co-ordinator.
Even more important, the national committees need to be able to show their supporters that we still have our own financial system separate from the United Nations budget. That is the situation at present. UNICEF is unique in the UN family in that it is not part of the UN budget and raises its own annual budget of I billion dollars entirely from voluntary contributions. Of that, the national committees furnish 300 million dollars annually; that is, one-third.
Next, we do not want our funds, which are raised to help children, to be diverted to fund the new agency. Finally, we need to maintain UNICEF's own board, in control of its own activities, since the national committees and NGOs provide through the board a degree of public participation unmatched elsewhere in the United Nations.
I am glad to say that the Secretary-General has acknowledged the unique role of UNICEF and has taken full account of our comments in his proposals to the General Assembly. In the light of that, our executive director has given her support to them.
We were able to support that proposal because it meets our broad concerns. Our executive director will be a member of the executive committee of the new development group. We can agree that our field offices should be located in the offices of other organisations at country level and use the common services available. That is a sensible economy, under the broad supervision of the resident co-ordinator. We shall still maintain our own executive board which may meet together with or immediately after the other boards of the development group. That will in no way dilute or compromise the distinctive character and identity of UNICEF, which will retain its full accountability for the funds raised from its supporters. That said, as a national committee we shall have to keep a close eye on the way in which the arrangements work.
I believe that there are more objectionable practices in the UN which do not occur in the agencies mentioned in the reorganisation. UNICEF has just undergone a

149
major review and I believe that we have a lean and effective organisation. But the situation is often different in some of the free-standing specialised agencies such as the FAO, UNESCO and the WHO. Their chief executives are not appointed by the Secretary-General but by their own members. To my knowledge, there have been regrettable cases in which the chief executives concerned have done private deals with governments to promote their own personal interests rather than the objectives of the agency in question. In my opinion, that is where reform is most needed.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, Mr. Annan described the 95-page document which outlined his plans for the reform of the United Nations as a quiet revolution. The reforms that he proposes are intended to focus on the fundamentals: alleviating poverty and enhancing the prospects of developing countries. However, his plans have been criticised by some as being too quiet; they say that he is doing little more than moving the boxes around. I believe that that is unfair because most of the proposals which he put forward are quite fundamental in relation to giving a new direction for the UN.
I have picked out a few of the proposals which I believe are most important. The first is the creation of the development fund, which would be financed by staff and administration cuts which would raise about 200 million dollars by the year 2000. Although that is not a large amount of money, it means that the UN is giving a lead to the major donors, which are cutting their aid contributions at the moment. The UN is leading the way.
It is proposed also to cut the amount of bureaucracy and to consolidate it by reducing the number of staff from about 10,000 to about 8,800 in New York. Indeed, it intends to cut the 3.98 million pounds of paper used, which would go some way to meeting its Rio commitments.
It proposes also to put the six aid agencies into two co-ordinated groups under the title of Humanitarian Affairs and Development. I know that that caused a degree of concern to UNICEF because it was worried about the loss of its independent voice, but I believe that those worries have been answered adequately.
Another proposal made, not before time, is to put sustainable development as a central priority of all UN action. It is proposed to devolve the responsibilities for human rights to a newly appointed High Commissioner. I believe that that would have been very useful in the conflict which took place in Zaire. It is also proposed to create a new disarmament department. After the conference in Ottawa on anti-personnel mines, I very much hope that the UN will take a lead role in the fight against such mines. There are also calls for a rapid reaction capacity. I believe that there are many problems attached to it, but if the finances could be found, as well as countries willing to supply the men, it would be a valuable contribution to peace-keeping.
However, the question must be asked as to why such reforms were necessary. I believe that the UN fundamentally needed reform, but the budgetary cuts are
150
prompting the organisation at present. Although Mr. Annan talked about a "quiet revolution", I do not believe that he could have done it any other way bearing in mind the political minefield in which he finds himself.
One of the major problems faced by the UN at present is its budgetary crisis brought about by the United States. I very much hope that the new Secretary-General will be far more diplomatic in his dealings with America in persuading the biggest donor actually to start paying its contributions. I found it an interesting fact that 60 per cent. of the House of Representatives do not actually have a current passport.
I believe that the UN at present finds itself very much on the back foot. One of the proposals that I found most worrying was that the current zero growth in the UN budget should be superseded by a "results budget", whereby funds will be apportioned on the basis of the actual financial needs of specific programmes. I find that quite worrying because it actually goes to the heart of questioning the nature of the United Nations. Of course, the UN was set up after the Second World War by people who had a vision of a world body which could foster peace. It raises the proposition that, if the UN did not exist, I do not believe that we would actually set it up today.
In conclusion, I have some questions for the Minister about UNESCO. Although I welcome the Government's rejoining of that organisation, I believe that the £11 million annual contribution to UNESCO is being met this year out of the contingency fund and not out of the DFID budget. Can the Minister confirm that next year that £11 million will have to be met out of the DFID budget? Moreover, will new resources be made available to meet the UNESCO contribution?
6.22 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, only those who can remember the hopes with which the United Nations was created at its inception can measure the dismay that they now feel when the very mention of the UN is a cause for cynicism and laughter. I say that because, after all, it has, alas, been a failure in its primary purpose; namely, to improve the life chances, if you like, of the inhabitants of this globe.
Therefore, like the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, we turn to read the document in the hope that there is a new beginning. I must say that I found the document deeply depressing. All the suggestions that are made for improving the internal arrangements in New York are no doubt desirable in themselves, but the document does not confront the reality. Indeed, at the beginning it shows that the new Secretary General, who may have admirable characteristics, is removed from that reality. For example, he says that we must look at the great achievements of the United Nations, but the only one he quotes is decolonisation. I should have thought that decolonisation has been the major catastrophe that this globe has faced in the past half century. My noble friend Lady Park referred to sub-Saharan Africa relapsing into tribal warfare, genocide, and kleptocracy, with the ability to use for these purposes modern weapons and modern bank accounts. That is not very promising.

151
Again, we all have our memories. Indeed, I remember Paris in the 1950s and the enormous consensus of opinion among young opinion-formers about the necessity for France to withdraw from North Africa. If those young people had been told, "What you will witness in 1997 are families—men, women and children—in rural villages having their throats cut in the name of religion", they might have felt a little less acutely favourable to Algerian nationalism.
However, even in the great challenges to peace, the United Nations apparently has no instruments. Let us take the most obvious example. Many noble Lords will have mentioned the visits to London of the admirable Swedish head of the arms investigation mission in Iraq, Dr. Ekeus. I have heard him say that even when he finds or suspects that Iraq is in fact preparing weapons of mass destruction, which may threaten all of us in the end, he cannot get enough drive from the Security Council (which is his master) to get any action taken to enable his investigations to be pursued or followed up.
Therefore, we have the extraordinary situation of a country like Iraq, governed by a small group of obvious criminals. All we can do, which is not much, to prevent them continuing their threat is to impose sanctions—a favourite word in the United Nations—which means that we starve the people in order to get rid of their rulers, and achieve the former without achieving the latter.
Until we get some consciousness in the countries which make the policy of the United Nations, and upon which the UN depends, we will get nowhere. Here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that the shift in American opinion away from an interest in the external world is the most threatening element in our current situation. I do not expect the Minister to tell us how that can be improved; but, until it is, the United Nations and all of us face a very bleak future.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Carver: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for having raised this question. I warmly welcome the proposals by the Secretary-General of the United Nations for the reorganisation, which I believe will bring about a better and more efficient structure. However, I wish that he had perhaps gone a little further and followed the recommendations which Brian Urquhart made in 1991 towards a more effective United Nations. At that time he suggested five Deputy Secretary-Generals, each with a broad area of responsibility, which would take much of the load off the Secretary-General himself.
My interest in the matter, somewhat naturally, is on the peacekeeping side. That is partly because I established and largely ran a peacekeeping force 34 years ago in Cyprus and also because, as Chief of the General Staff and Chief of the Defence Staff, I was responsible for providing contributions to UN forces and ensuring that those forces were properly trained and did their job properly.
I am at a bit of a disadvantage in speaking on the subject because I have not seen the full report; indeed, I am wholly dependent on executive summaries and on the
152
account of a press conference. However, I am confident that Dr. Kofi Annan is fully alive to the organisational need for better performance in New York in the establishment and control of United Nations forces because when he was an assistant secretary-general he was responsible for this area. He chaired an important meeting in 1993 of ex-commanders who all had the advantage of the knowledge gained from an important study carried out for the United Nations by General Sir David Ramsbotham before he took another job.
The essence of what was recommended then was that there should be military advice given to the Security Council in the form of a senior officer appointed for five years—who preferably had experience of command of a United Nations force—as a military adviser to the Secretary-General and the Security Council. In his previous job Dr. Annan appointed an experienced three star officer as assistant secretary-general in the appropriate department. However, the Secretary-General himself and the Security Council do not have expert military advice when they discuss whether they will set up a force.
The other important recommendation which I hope will be implemented is that a force commander should be selected early and when a force is set up there should be a military committee, under the adviser to the Secretary-General, consisting of representatives of those countries which contribute to the force. I am glad to say that in the press conference that Dr. Annan gave he rejected a proposal which Sir Brian Urquhart made, and I think Boutros Boutros Ghali made, and which we often hear—we have heard it in this House—namely, that there should be a permanent United Nations force available to the Security Council. I am wholly opposed to that. Kofi Annan gave some good reasons as to why that is not a good thing. I am not even in favour of earmarking specific stand-by forces. I do not believe that is a satisfactory answer. It is far better that a country should say, "I am willing to do what I can when the time comes, depending on the time. I have forces which can be viewed any day which will be fully capable of doing their job because I shall train them to do so".
I support the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford that the organisation and the procedures which are appropriate for peacekeeping are not perhaps appropriate for peace enforcement. The most extreme form of peace enforcement took place in Korea and the Gulf. If one must have a peace enforcement force—I am not in favour of that unless it is the only answer—the most satisfactory procedure is for a member of the Security Council to be nominated and agree to provide the overall command of that force. That is the only efficient way of doing it. I do not think that the situation in Bosnia with NATO is satisfactory and I do not think that the United Nations has any control over it at all.
The whole question of what the United Nations force does needs to be approached with a great deal of caution. If one goes too far along the road mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Dahrendorf and Lord Redesdale, one works towards what one imagines is a world

153
government, but what one produces—that is almost being produced now—is a form of world imperialism run from New York. We do not want that.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, not for the first time my noble friend Lord Judd has afforded us an opportunity to discuss an initiative relating to the United Nations before the options are foreclosed. It is a pity that constraints of time have compelled us to produce such succinct contributions. I hope that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, will forgive me if I do not follow him this evening.
The first lesson which emerges from the Secretary-General's report is that the balance between national sovereignty and global vision, between fragmentation and integration, has moved, and is moving, in the direction of national sovereignty and fragmentation. The Secretary-General and the secretariat were seen by the founding fathers as representing concerted action but that was balanced by a General Assembly monopolised by nation states. The report indicates that the demarcation line between them has been progressively invaded by the General Assembly, and the power of the secretariat to take decisive action has been both fragmented and reduced, not to mention starved of resources. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, will forgive me if I say that what is remarkable is how much has been achieved by the United Nations. The first need is to redefine the powers of the Secretary-General to carry out his leadership role.
The second clear lesson is that there is little co-ordination within the organisation, or between the organisation and the specialised agencies. That is partly deliberate. The fathers sought to protect the agencies from too great a political interference by the General Assembly. I fully understand the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, but to all things there is a season, a time to cast away stones and a time to gather stones together. C.S. Lewis said that the strategy of the devil is to have everyone running around with fire extinguishers when there is a flood. The need now is for greater co-ordination, both centrally and in such local situations where the United Nations operates. Whatever the merits of the debate, the spectacle of UNICEF on 28th October last year having publicly to criticise the operation of the Security Council's boycott against Iraq emphasised the need for an organisation which embodies one world to behave as though it were one organisation.
I make one further point. If the United Nations is to respond to demands which are wholly disproportionate to its resources, it must involve in its work not only governments but the people of the world, however their voices and their contributions are channelled, and often that is best done through the non-governmental organisations. After all, the NGOs are usually on the same side as the United Nations, as the noble Baroness, Lady Park, said. I agree with her and the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, that it is sensible to enrol them in the team. At a recent meeting of NGOs and ambassadors, the representative of Oxfam, which works with the United Nations in numerous emergencies, was
154
driven to say that he learns of the thinking and the activities of the Security Council from radio and television.
There is a more pleasing recent example. In 1999 we shall see the centenary of the first international peace conference at The Hague. The General Assembly has decided that that should be marked by a further peace conference. Happily, it is involving the NGOs and they are working together on a number of agenda items. When my noble friend replies to the debate I hope she can tell us whether Her Majesty's Government plan to consult the United Kingdom NGOs on that matter. I have to declare a double interest as president of One World Trust and of the world disarmament campaign. I hope that my noble friend will not hold that against me. I did not have an opportunity to warn her that I was going to ask that question. If she prefers to write to me, I shall understand.
A more effective United Nations does not amount to a monolithic takeover of freedom of action from national governments, only a recognition that national governments are not the only places where discussions should take place. Mr. Paul Streeter has said that the state is too big for the small things and too small for the large things. There is a whole hierarchy of discussions which in the contemporary world need to take place. Decisions which affect only a parish should be taken by the parish council. But decisions affecting war and peace, the ecology of the rainforests, the pollution of the oceans, human rights and the ending of world poverty, can sensibly be taken only at global level. If they are not taken effectively, we shall all be the losers.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, the problems of the United Nations in the West and among the richer nations of the world generally arise largely from the relative indifference of the mega economic, financial and military power of the United States of America. That attitude in America seems to have grown steadily and has led to the United Nations facing its own problems of not having a secure financial base. That is due to the perception by the public of the United States, rightly or wrongly, of the ineffectiveness of the United Nations and the impression created of it being excessively bureaucratic and too cosy by half. I have no doubt that the United Nations needs new leadership and new vision, which preferably should come from within the United States.
Having said that, I wish to confine my speech to asking a few questions which arise from the "highlights" of the Secretary-General's report issued by the United Nations. I wish to deal, first, with the question of the revolving credit fund. It is proposed to set up a billion dollar lending facility—in other words, an overdraft. Who will back it? When the Minister replies, perhaps she will tell us the Government's perception of who is to back the fund? The fund must have backers, otherwise it will not exist. If it is only to be a temporary matter, have the United States Government given an indication of whether or not they will back it?

155
Secondly, with regard to the changed management culture and the elimination of 1,000 staff posts, is that real saving or cosmetic? I ask that because, regrettably, the highlights of the report are in highly bureaucratic language. That creates a bad impression for anyone used to having a report on perhaps a business enterprise. Will money be saved or will the work simply be transferred to consultants and advisers, which will mean an administrative saving but an expense elsewhere?
Thirdly, I refer to the overwhelming human resources policies and practices to ensure staff have the,
"necessary skills and enjoy requisite conditions for effective service".
That is bureaucratic-speak, as I have always understood it, for better pay and conditions, and an increased bill. If that is the impression being created in the United States, I am not hopeful for a better response in the United Nations.
Fourthly, I refer to the proposal for the Office of Development Financing with a new deputy secretary-general taking the lead in initiating an innovative means of mobilising new financial resources for development. That sounds alright, but how is it to be co-ordinated, with for example, the work of the World Bank? Is it to be a new initiative? Will it cross swords, or cross tracks, with the operations of the World Bank and other organisations?
Fifthly, what role will the United Kingdom take at the ministerial level commission when it is suggested that it should examine the need for fundamental change through review of the UN Charter? What do the Government think are the essential and fundamental changes required in the Charter to bring about a more effective organisation?
Sixthly, and lastly, on the proposal for the "Millennium Assembly", what will be the Government's own objective for that assembly? It seems to me that it is a vitally important suggestion. If we are to have a change of direction, a change of heart, in particular in the United States, that would be the right time to bring it about. But what will be the Government's objectives with regard to that assembly?
I share the view that the United Nations needs new leadership. I am absolutely convinced that the United Nations has also performed marvellous work despite all the criticisms of it. Without it we would be in a dreadful state. It is time that the United States realised that we look to it for leadership which behoves a country with its enormous financial and other resources.
6.45 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, there is no denying the need for greater accountability of United Nations spending, with a clear management responsibility for performance of the system, including measures to improve secretariat practices. I am comparatively optimistic about the managerial initiatives and longer-term Track 2 proposals, but I see two sides of the coin. On the up-side, the redefinition of four strategic sectors with human rights as the common denominator and the appointment of a senior
156
management group, together with the proposal to create a Deputy Secretary-General, are imaginative. The test will be in the quality of those appointments, but Mr. Annan has excelled already with Mrs. Robinson.
Rejection of a slash and burn approach, and deciding to equate reform with reductions in expenditure and staff, while reducing some activities but increasing others, should achieve much of the desired effect. Yet it must not be forgotten that the United Nations is already hopelessly under-resourced for the many tasks that are expected of it.
Significantly, therefore, increased emphasis and resources towards programmes on human rights, drugs and crime, development and disarmament and proposals not to recommend abolishing any major existing programmes, as many had expected, are welcome.
Mr. Annan has successfully juggled a central element of US congressional proposals in demanding a no-growth budget in nominal terms in a dollar for dollar trade-off. His proposals to reduce administrative overhead expenditure substantially over a number of years, and that rather than passing those savings on to member states through reduced budgets he recommends passing them to economic and social programmes in poorer countries, is excellent news and will come as a relief to many.
So what of the reverse side of that coin? There is a clear case for more emphasis on co-ordinating agency duplication and overlap. The Secretary-General was vague about possible mergers, but why are there three system programmes in Rome, for example, dealing with food? Will the Government consider supporting a proposal that member states review the mandate and governing bodies of all specialised agencies?
However, what is of real concern to me is that the United States is seeking to reduce its percentage of the regular budget from 25 to 20 per cent. How can it be right that 184 members be assessed according to an agreed formula and that one should decide, essentially unilaterally, how much it wishes to pay? In addition, the creation of a proposed "centralised arrears account" for payments which member states refuse to make is widely viewed in Washington as a thinly veiled attempt to write off up to 500 million dollars of arrears by the United States. That is not on. Debt relief must be reserved only for those too poor to pay. Will the Minister please give an assurance that under no circumstance will she contemplate agreeing to such a measure?
The United States believes that Mr. Annan's proposals do not meet its goals. But I believe that it is important to understand that the American agenda is not simply about efficiency but rather the role of the United States in world affairs. Senator Helms believes that the reform agenda is a conspiracy to diminish American sovereignty. It must be explained to the senator that being the world's single superpower does not give it the right to dictate to other members, and that it would save itself a lot of heartache if it was seen to be a team player.

157
But I wish to conclude on a positive note. Regionalism on a global scale is the only way forward. I was particularly pleased, therefore, that the new American Ambassador to the United Nations stressed recently:
"True reform will depend in large part on the United Nations' ability to come to grips with, and adapt to, the vast transitions already under way in the international system and in particular the move towards regional integration and co-operation".
Who knows, maybe there is hope for us yet.
6.50 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, this has been an astonishingly rich debate. It is not possible for me to comment on all the speeches that have been made, but perhaps I may mention in particular the detailed study of the proposals for reform put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, to whom we are extremely grateful for introducing this debate, and also the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, in respect of these proposals. I hope that I may mention other speakers in the course of my remarks because this has been a very constructive debate.
Perhaps I may first address the remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. He set out clearly before the House what seems to me one of the most important aspects of the United Nations, for all its weaknesses and failings, and that is that it is attempting to make a set of global norms, a set of global moral imperatives by which we may begin to live.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, pointed out that the United Nations has suffered from the fragmenting and weakening of the authority of the Secretary-General. That is absolutely right; it is the nature of the crisis. But the nature of the aim is one we should not forget.
I believe that the four recent world conferences conducted by the United Nations at Rio, Cairo, Copenhagen and Beijing were all attempts to establish new concepts—if you like, new road maps for the future. Perhaps I may mention one or two: the concept of the sustainable environment which came out of Rio; the concept of mutual respect between the genders which came out of Beijing; the concept of responsible attitude toward social justice which came out of Copenhagen; and the concept of approaching the issues of world population which came out of Cairo. Those concepts have made a huge contribution to the nature of international discussion and debate and, I believe, have changed the terms of that debate in ways we should not forget when we rightly criticise some of the detailed aspects of inefficiencies or problems at the United Nations.
I was somewhat saddened by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, but I agree with him strongly in one respect. I believe that he pointed to a real problem in arguing that the sanctions against Iraq, which are now having momentous consequences for children, minorities and others in Iraq, have had almost no impact on their tyrannical government. I believe we all have an obligation to think of other ways in which we can reach
158
not the peoples but the leaders of these rogue states. It may be that our Government will think seriously about ways in which that might be done. Let me mention just two possibilities: the sequestering of personal funds and the attempt to embargo flights and travel by the leaders of such states. In the same context I might mention the great problems we had in Nigeria, where again we have failed to reach the leadership to show the disgust and concern of the whole world.
I should like next to mention my own interest in this matter, in the way that other noble Lords have done. I was a member of United Nations advisory council to Mr. Boutros Ghali, then the Secretary-General, for the Fourth World Women's Conference at Beijing. It is important to say that we often underestimate the anticipatory consequences of United Nations conferences. I know for certain that countries like Malaysia, India, the Philippines and others introduced legislation concerning domestic violence and the role of women in economic development precisely because that conference was going to take place. I cannot easily forget when we went back to see the Secretary-General to ask for resources to follow up the agenda set out at Beijing how he almost broke down in tears when he explained that he had no resources to carry out these highly desirable purposes.
I should like to say a word about peace-making and peacekeeping, on which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, made such a distinguished contribution. Here I again declare an interest as a member of the international crisis group. Will the Government consider how we might shore up the civic dimension of these peacekeeping operations? So often, as in Bosnia, the peacekeeping operation is mounted and is militarily successful but the civic dimension is neglected and therefore one sees what Mr. Wolfensohn, in his introduction to the recent development report of the World Bank, described as "collapsed states" which simply do not have the capacity to establish a rule of law. It is a difficult issue, to which we could perhaps ask the Minister to respond—if not now, at some later date.
With regard to the excellent agencies which are doing remarkable work, we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, about UNICEF. I put in the same context the astonishing work on human development of the United Nations Development Programme, which I believe is finding a clear mission for itself.
Let me now turn to the proposals. First, I take it that the Government fully support memberships of the council for Germany and Japan. I should like to ask them to give due consideration to the case for India, the second largest country in the world and the largest democracy. It seems to many of us that the Permanent Council of the United Nations is now no longer representative of the peoples of the world and we must go some way to bring about change.
Secondly, do the Government support—as I take it they do—the redistribution of contributions among the member states of the United Nations along the lines of the European Union initiative?

159
Finally, perhaps because of my own association with that country, I plead with the Government that as regards the position of the United States, so movingly outlined by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, they should take note of the fact that the position taken by the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate, Senator Jesse Helms, is not representative of the whole of Congress, and not even of the whole of the Republican Party, as the recent remarks of Congressman Leach so clearly show. Will the Government consider bringing pressure to bear, not on the Government of the United States—who are favourable to the reforms, though not sufficiently strongly so—but on Congress itself? There is a special relationship. This is the moment when that special relationship should be used to make clear, on the basis of legislature to legislature and government to legislature, how vital it is that members of Congress stand up to be counted on the issue of the appalling arrears which the United States owes to the United Nations and 'on the issue of membership of that world body.
6.57 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for his initiative in leading this debate and to echo many of the words of the noble Baroness who preceded me.
Throughout the world the United Nations is a byword for peace and security, democracy, human rights, the rule of law and economic and social progress. I believe its role in development policy is a major contributor towards the wider goal of peace and security and thus, less publicly but no less importantly, the United Nations should be praised for providing food and shelter for millions of refugees, for combating disease and malnutrition and channelling aid to the poorest and most deprived.
In that context, we give the Government our full and unqualified support in continuing Britain's commitment to be present at the birth of an invigorated and updated United Nations, referred to by many noble Lords this evening, which will be equipped to face the new global challenges of the 21st century. Those challenges, in my view, include a lasting, meaningful and enduring partnership for sustainable development, including solutions to climate change and the pressure we are increasingly placing on our environment and natural resources.
But, before we can determine the UN's new agenda, I believe there is an even more compelling reason for radical reform. The UN in the 21st century must not be a byword for waste, inefficiency and excessive bureaucracy, otherwise it will simply not survive. We need to find root-and-branch solutions to reform its unwieldy structure, its secretariat and its financial problems before the huge spread of demand on UN resources can be effectively prioritised.
On that note, I welcome Secretary-General Kofi Annan's Track 1 and Track 2 programmes designed to set the UN on the road to reform. His commitment to a
160
confident and efficient organisation ready to meet the challenges of the 21st century deserves international resonance and approval.
Equally, I welcome the Government's statement that they intend to be heavily involved in that process and assure the Minister of the Opposition's support for their continued, wholehearted commitment to a strong and effective UN, both bilaterally and through the European Union and the G8.
However, I wish to concentrate my remarks on the severe financial crisis which continues to dog the United Nations—a point alluded to by other noble Lords. That is because without reform of the UN finances, the organisation will simply be unable to carry out its work, although improvements to peacekeeping, enlargement of the Security Council and the future of the UN's agencies are all important and indeed contentious topics, which merit more discussion than we have been able to give them this evening.
The UN currently runs at an operating loss equal to almost 10 per cent. of turnover. It has no capital or reserves left and is not allowed to borrow. It funds itself by the simple expedient of not paying its bills. Its main asset is the unpaid contributions from member states. As at 15th December last, outstanding assessed contributions to the UN totalled 2.26 billion dollars. Of that sum, 1.71 billion dollars was for peacekeeping operations.
The UN is not a business but it should be an efficient organisation. Likewise, short-term, questionable accounting practices, such as borrowing from peacekeeping accounts in order to replenish its sinking regular budget and meet day-to-day expenses, should have no place at the UN.
Thus, we shall, of course, lend our full support to government action taken to ensure that contributions are paid promptly and in full and that arrears are cleared, since failure to do so severely damages the ability of the UN to carry out the policies that we all wish it to carry out and which have been voted by member states. I hope that the Minister will agree with me that the European Union's proposals are the best basis for an agreed solution to the UN's financial difficulties. I hope that the Government will continue to press hard for a solution based on negotiated settlement.
In the last minute remaining to me I should like to follow the lead of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and ask the Minister a few questions. What priority do the Government place on a fundamental review of the specialised agencies in terms of function, value and contribution to development, in order to reduce overlaps and inefficiencies and to wind down obsolete bodies? How far do the Government believe that such a review has been achieved? What assessment have the Government made of the impact of UK withdrawal from UNIDO membership on developing countries? Have the Government carried out any comparative studies on the benefits of channelling the same resources elsewhere in terms of value and efficiency?
I am cautious about references to the reform of the Security Council. I should hope that we long retain our seat on the UN Security Council. There is an important

161
link between that seat and the continuing effective role that we contribute to UN peacekeeping operations. That was pointed out in a different context by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver.
Both as a member of the Security Council and in peacekeeping operations, we exercise our powers wisely and are respected globally. I hope that the Government have no intention of changing our status and influence in either of those roles. We have played our full part in UN peacekeeping operations and the outstanding performance of our Blue Berets, who have served from Angola to Georgia, stand testament to that.
We have a moral and practical interest in supporting a stronger, more effective United Nations, a United Nations whose focus in the next century will, in my view, shift to preventive action, to nurturing the fragile roots of democracy when necessary, and to encouraging stability by bridging the gap between humanitarian aid and development.
Ultimately, the UN is only as good as its members. Some may cavil at the perceived failure of the UN to achieve the nirvana of permanent peace. But the true litmus test of a successful United Nations equipped to meet the millennium will be a United Nations which remains a beacon of hope for people across the world in search of peace, stability and prosperity.
7.4 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Judd for giving the House the first opportunity under this Government to debate the renewal of the United Nations.
This Government are firmly committed to the United Nations and our commitment is based on a straightforward assessment of British interests and British objectives. We are the world's fifth largest aid donor, resolved to halve poverty by the year 2015. We are the third largest provider of capital to the developing world. We are firmly pledged to open and fair trade. We are a leading contributor to peacekeeping operations worldwide, committed to work for the just settlement of disputes, from Cyprus to Bosnia. And we have put human rights, the environment and the fight against drugs and organised crime at the heart of our foreign policy.
A safe, decent, open world is, then, manifestly in our interests. The UN Charter, which we helped to frame, is dedicated to just that: peace, human rights, international law and social progress. For this Government, reform is about re-equipping the United Nations to meet those tasks in the coming century. It is not about cost cutting. In a world more complex, more fragile, yet more promising than the United Nations' founders could have imagined, its legitimacy, universality and neutrality count for more than ever before.
Let me start with reform of the structure of the UN. I shall then try briefly to outline our policy on finance and the Security Council before trying to address many of the specific points raised by your Lordships in the course of our interesting debate.
162
Our objective for structural reform is that we want the UN to do better what it does best, to focus on those activities where its unique status give it comparative advantage and to do them as efficiently as possible. That is the aim of the Secretary-General's proposals too. They mark a real advance—not just tinkering at the edges, as some critics, particularly in the United States, would have it; and they build on reforms which are already under way in individual UN bodies, from the regional commissions to the funds and programmes.
Under the proposals, key activities will be strengthened. For example, the main development agencies will now work together more closely, while keeping their own identities; anti-drugs, crime and terrorism operations will be centred on Vienna, with greater efficiency and greater coherence; the UN's rapid reaction capability will be improved and post-conflict peace-building enhanced; and the profile of human rights will be raised across the United Nations' work.
There should be other benefits too. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, said, co-ordination throughout the system will be improved. The expertise of NGOs and business will be better tapped. Staff will be better managed. Budgeting will focus on results instead of on inputs. Crucially, reviews of specialised agency mandates and the role of the United Nations are at last in prospect.
Meanwhile, tighter management, coupled with self-restraint by governments, should cut administrative overheads by one-third over the next five years. At Denver, we and our G8 partners called for savings to be directed into programmes for the poorest countries. Kofi Annan has taken that up. By the year 2002, he estimates that over 200 million dollars should be freed up for development, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, pointed out.
Those are the most ambitious reform proposals in the history of the United Nations. We shall lead in working for clear endorsement of the reform process by the General Assembly in the autumn and, during our presidencies of the European Union and G8 next year, for early implementation of change.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, reminded us, reform cannot succeed without proper funding. The UN is now owed 2.4 billion dollars in unpaid assessments. Britain meets its obligations promptly and in full. We look to others, particularly our friends in the United States, to do the same. More generally, we need to put the United Nations finances on a modern, fair and transparent basis. Britain helped to pioneer a new approach, based on capacity to pay. That is now a common European Union proposal, as several noble Lords pointed out. Of course, we support it. Under it, most member states would pay less than they do now. The bulk of increases would fall to developed countries. It is just, straightforward and workable. We shall work hard to have it adopted.
I come to the Security Council enlargement, to which my noble friend Lord Judd drew our attention. Our position is plain. We want the council to be more representative, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop

163
of Oxford said, while remaining effective. We hope that a framework decision on enlargement can be drawn up by the end of the year.
In answer to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, the Government support permanent membership for Germany and Japan. We also support increased representation from the developing world either through new named permanent members or rotating permanent seats. That is for the developing countries themselves to decide. We would not, however, support an increase only in non-permanent membership. It would prove a temporary solution at best. Aspiring permanent members would not be satisfied and before long the debate would be re-opened.
Whatever is agreed, the Council must remain effective. That is in the interests of all UN members. The present council of 15 can react quickly and clearly to crises. Its mandate to maintain international peace and security demands that. In our view an extension beyond 20 or 21 risks becoming too cumbersome to act decisively. I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that we have no intention of changing our own status on the Security Council.
Many noble Lords raised the peacekeeping and peacebuilding functions of the United Nations. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, gave us a rather gloomy view of the effects of some of our peacekeeping efforts and the prospects for justice with peace. The Government are strongly committed to improving the UN's ability to deploy peacekeeping troops as quickly as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford said we should. We have seconded officers to the UN secretariat; we are training potential troops, particularly in Africa. We welcome the Secretary-General's recommendation to enhance the UN's rapid reaction capability further.
We have learnt lessons from Bosnia, not least the important role that organisations like NATO can play in peacekeeping. My noble friend Lord Judd and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, referred to our policy on stand-by forces. We provide information to the UN on troops and equipment which may be made available for peacekeeping operations. We are looking at other options as part of our strategic defence review.
The Secretary-General also proposes to enhance the UN's role in post-conflict peacebuilding—an important part of the UN's role, as the right reverend Prelate reminded us. We have backed moves to develop a coherent international approach. The recent OECD guidelines draw substantially upon the United Kingdom's input.
Many noble Lords were exercised too on issues concerning human rights. The United Nations has a pivotal part to play on human rights. It is the most important international forum to advance human rights. We want it to be as effective as possible. We welcome the Secretary-General's plans to strengthen its human rights programme by raising its profile across the system and strengthening the secretariat in Geneva. It will build on the work already carried out on management efficiency in the Centre of Human Rights, with advice
164
from British-funded consultants. As the noble Baroness, Lady Park, suggested, Mary Robinson, the new High Commissioner, will have a crucial role in pressing forward with the reforms. She has been tasked to review the United Nations human rights machinery in its entirety. We have every faith in her abilities and stand ready to help further.
I turn to the international criminal court. The Secretary-General strongly supports that establishment; so do we. There is a clear need for an international legal mechanism to bring to justice those who commit the worst violations of international law—genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. We support the holding of a diplomatic conference next year. In the meantime our delegation will play an active part in discussions at the preparatory committee which resumes next week.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, questions the UN's efficacy on some humanitarian issues. The Secretary-General plans to improve co-ordination on assistance and raise the profile of humanitarian issues within the UN system, and we welcome that. My noble friend Lord Judd raised the important matter of responsibility on internally displaced persons. We welcome the work being done by the UN rapporteur, Francis Deng. The UN will need to find a way of ensuring that the needs of displaced persons are properly addressed; giving the UNHCR responsibility should be one option.
The emergency relief co-ordinator needs to have the authority to do his job effectively. He will need the active support of the Secretary-General. He already has substantial access to the Security Council. The co-ordinator should have the power to appoint UN humanitarian co-ordinators in the field and to set priorities for consolidated appeals. We hope that he will do that in consultation with the humanitarian agencies concerned.
The noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, referred to the important work done by parliamentarians. Last year's co-operation agreement with the Inter-Parliamentary Union was a useful step. We look forward to the report and the General Assembly in the autumn.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for drawing our attention to UNICEF's work. As chairman of the UK national committee, the noble Lord has helped to make it an example for other national committees to follow. The Government are a firm supporter of UNICEF. I know how pleased my honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development was to participate in the launch of the Annual Progress of Nations' report in London last week. I understand that she had useful discussions with Carol Bellamy, UNICEF's executive director. We hope that UNICEF will take a lead at headquarters and in the field in making the new development group work while preserving UNICEF's special character.
The question of the funding of UNESCO was raised, I believe by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. Our subscription for UNESCO will be met from the DFID

165
reserve this year. For next year it will come from development funds, subject to forthcoming resource rounds this summer.
In the time left to me, perhaps I may touch upon one or two points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. I will write to him in detail on those if I may. Our wish is to see fewer but better trained staff. We believe that the Secretary-General reductions are a real step in that direction. We look forward to further details of the revolving credit fund. Your Lordships will understand that without this the Government cannot decide whether or not they will contribute at this stage.
The question for us now is whether the Secretary-General's package amounts to a real advance. We believe that it does, as my noble friend Lord Judd acknowledged in his opening speech. Our EU partners, the Americans and Canadians, have also welcomed it. The proposals meet key objectives from the G8 Summit in Denver—the review of specialised agencies; the channelling of efficiency savings into development programmes; better co-ordination and improved conflict resolution.
166
As the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, said, we want to see a confident, efficient United Nations with a renewed sense of purpose. We want that clear endorsement from your Lordships. Thanks to the Secretary-General's resolve, member states now have an unparalleled opportunity to press ahead. Britain's UN credentials are strong. Our scope for influencing the debate, particularly under our European Union and G8 presidency, is significant. Fifty years ago we played a leading role in shaping the United Nations for the future. We intend to do the same today. In the first General Assembly in London Ernest Bevin said, "We will try to make the best contribution we can and use to the full every instrument which is created under the UN's auspices". The Government stand by that pledge today.

Kings College London Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past seven o'clock.

  Iraqi Military Personnel in the UK
  Iraqi Military Personnel in the UK
  Bosnia and Herzegovina: Control of Arms Provision
  Bosnia and Herzegovina: Control of Arms Provision
  Bosnia and Herzegovina: Weapons and Training Provision by UAR
  Bosnia and Herzegovina: Weapons and Training Provision by UAR
  Arms Exports
  Arms Exports
  NAAFI
  NAAFI
  Gulf War Illness: Research at DERA
  Gulf War Illness: Research at DERA
  Parked or Broken Down Vehicles: Accidents
  Parked or Broken Down Vehicles: Accidents
  Blackwall Tunnel Closures
  Blackwall Tunnel Closures
  Railway Land: Clearance of Litter
  Railway Land: Clearance of Litter
  Roads Programme
  Roads Programme
  Bus and Coach Drivers: Use of Mobile Phones
  Bus and Coach Drivers: Use of Mobile Phones
  "Highway Code": Personal Security
  "Highway Code": Personal Security
  House of Lords Members' Interests
  House of Lords Members' Interests
  Firearms Administration in Scotland: Inspectorate's Report
  Firearms Administration in Scotland: Inspectorate's Report
  Smoking and Asthma
  Smoking and Asthma
  Osteoporosis Report: Implementation
  Osteoporosis Report: Implementation
  Osteoporosis in Men
  Osteoporosis in Men
  Osteoporotic Fractures
  Osteoporotic Fractures
  BSE
  BSE
  Parliament: Visitor Statistics
  Parliament: Visitor Statistics
  Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Research Grants
  Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Research Grants
  Scottish Devolution and the Union Flag
  Scottish Devolution and the Union Flag
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate: Complaints Report
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate: Complaints Report
  Firearms Consultative Committee: Annual Report
  Firearms Consultative Committee: Annual Report
  Probation Officers: Training and Qualification
  Probation Officers: Training and Qualification
  Ashford Great Park Development: Church Commissioners' Report
  Ashford Great Park Development: Church Commissioners' Report
  Forensic Science Service: Annual Report and Accounts
  Forensic Science Service: Annual Report and Accounts
  Fire Safety Regulations
  Fire Safety Regulations